
The theory of output as a whole, which is what The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state.
John Maynard Keynes
In looking at and assessing the economic paradigm of John Maynard Keynes — a man himself fixated on aggregates — we must look at the aggregate of his thought, and the aggregate of his ideology.
Keynes was not just an economist. Between 1937 and 1944 he served as the head of the Eugenics Society and once called eugenics ”the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.” And Keynes, we should add, understood that economics was a branch of sociology. So let’s be clear: Keynes thought eugenics was more important, more significant, and more genuine than economics.
Eugenics — or the control of reproduction — is a very old idea.
In The Republic, Plato advocated that the state should covertly control human reproduction:
You have in your house hunting-dogs and a number of pedigree cocks. Do not some prove better than the rest? Do you then breed from all indiscriminately, or are you careful to breed from the best? And, again, do you breed from the youngest or the oldest, or, so far as may be, from those in their prime? And if they are not thus bred, you expect, do you not, that your birds and hounds will greatly degenerate? And what of horses and other animals? Is it otherwise with them? How imperative, then, is our need of the highest skill in our rulers, if the principle holds also for mankind? The best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible. And the way in which all this is brought to pass must be unknown to any but the rulers, if, again, the herd of guardians is to be as free as possible from dissension. Certain ingenious lots, then, I suppose, must be devised so that the inferior man at each conjugation may blame chance and not the rulers and on the young men, surely, who excel in war and other pursuits we must bestow honors and prizes, and, in particular, the opportunity of more frequent intercourse with the women, which will at the same time be a plausible pretext for having them beget as many of the children as possible. And the children thus born will be taken over by the officials appointed for this.
Additionally, Plato advocated “disposing” with the offspring of the inferior:
The offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they will properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become of them. That is the condition of preserving the purity of the guardians’ breed.
In modernity, the idea appears to have reappeared in the work first of Thomas Malthus, and later that of Francis Galton.
Malthus noted:
It does not, however, seem impossible that by an attention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, might take place among men. Whether intellect could be communicated may be a matter of doubt: but size, strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps even longevity are in a degree transmissible. As the human race could not be improved in this way, without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable, that an attention to breed should ever become general.
Galton extended Malthus’ thoughts:
What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction.
Margaret Sanger — the founder of Planned Parenthood — went even further, claiming that the state should prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from reproducing, and advocated “exterminating the Negro population”.
And these ideas — very simply, that the state should determine who should live, and who should die, and who should be allowed to reproduce — came to a head in the devastating eugenics policies of Hitler’s Reich, which removed around eleven million people — mostly Jews, gypsies, dissidents, homosexuals, and anyone who did not fit with the notion of an Aryan future — from the face of the Earth.
Of course, the biggest problem with eugenics is that human planning cannot really control nature. Mutation and randomness throw salt over the idea. No agency — even today in the era of genetics — has the ability to effectively determine who should and should not breed, and what kind of children they will have.
As Hayek noted:
The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.
Keynes’ interest in this topic appears to have descended from his contempt for the individual, and individual liberty. He once wrote:
Nor is it true that self-interest generally is enlightened; more often individuals acting separately to promote their own ends are too ignorant or too weak to attain even these.
The common denominator in all of these examples — and in my view, the thing that brought Keynes toward eugenics — is the belief that the common individual is too stupid to be the captain of his own destiny. Instead, the state — supposedly equipped with the best minds and the best data — should centrally plan. Eugenicists believe that the state should centrally plan human reproduction, while Keynesians believe that the state should centrally engineer recovery from economic malaise through elevated spending. Although it would be unwise to accuse modern Keynesians of having sympathy for eugenics, the factor linking both of these camps together is John Maynard Keynes himself.
Keynes’ description of an economic depression — that a depression is a fall in the total economic output — is technically correct. And many modern Keynesian economists have made worthwhile contributions — Hyman Minsky, Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, and Joe Stiglitz are four examples . Even the polemicist Paul Krugman’s descriptive work on trade patterns and economic agglomeration is interesting and accurate.
The trouble seems to begin with prescriptions. Keynesianism dictates that the answer to an economic depression is an increase in state spending. And on the surface of it, an increase in state spending will lift the numbers. But will momentarily lifting the numbers genuinely help the economy? Not necessarily; the state could spend millions of dollars on subsidies for things that nobody wants, wasting time, effort, labour and taxes and thus destroying wealth. And the state can push a market into euphoria — just as Alan Greenspan did to the housing market — creating the next bubble and the next bust, requiring an even bigger bailout. State spending creates additional dependency on the state, and perverts the empirical market mechanism — the genuine underlying state of demand in a market economy — which signals to producers what to produce and not produce. Worst of all, centralist policies almost always have knock-on side-effects that no planner could foresee (causality is complicated).
