Great post. Reminds me of NYT bestseller John Perkins [Confessions Of An Economic Hitman

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 164632}

Great book. A must read

The true answer to poverty in some cases would ultimately be eugenics. We have tried teaching them, metaphorically, how to fish but they are incapable of learning. Supporting them with handouts allows them to procreate without any regard for the ramifications which increases the future poverty logarithmically which will ultimately just require more and larger handouts. It is nothing but a feel-good solution that does far more harm than good.

Did you even read what OP posted?

Yeah, my comment was covering the areas not impoverished due to dictatorial malfeasance.

Your comment was something right out of Hitlers mouth.

What a pointless kneejerk reaction. Care to actually discuss or just drool onto your keyboard?

Hitler and his scientists were all about Eugenics, it was their excuse for killing those they deemed "less worthy"

Oops, i meant to say:

"DURRR, Histowy Cwass!"

That's somewhat better. It would be much better if you can prove that claim as well as explaining what it matters who else has similar ideas?

Prove!? Eugenics? The holocaust?

Okay my blood pressure is skyrocketing. I'm done.

Here is my goat, sir. You have gotten it. Try not to judge it too harshly by IQ.

I asked you to prove that Hitler chased eugenics in any meaningful way. Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that supports it?

Eugenics has been the doctrine of nazism since day 1. Your contention was no evidence was provided yet do you have any for that initial statement? I MEAN HOW CAN YOU ESPOUSE EUGENICS AND NO BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF ITS HISTORY.

You just keep repeating yourself but have provided absolutely no proof.

im not the same person - i saw your replies and felt the same frustration at your absurd reply but ok i'll bite:

Nazi eugenics (German: Nationalsozialistische Rassenhygiene, "National Socialist racial hygiene") were Nazi Germany's racially based social policies that placed the biological improvement of the Aryan race or Germanic "Übermenschen" master race through eugenics at the center of Nazi ideology.[1] In Germany, eugenics were mostly known under the synonymous term racial hygiene. Following the Second World War, both terms effectively vanished and were replaced by Humangenetik (human genetics).

Eugenics research in Germany before and during the Nazi period was similar to that in the United States (particularly California), by which it had been partly inspired. However, its prominence rose sharply under Adolf Hitler's leadership when wealthy Nazi supporters started heavily investing in it. The programs were subsequently shaped to complement Nazi racial policies.[2]

Those humans targeted for destruction under Nazi eugenics policies were largely living in private and state-operated institutions, identified as "life unworthy of life" (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including prisoners, "degenerates", dissidents, people with congenital cognitive and physical disabilities (including people who were "feebleminded", epileptic, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, deaf, blind) (German: erbkranken), homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while more than 70,000 were killed under Action T4, a euthanasia program.[3][4][5][6] In June 1935, Hitler and his cabinet made a list of seven new decrees, number 5 was to speed up the investigations of sterilization.[7]

All copy pasted from wikipedia. Also, might help if you actually read about the things you promote.

Morally, I don't object the concept of eugenics, just a small tip to avoid looking like a total dumbass on the internet.

(Interestingly, almost all of the people I met who like the idea of eugenics are the ones who are most likely to be genetically screened.)

All that and no link.

I'm sorry for my aggressive reply (regardless if you were offended or not) There are some things that I would like to share:

one reason for my aggressive reply was your response-

Instead of asking for evidence, why not ask why would it be bad even if it was espoused by hitler/nazis as well?

additional talking points:

UN-Lucis Trust-Nazi connection:

Removing the conspiracy element, its interesting that the United Nations adhere to similar ideas from hitler's mein kampf- which includes a one world government and a eugenically cleansed society. You could say that its basically the guiding principle for their vision of a unified world. On that end, you can say that you arrived at the same conclusion as hitler and other students of the same esoteric school of thought(theosophy) which is ascribed to by the players in our world government.