So Hayek’s view on the insuperable limits to knowledge applies as much to the economic planner as it does to the central planner of human reproduction.
While eugenicists and Keynesians make correct descriptive observations — like the fact that certain qualities and traits are inheritable, or more simply that children are like their parents — their attempts to use the state as a mechanism to control these natural systems often turns out to be drastically worse than the natural systems that they seek to replace.
As Keynes seems to admit when — in the German language edition of his General Theory — he noted that the conditions of a totalitarian state may be more amenable to his economic theory, the desire for control may be the real story here.
Keynesianism brings more of the economy under the control of the state. It is a slow and creeping descent into dependency on the state. As we are seeing in Europe today, cuts in state spending in a state-dependent economy can cause deep economic contraction, providing the Keynesian more confirmation for his idea that the state should tax more, and spend more.
That is, until nature intervenes. Just as a state-controlled eugenics program might well spawn an inbred elite suffering hereditary illnesses as a result of a lack of genetic diversity (as seems to have happened with the inbred elite Darwin-Galton-Wedgwood clan), so a state-controlled economy may well grind itself into the dirt as it runs out of innovation as a result of a lack of economic diversity. Such a situation is unsustainable — no planner is smarter than nature.


indeed, both china and india have determined that male babies are more valuable than female, and have "bred" accordingly, resulting in a skewed female to male ratio in their populations. . .
looks like those lads will have to spread their seed within a wider cultural pool. . . and of course, for the wealthy westerners, there are the "mail order bride catalogs" of impoverished women 'round the world.
global citizens, a work in progress.
It is outside the scope of government to reward one over the other at all.
i agree with you.
Hmmm you are correct. I am looking at eugenics purely from a biological stand point. Occupational hazard I guess. However your example seems to be more on the lines of social engineering rather than eugenics. Or may be this is just semantics.
Miffed:-)
i was looking at it from a biological standpoint as well, although i probably believe more strongly than most that the tendancy towards certain behaviors has a strong genetic component (as opposed to being purely a social construct).
Ah yes, nature vs nurture. Where I would never argue against the importance of genetics, I believe nurture is a better indicator of behavior. Of course if a child is born from schizophrenic parents, it is highly unlikely any socialization could forestall the inevitable outcome. I guess I'm not sure how a superior genetic being has any advantage over just an average person when confronted with a difficult physical or social environment. I guess I'm jaded. My parents and brother have very high IQs whereas mine is average. I was put in special schools to help me because I was "slow" ( relatively speaking, I was). So I guess in your example the government would have been ripped off in my case. :-)
Miffed:-)
"Margaret Sanger — the founder of Planned Parenthood — went even further, claiming that the state should prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from reproducing, and advocated “exterminating the Negro population”."
BULLSHIT!!! That quote is taken out of context, this quote is more reflective of her position!
"The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."
I believe some folks on ZH have expressed the same thoughts!
seems like this aziz dude likes to put out the propaganda. knows how to take quotes out of context to promote his agenda. Its dishonest and when I see his name on a post I know to verify, forget about trust.
Yep. You beat me to it. I've looked hard, with an unsympathetic eye for the latter. Sanger did advocate putting the feeble-minded into labor camps and sterilizing them, but the latter is rubbish.
would you care to elaborate on that concerning the male species with healthy sausages and useful assholes?
I find you very ambivalent on this issue; are you hiding something like Plato referred to in the quote above?
Mens sena in copore sano !
Keynes wanted to have people come before a panel every 7 years to prove they have a right to exist. That is some sick stuff folks.
citation? I've never read that and can't find anything to support it.
Citation? We don' need no stinkin' citation. We heard it somewhere, maybe on the internet....
Some panel must have voted Keynes out.
IRS is much more demanding - pay as you go for the slow, quarterly for the fast. Don't pay? No problem, the prison industrial complex has a place for you. Policy driven HR is top down proactive culling to plan. The first world is on a steady diet of electronic heroin and the third world can't wait to jack in. How much of your perceived reality is synthetized from media content? This is Huxley's world now. The vampire's familiars do already sell their children for the opiate of telecommunications, and the real opiates the telecomm makes accessible.
The tollroad system is an excellent example of how the sheep are sorted en masse, but New Jersey is already taking enough abuse for the activities of its finest citizens.
Eugenics is like dictatorship, super efficient or effect IF EVER the right person was actually chosen and then becomes utterly horrifying afterwards when someone else takes over.
Instead of trying to control reproduction, why not try to change the environment of the young and teach individuality, moral equality, non-violent voluntarism? After all, studies do show that humans become who they are as a result of their experiences with their environment, ie humans are not born violent but violence is learned from their environment.
...why not try to change the environment of the young and teach individuality, moral equality, non-violent voluntarism?
It's a pretty good idea. It requires a complete re-work of the structure of the educational system. The educational system is a top-down system of distributing information and selecting for a docile and passive set of behaviors.
When you change the environment as you describe, most of the students should end up leaving and founding their own "schools."
Individuality, Morality, and Free Will are contrary to the health of the State and it's stated objectives.
well, I'm almost to the end of the page of posts, and still no mention of Sanctity of Life, the proposed Constitutional Amendment to redefine "Life" as beginning when the sperm enters the egg, zygote resulting, and it being of more importance than the wishes of the woman whose body this takes place in, her knowledge of her personal life situation, and takes zero details of conception (incest? rape?) into consideration. her womb becomes a State owned and controlled entity.
couldn't agree more. up the personal sexual standards of a population by education and social interaction, not marginalising and force.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
America's been practicing reverse eugenics and reverse natural selection since the adoption of our Welfare State. People are free to have as much offspring as they want without the pesky social constraints of a natural family unit and they don't even need to worry about having the means to pay for the lives they create. All's it takes is a fertile womb and a willing sperm donor for the night and we can make as many mini-me's as we want here in our Central "Planned" Utopia. The more desirable gene pools tend to focus on money and career and don't get around to pro creation until they turn 40. One day we'll wake up and find out our wise leaders have changed their minds and need to cull the heard as fast as possible.
Interesting how things can turn into propaganda when taken out of context. Here is a little more of the Keynes quote:
"The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.
This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory. Since it is based on fewer hypotheses than the orthodox theory, it can accommodate itself all the easier to a wider field of varying conditions. Although I have, after all, worked it out with a view to the conditions prevailing in the Anglo-Saxon countries where a large degree of laissez-faire still prevails, nevertheless it remains applicable to situations in which state management is more pronounced."
As Phillip Pilkington concludes, Keynes was pointing out that his theory was remarkably robust:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/philip-pilkington-keynes-alleged-totalitarianism-the-malign-forward-to-the-german-edition-of-the-general-theory.html
"The theory of output as a whole, which is what The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state."
John Maynard Keynes
While I disagree with Keynesian economics, Eugenics is real. If you want your son to be an athlete pick a woman with big wrists and ankles. It is what it is bitches. If you pick a skinny bitch with skinny wrists and ankles your son is gonna inherit his skinny wrists and skinny ankles from his momma's side of the family. Look at mommas daddy too, if he has short legs, your son is probably going to have short legs, even if you come from a long line of long legged people.
I've done quite a bit of traveling and have picked up some very large women based on eugenics and only once have been saddled with child support. Every other instance they were all satisfied with having healthy, strong sons. One broad I picked up in Fort Smith Arkansas was like 6'9" and 400 lbs. My back sounded like stepping on dry sticks when I picked her up.
You don't get it. What you are actually arguing for is the exact opposite of eugenics.
I shudder to think of what his genetics produced. If there were ever an argument for forced sterilization...
I'm old enough to remember when you tried out for baseball or football they measured your wrists and ankles.
Once our economic models infinite need for growth exceeded the "requirements" they promptly lowered them. Do you really want to know why males prefer women with skinny wrists, ankles and asses? It is because they have been conditioned to by advertising.
Eugenics.
Whooties FTW.
I picked up this broad in a strip joint when I was 18 or 19 and she told me I was gonna have all boys. I said, how do you know that? She said, my grandmamma told me when they hit all the way in the back they gonna be boys.
LOL. Guess Ima have boys.
Well if playing ball is your goal in life, I guess choosing for physical attributes is the way to go. I think the original eugenics movement was more interested in mental and behavioral traits, however. Your vision would be useful for breeding slave labor, I suppose. Maybe that would be the more modern view. Don't want too many of those intellectuals around confusing the sheeple.
IQ is considered Eugenics nowadays as well.(how do you measure it? Is it racist?) I rememember when they had IQ tests where they woud have many different shaped blocks to fit into a board and measured your intelligence by how fast you could fit all of the irregular shapes into the board.
When I was in the Air Force they had about a thousand people sit in a room and passed everyone a piece of paper with a simple code that told them what time to be there and what chair number to sit in. The next day there was only about a hundred people there. after about a week I was the only person sitting there and the papers they were handing me were causing severe headaches even though I was still out of there by 9am. 2 weeks lter it was migrane wtf is all of these numbers and symbols page after page...