If you want to read about this, read:

UN Charter http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/preamble/index.html

Lucis Trust https://www.lucistrust.org/world_goodwill/newsletter/recent_issues__1/2013_1/the_united_nations_embodying_ideals

Alice Bailey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey

Mein Kampf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

On the topic of African Poverty, here's a good link that discusses the myriad of reasons (albeit hinting at the low-iq factor as well) that causes this unending problem:

https://fee.org/articles/the-sorry-record-of-foreign-aid-in-africa/

anecdote: (cannot find an online resource at the moment)

Some african tribes purposely ruin the projects and aids (heh)provided to them. On that note, i'd say rather than international aid or eugenics, (as an outsider) i'd opt for non-intervention as the holistic solution to their problem.

cheers.

Now that's much better. I will peruse it at my leisure. However, my choices as to how I respond to someone else is none of your concern. People generally get what they need, not necessarily what they want.

Hey there. You're very rigid in your requirements for a good conversation. It does serve (Very well) to get the "freaking out" phase of a disagreement out of the way. It's off-putting but it works.

We may or may not agree on things, but, I like you.

A rather useless point, and serves no purpose, but I've made worse posts.

lmaooooo get outttttt t r o lolll

Rule 10

This is the state of the American right. They advocate for eugenics then say it is unfair to call them fascists.

Whose ideas are you trying to communicate?

My own

When I first learned about the 1950s mass sterilization program in Puerto Rico (a form of eugenics), I was horrified. But as time passed, I began to see that it was a fairly moral way of solving the problem. It’s not always about Nazis and big government.

Hooooly shit man, get a little spirituality or something in your life

You have a better longterm solution?

Freedom, bitch! It's the first line of the post.

...you didn't answer my question. At all. Freedom is already inherent in the situation I'm describing.

So what's your brilliant solution for those circumstances?

Living under tyrannical warlords who assist in selling out their countrymen is "freedom" to you?

There are many free people in the world who are living in poverty.

It's not "Satanic" to recognize the clear correlation between IQ and wealth bracket, and that selecting for higher IQ could potentially be a long term solution to poverty.

Evil, satanic, cold psychopathic... Same difference.

Alright, I'll bite. Explain to me exactly how seeking to improve the lives of those who in suffering is evil.

It's a question of morality, which is very flexable. S/He's not looking at it through a objective lens. S/He's thinking of a short term human cost.

At least that's the feeling I get.

Ohhh, do you guys think that what the Nazis did was actual eugenics?

First and foremost: true eugenics does not involve death or forced breeding. It is for the objective benefit of all humans, and murder and forced reproduction are incompatible with this standard. What the Nazis did was an amoral perversion.

A properly and ethically implemented eugenics program would involve voluntary, incentivized sterilization for people with issues like low IQ and heritable disease, coupled with voluntary, incentivized reproduction (or sperm/egg donation) from people with desirable traits like high IQ or other heritable advantages. The benefits would take many generations to see full fruition, but that's considered just fine, because it's for the benefit of all mankind, not just the current generations.

I understand the concept of eugenics. I thank you for explaining it to our wider audience with a calm, educative tone though. Good conversation is sometimes hard to come by on the internet because people get all mad.

I'm just bringing to light what I thought was going on with dude, you say EUGENICS, boom people think Nazi Death Camps.

The Nazi work on Genetics was a double edge sword. It was groundbreaking, important, and beneficial on the whole. Conversely, people freak right the fuck out when you delve into certain areas, and it's got a very dark period.

It made eugenics a dirty word.

You've never traveled, have you?

Accountability, transparency, tax policy, trade based on mutual profit (not exploitation backed by military and economic pressure), laws that are not enforced or have been written to legalize graft (give justice dept. lawyers a percentage of the settlements on the cases they win), holding corporate boards personally responsible for the actions of the companies, maybe killing the rich to serve as an example for those who don't know how to play fair in our society (just kidding on that one, but it's kind of there with eugenics).