QUEEN OF DIAMONDS .... QUEEN OF DIAMONDS
I can tell you what most men prefer. Big tits. An ass that bounces off your dick. And slender enough that you shouldn't have to worry about her dying of heart disease at 40 or passing the obese gene off to your kids.
I repeat. Big tits. Juicy ass. Not obese.
The wrist and ankle measurements have been replaced in football. They are looking for your ability to take a hit, they have better indicators for bone density now.
Interesting observations you made, Very impressive if one wants to bread the 'Warrior/Sports" class of offspring.
What has your study found to help have an offspring that were compassionate, empathetic, along with intelligent for example?
Eugenics was popular back in the day, just like slavery was a few decades earlier. Others who supported it:
Alexander Graham Bell
Teddy Roosevelt
George Bernard Shaw
H.G. Wells
Winston Churchill
Arthur Balfour
John D. Rockefeller
Andrew Carnegie
C.S. Lewis
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
john - as always a superb article...you have exposed the minds of hitler, stalin, mao, obama, romney, and a horde of other filth who have destroyed countries, civilizations, and culture...
the lord said that the last shall be first....and so it shall be...
Hmmmmm....bible quote....I don't trust people who mix church and state. Too much propaganda potential. I'm too much of a believer in the first amendment to impose my religious views on others. Too easy to make it "us v them" and allows the sheeple to leave their critical thinking skills at the door. One has to be hypervigilant when it comes to propaganda these days.
Ancient wisdom mixed with ancient folly.
"The wicked flee when no one pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
Can't argue with that.
Your a fucking idiot. Just in case you have not read the Declaration of Independance or The Constitution. These two documents were written with "God" in mind, not some distant soveriegn! If you take at look at the 1st amendment that you love so much, you won't find the words "Seperation of Church and State". You will find the Establishment clause making no laws respecting religion. Becuase these people who wrote this document knew that Kings would use religion as a weapon - JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING! You idiot moron. Propaganda my ass.... you are one of those who would moralise to the rest of us about how superior your thinking is in regards to unclouded judgement due to not being properly lobotomized by a particular brand of religion. But alas, YOU are too stupid to know that you have been lobotomized by the Keynsian crowd. Your "superior thinking" is an offence. Go away with your own brand of propaganda!
hey knee jerk, all I know is religion is one of the main tools used by the elite to divide the sheeple into factions, the better to control them. Get them to think the abortion debate is more important than the looting of our economy by crony capitalists. Both sides of the duopoly benefit since they are both interested in maintaining status quo.
And I'm no knee jerk keynsian. I just like to see his work criticized for the right reasons. Not through carefully extracted quotes taken out of context, knowing that most people won't bother to verify.
"I don't trust people who mix church and state."
That's precisely the catholics position (I'm not catholic by the way) in suing the O'Barry administration over private health insurance mandates ;-)
I think at last count 43 diocese, schools and hospitals are suing...pretty impressive.
ah well, it's an historical fact that the Catholic Church hates competition in the mind + body control stakes. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
Well, as I said, I'm not catholic...my "sect" broke away long ago from idol worship...we don't do the whole Mother Mary statue saint thingy.
Which is ironic, because my mother was a saint ;-)
++
Timely post John.
As I've been bangin on ever since I started commenting on ZH..."certain members" of the elite class have never discarded eugenic theory as the insanity it is...just like centrally planned top down economies.
At the end of it, it is not what is best for the whole of humanity...it is about control & whats best for them, not us.
Whether it's Mayor Bloomberg dictating salt/butter/sugar content in recipes at private restaurants (eugenics) or terminal borrowing against future earnings (Keynes) it is always the same among us...we are reacting/debating among ourselves instead of saying fuck off.
I refuse to participate in the enabling of the elite class to control my fellows lives.
Just say no...or fuck off...whichever comes natural ;-)
Mayor Bloomberg dictating salt/butter/sugar content in recipes at private restaurants (eugenics)
Heh. You go on with your bad self.
Just like a law requiring fire-extinguishers in public schools is Nazism.
Having fire-extinguishers in schools and homes for that matter is a good thing. Do you actually think we need a law to tell us and force us to do so? Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their own lives. No wonder we have lost our freedoms. We have just given them away to the psychopaths who claim to be responsible for us!
Exacty Tard.
lol...taken in the good natured way intended.
So you agree with Bloomberg that people should be prohibited (by law) from whatever they desire to put into their bodies?
You do realize this is the equivalent of the state saying they own your body, yes?
And here I thought all high minded _________ were all about saying hands off my body ;-)
Overreaches happen all the time on all sides. Bloomberg's recipes are as relevant as financial laws because anyone who cares will make them try to enforce.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the making of the law itself (the intent to control) that bugs the shit out of me. The regulatory civil fines, resources expended for enforcement of statist control thats really the "icing on the cake" that's killing everything off.
Regulation can only go so far then it morphs into tyranny.
That's all fine, but no one has any reason to care one whit what "bugs you" unless you're going to DO SOMETHING.
Your emotions are your problem--never anyone else's.
If you take action against the constant tyranny that surrounds you, you'll feel better.
I'm not accustomed to announcing my actions in a public forum even under a pseudonym...martyrdom is for psychos and I can assure you I am still quite sane ;-)
I don't think you're taking any. I think if you were, you'd quit bitching so much about that stuff that is literally 100% completely irrelevant to your life.
But no way to verify anything, so...
Opinions are like assholes "doc"...everyone has em. Mine of you is reserved...for now.
I find it much more intriguing that to you...what I might be doing "on or off the grid" has piqued your interest so much.
I'll just pencil in amatuer sleuth at the bottom of your dossier ;-)
Nothing ominous, you're just that transparent.
would love to see you continue your argument in the context of the Sanctity of Life Act.
'cause no one ever does that when the subject comes up, defend who owns whose body. . .
Lost the connection last night.
Well, one of the most well crafted documents in history has the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". It does not say Pursuit of Happiness, Liberty then Life. For obvious reasons, without Life coming first...everything else that follows is a moot point ;-)
As far as the Sanctity of Life Act...at some point it is not an "unviable tissue mass". I'm not sure where that line for me is (the day before no, the next day yes seems arbitrary) and I do see both sides but killing a pregnant woman does carry two murder charges, not just one, for good reason. Biologically, I don't see how a case could be made for a second murder charge the day after conception when the womans body hasn't accepted it totally really...a child can be lost naturally.
Look, I've said before and I'll say again...no one can stop you from doing to your body (and what grows within it) what you will. For centuries it's been like this.
I'm not a woman so I can't imagine making the decision that I'd have to live with the rest of my life if the decision was death...just as I can't imagine the joy of a new life moving around inside me, tickling, stretching, sleeping...at some point someone or something must and will speak for the body of the child you have temporary custody of, who can't speak up for themselves, which is going to be the state whether we like it or not.
It's your decision ultimately but it took a voluntary act of two people to require a decision be made at all. As far as forcing a third/fourth party (government) into the contract to "pay damages"...I'll always be opposed...just as I'm opposed to Sandra Fluke using the government to stick a gun in my face to extort me.
I don't know if my ramblings make any sense to you but we both know its more complicated than saying "hands off" when it comes to this subject as the child doesn't have the same opportunity to say "hands off"...we have to assume he or she wants to live.
I appreciate your taking the time to reply, rather than my usual gathering of downvotes whenever this topic comes up - for the record, I'm just trying to get those avid followers to THINK about the edges of the story, beyond economics & End the Fed fist pumping, and look at the whole package of the people they choose to flock behind.
as to your arguments about a two-deaths penalty for murdering a pregnant woman, or the 'imaginings" of carrying a baby - both of those are speaking to intentional desired pregnancies - in which the mother has decided that she wants to carry to term and, in the case of murder, that decision, and baby, was taken from her against her wishes. in this instance I can see the outrage, and subsequent laws.
I cannot make that distinction when, say, a young woman is raped by her father, brother, or father's friends (for money even), gets pregnant, and cannot bear the thought of carrying the "tickly, stretching, sleeping, etc." being inside of her, whose every movement reminds her of her status and what has been done to her. this proposed constitutional amendment takes NONE of that into consideration, merely relegates her to incubator status - and makes ZERO provisions for the long term care of this baby once born. suppose the baby is handicapped in any way, including mentally? should she, once forced to carry and bear, give the baby up, who is responsible for this baby? who pays? the state?? where's the critical thinking behind this law, beyond forced pregnancy? I've yet to see ANYone here argue past the emotional "babee" meme.
not at all aimed at you though, alright? just expanding my argument in the hopes others can begin to unpick their hiding this topic under a huge rock because they don't believe it impacts their lives - it would impact the whole of society, and few are talking about how.
in the case of rape and incest, which is far more common than anyone here wants to admit - this is not voluntary, and yet no exceptions are to be made, enforced pregnancy from the moment of conception, end of. zero provisions for who pays, or who supports a baby that may be less than fully contributing to its life as it matures, irrespective of whether it wants to live or not. it's just insane to not take into consideration how continuing to churn out more babies is in any way good for society at this moment in time.
again, thanks for taking the time to reply nmewn, best wishes to you and all you care for, take care of.
Well, in the case of rape or incest, the child has commited no crime. It's still an innocent life. And you already know my opinion of deadbeat dads as well as irresponsible people in general...of either gender...so no point in rehashing that.
We will never agree on this perhaps but I wish you health & happiness...have a great holiday Cat!
aye, we're both in our own opinions, which is why I appreciate your engaging mine "here" so as to give voice to "both sides" (even though it's much more than two-sided) - again, my only point in bringing this up is to create more space for opinions to take "sides" into consideration.
to which I'll only add, so is the life of a woman who suffers rape or incest - it's the height of mental cruelty to force her to carry to term in this case.
be happy! hope it's fair weather out your way this weekend.
Eugenics in the 1930s until much later in Virginia as one example.
Walter Plecker et al legally sterilized Indians, those deemed 'Simple', etc.
Up until the 1970s in some states. http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/
Their methodologies were actually studied and exapanded by the Nazi's.
Read about Walter Plecker working in such cool sounding institutions as Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded.
http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/VA/VA.html
The neat thing about a term like "Feebleminded" is that it means whatever you want it to mean. Hmm. Something like "Terrorist" I suppose...
Their methodologies were actually studied and exapanded by the Nazi's.
____________________________________
Of course, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Imperialist Japan were copycats. They took their lessons from US citizens, realized they joined the game late and therefore had to try harder.
AnAnonymous excreted:
Another unsupported assertion. Do you have evidence to support your assertion, or are we simple-minded "US citizens" just to accept your edicts on blind faith?
Ralph Raico is professor of history emeritus at Buffalo State College. In his 2008 article, Was Keynes a Liberal?, he wrote:
Throughout Keynes’s career, however, clear indications appear of his longing for a much more radical social order—in his words, a “New Jerusalem” (O’Donnell 1989, 294, 378 n. 27). He confessed that he had played in his mind “with the possibilities of greater social changes than come within the present philosophies” even of thinkers such as Sidney Webb. “The republic of my imagination lies on the extreme left of celestial space,” he mused (1972, 309). Numerous statements strewn over decades shed light on this somewhat obscure avowal. Taken together, they confirm Joseph Salerno’s (1992) [1] argument that Keynes was a millennialist—a thinker who viewed social evolution as pursuing a preordained course to what he conceived to be a happy ending: a utopia (O’Donnell 1989, 288–94).[2]
[1] Joseph Salerno, 1992. The Development of Keynes’s Economics: From Marshall to Millennialism. Review of Austrian Economics 6, no. 1: 3–64, link to PDF: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE6_1_1.pdf [2] Ralph Raico, Was Keynes a Liberal? The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 2, Fall 2008, ISSN 1086–1653, Copyright © 2008, pp. 165–188. link to PDF: http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_02_1_raico.pdfCuts in government spending don't cause economic contractions. Increases in taxes cause economic contractions. Tax increases lead to lower economic activity and less money collected.
Thats what one side says. But we've been living with years and years of low taxes and none of its trickling down. Low taxes benefit the 1%.
You need to add all taxes into the equation when speaking of society as a whole, not just federal.
Property taxes, sales taxes, fees, surcharges etc...a rose by any other name is just a thorny.
The little guy is getting crushed, sittin around thinkin he's only paying 15%...then when he really thinks about it he discovers the hidden taxes of just subsisting.
One of the most laughable neocon talking points is how half of Americans pay no taxes. When all the various taxes the poor working stiff has to pay are added up, they are paying a much higher percentage of their incomes in taxes. While the wealthy hire lawyers to work it so they pay as little as possible.
What's laughable is that you don't mention that those of us on the right, as in we are right, who believe in low income taxes are talking about how half of the country do not pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Just go look at the IRS Data and it will be clear to you who pays what. No, fuck that. Because I know you are afraid to look at the truth I'll do it for you.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1
Now grab both of your ears and pull your head out all the way. There that's better. Now go get your shine box!
Years of low taxes!? Low taxes benefit everyone, you moron!!
Good Post Aziz!!
Has anyone ever noticed how mutts make the best dogs! Gene diversity must be the answer intended by the Creator!
DaddyO
Drag out the Keynes boogeyman, string along some out-of-context quotes from various individuals over a 70 year period, throw in a few more straw men and "ghost stories", and you have the classic propaganda. It's all "facts, just the facts", because each individual factoid can be verified, in isolation. This kind of presentation has been used to discredit nationalities, races, and religions forever.
skepticCarl
His quotes were not taken out of context. You are quite the coincidence theorist. BTW, Sanger was sponsored by the Rockefeller brothers who were (are in the case of the purportedly surviving David) white supremicists. If you care to educate yourself on the details and in context, I would suggest that you read William Engdahl's The Seeds of Destruction. Another interesting coincidence factoid, Aldous Huxley was Eric Blair's (George Orwell's) French tutor at Eton. He introduced him into the Fabian Society. Strange as it may seem to normal people, Orwell's hero in 1984 was O'Brien, not Winston Smith.
John Aziz --- You are a great thinker, and thought provoking realist! Enjoy all your reads,... keep em comin...
Bravo!!!
A free society, one that allows failure and does not reward the inept, takes care of the problem naturaly.
How much of the ghetto scum would never have been born if it were not for the fact their parents were rewarded financialy for popping out as many kids as possible.
Kind of funny that most of these Keynesian Eugenics types favor the centraly planned welfare state that causes most of the overpopulation and breeding of the most undesirable.
You aren't going to have five kids if there is no central government to pay for them. Liberalism claims compassion but all it does is breed misery.
Poorer societies have more kids in the hope that a few survive.
Out west this used to be common knowledge. My grandma came from a litter of 8. They weren't catholic.
Check out the birth rates in Uganda. Poor and high.
agreed, and to add, it's a well understood fact that educating a nation's females so as to allow for them to be self-supporting, ie, not reliant on a man to survive, results in fewer children born - the woman being drawn to having only as many as she can actually support, as opposed to bearing a large number of children as a sort of male potency statement. even simple educations can result in micro-business creation, and the awareness of time consumed by both "earning" and "family needs" - it's a natural form of teaching awareness and self respect.
it's a well understood fact that educating a nation's females so as to allow for them to be self-supporting, ie, not reliant on a man to survive, results in fewer children born - the woman being drawn to having only as many as she can actually support, as opposed to bearing a large number of children as a sort of male potency statement. even simple educations can result in micro-business creation, and the awareness of time consumed by both "earning" and "family needs" - it's a natural form of teaching awareness and self respect.
_________________________________
How true. You know, in the middle east, there is a US citizen nation, Israel.
There live orthodox jews. The man has to dedicate his life to study the book. He must spend his time on that. The result is that the wife is the person who puts food on family. She is educated. She supports herself.
Check the number of children they have by couple.
Ummm, maybe it was unfair to use a US citizen nation to hint at US citizen plan behind their 'emancipation' of the woman.
AnAnonymous, in a typical display of idiocy, said:
No. Israel is an Israeli citizen nation. Your assertions to the contrary do not change this.
Unfair? No, just ignorant on your part to think of nations other than the US as "US citizen" nations.
before I get into a reply, I'll just say that my own reading of the "US citizen" meme is more of the mindset than passport carrier in definition, in that it's a label one either feels appropriate to adopt, or distasteful to be seen as.
so chicken/egg as to Israel's status as a "US citizen nation" - as a parallel description though, I can see some coincidences in the model.
orthodox jews are somewhat stuck in the olde school model of the scholarly man who reads, writes, and ponders - while his wife emulates his mommy, cooks, cleans, and provides for him, delicate boy that he is. she is also required to bear his sexual needs, and of course, his children, while he sits in his lofty garret, removed from all responsibility. the "jewish mother" meme describes this way of behaving quite well, the boys are "special" and the girls are aware of this, alliances are made within this, and include the whole family, it's not just about the isolated couple unit, families are involved - it's the mafia model of family. . .
this is an olde European model, expands to Russian literature as well - which is interesting, given the history of Zionists and Russia. many of these kept men wrote whole novels centered around female characters, painting a picture of them "culturally" as passionate, emotional, and often ending in their suicides.
I find that interesting too. and no patriarchal culture seeks the "emancipation of the woman" - amrkn culture holds out an illusion of "emancipation" which still needs some critical thinking applied to it, as "freeing" a woman up to be a sexualised object by her choice is about as false as it gets, in my (obvious) opinion. as long as women are measured by how "attractive" they are to men sexually, they're still seen as slaves of/to the male desire, and whatever table scraps of "recognition" get thrown their way because of their perceived "value" sexually.
nothing emancipated about that.
Not sure that I know quite enough history or demographics spanning various countries to agree or disagree... however, I think adr might only be referring to our current welfare state in the US which does provide more monetary payments to mothers with more children.
And there are differences between countries as well as between different eras. Back when the majority of the US population was agrarian, they did not live in modern cities and had multiple children in order to help on the farm. Having more children did not necessarily correlate to the hope that a few would survive. Don't know the specifics regarding Uganda though.
It is not that central planners are dumber than nature, it is more appropriate to consider that they are less flexible because they are more ideologically driven than nature. Nature wages 5th Generation warfare while central planners are stuck in the third. If Planners graduate to 4th, Nature will counter with the 6th.
Among dogs and other animals, the strongest ones are the mutts, not the pedigree. Same for people. Genetic variety creates the healthiest individuals, not inbreeding.
Incorrect.
The only strong defiance of the old money British and European bankster class came from those who founded a new Republic, the U.S.A.
Pity that the old inbred Rothschild-led British/European bankster class has managed to rule the befuddled mutts after 1913 when the Federal Reserve Board was founded, contrary to the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Or....the weakest individuals from Europe (the inbred) left the old world and went to America ;-)
Inbred elites have one genetic advantage which is a total lack of empathy. That fits very well with social Darwinism.
Sodomite Keynes admired the Nazis, as did the Bank of England in his time. They both thought that a totalitarian government could deliver better results.
Fast forward to now: their dream is real. Their Rothschild/Rockefeller money funding the Trilateral Commission and its marketing arm Bilderberg Group does manage political ambitious types and unwary business in order to make its new world order; its freakonomics, it's New Feudalists and New Fascists.
The Nazis were much admired by a wide range of people in Europe and the US. From royal families to tycoons, from the church to socialists (at first, before AH started killing them off). Eugenics liked/like the Nazi race ideology. Big business everywhere was in bed with them. Killing became an industrial event from which money was made. This of course still goes on in the world and is as old as the world itself.
Industrial production is not as old as the world itself.
So neither are the industrial methods (and the rationale behind) to eradicate a population.
US citizen stuff.
My bad. I meant making money of killing, whether that is industrial or not. In ancient times it involved pillaging and ransanking a place. Eradication of populations through either genocide or ethnic cleansing is as old as the world. It happened in ancient times, in the middle ages, it happened in the US and Latin America, basically everywhere. With the advange of technology that process became more 'efficient'.
You know, history written by US citizens usually comes as a big propaganda stick to rationalize their deeds and once done, it suddenly appeared that well, the facts were not as they described.
But who cares at this point? US citizens have what they wanted.
No we don't obviously, because we still have you on this board as a pestilence and a plague. If we had what we wanted you would be on the moon where you could babble at the moon rocks, which have an IQ similar to your own.
DEAR CHINA! PLEASE RECALL THIS IMBECILE AND GIVE US ONE GOOD NETIZEN HERE ON ZH!!!!
CHINA!!!!!!! HELP!!!!!!!!!!lol
plato had socrates answer glaucon's question of the creation of not only a state, but a luxurious state...glaucon was not satisfied with a city of pigs...in any event any reading of plato should be made with some knowledge of thomas taylor
Big discovery of the day.
Keynes was a US citizen and as such supported eugenics.
Great.
Flintstone.
AnAnonymous defied all sense, again, saying:
No, Keynes was a British citizen.
Yes, your understanding operates at a cartoonish level. You must come from a modern stoned-age family.
And JPM is in deep doo-doo, apparently. Is this self-destruction for a larger purpose? It sure seems plausible.
Teri Buhl lays out a number of ominous claims against the bankster kings at JPM: http://www.teribuhl.com/
What we are really seeing in Europe is that austerity is what heppens when you run out of other people's money.
So humans aren't part of "nature", is what you're saying?
They are not.
AnAnonymous the omniscient said:
Unsupported assertionism runs rampant in your world of Chinese citizenism.
So Keynes believed and supported eugenics. Now I really hate him.
I suspected that the millions of needless prostate cancer treatments in the U.S. was a racket but now I am suspicious(paranoid) that it could be Eugenics. I consider health care in the U.S. to be primarily an arm of the government. Without Medicare and Medicaid, nearly every hospital would have to close their doors. Every hospital is routinely inspected by government boards that enforce numerous government regulations. If the hospitals don't comply, they lose their share of the annual trillion dollars Medicare and Medicade budget.
"Of 1,000 screened men, as many as 40 will suffer impotence or urinary incontinence as a side effect of treatment, two will have heart attacks or strokes and one will develop a dangerous blood clot in the legs or lungs, the task force concluded after a review of the scientific literature. As many as five of 1,000 men who undergo surgery will die within a month."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/22/science/la-sci-no-psa-test-20120522
no comment