That's wonderful. To which specific countries are you referring? The ones to which I am consist of "people" whose average IQ is 60. None of what you've stated will help them become self-sustaining, productive first world civilizations. So, exactly which countries we're you referring to and then what would you do for the ones that I am?

I'm not sure where you get your IQ statistics. I think what you might mean to say is that they are uneducated. That is an easy fix. Instead of massively expensive infrastructure projects that benefit business (and are built on debt, which can't be repaid except by selling off profitable resources at a fraction of there value). Countries build schools, and negotiate trade relationships for the real cost of their goods. Corruption in South and Central America are backed by military and economic power projected by the first world. There is no implicit reason for these countries to be impoverished other than exploitation by wealthy nations and international corporations (which have the backing of first world economic and military power). Well, I guess we can have a start at the America's before moving to Africa, the Middle East, and Asia/Pacific. The reasons for poverty in the third world are fairly elementary to understand. The solutions are equally simple; the reduction of interference by the US empire and it's European allies. Cuba is a fine example of a country that would do quiet well with out a boycott by the US and pressures to block trade/aid from other countries. Easily seen in the Monroe Doctrine (which I assume has been strengthened over the years). As for some of your other points, basic medical care and family planning would go a long way before eugenics. We could certainly start with the undesirable populations in the US.

No, it is literally 60 in sub-Saharan Africa and I can provide proof if you're genuinely interested. Is it that outrageous of a fact as to make it that hard for you to accept? If so, why?

I honestly appreciate all the thought and energy you put into your comment, but if we cannot find common ground then there's no point in discussing this topic. You've written the comment under the belief that I'm incorrect; your comment makes sense for situations only where I'm incorrect/lying.

If you have a link to IQ and Sub-Saharan Africa I'd read it, but don't go to much trouble. I can google it. From what I have read, IQ is typically spread fairly evenly across race and culture. Certain factors do influence it such as malnutrition.

I was just trying to answer your questions and assertions, but I agree we would make little progress. We often get our information from different sources, so there can be a wide gap in point of view. Thanks for being civil.

From what I have read, IQ is typically spread fairly evenly across race and culture.

No offense intended, but you could not be more incorrect on the subject. Ashkenazi jews fall around 115ish on the bell curve. Asians around 105-110 depending on the country. Whites are slightly above 100. Hispanic/Latins fall in around 90. US blacks at 85. Subsaharans literally around 60. There is a wealth of research out there that confirms all of this and I have studied it myself relatively in-depth.

Just suppose that I am correct and accurate. Why do you suppose you have been lead to believe what is quite contrary?

Thanks for being civil.

I tend to match the level of discourse of those with whom I speak.

I have lead to believe the contrary by reading of scientific research filtered through popular science magazines (Science, Scientific American) and academic study of psychology and special education. I have read articles on IQ distribution across populations as well as the criticism of such studies. I don't find the area to be well studied and sample sizes tend to be small. As for Sub-Saharan Africa, my first two articles (from Google) placed the IQ at 80. One did offer reasons for bias and factors like malnutrition. I am familiar with studies that support your point of view. I have not come across a "wealth" of information supporting your convictions. I am not convinced of there accuracy when other factors are considered. As I said, sources of information tends to bias ones point of view. As much as wikipedia is disregarded as a source of information, a quick read of Race and IQ touches on several of the studies and factors.

u have defeated the troll well done

Rule 10

How is their iq tested ? Pretty much anyone can become a farmer if needed and there is plenty of productive land. Then the next gen can go into higher schooling ect.

How is their iq tested ? Pretty much anyone can become a farmer if needed and there is plenty of productive land. Then the next gen can go into higher schooling ect.

You need to start paying attention to what happened and is currently happening in South Africa.

That is an entirely different issue.

Not at all. Wait, I'll bite. Tell me how the two are different.

Kicking all the productive farmers off their land without training new ones vs having an uneducated but usually quite willing to learn population that will work if given the knowledge and tools.

Millions were invested in infrastructure which was all summarily destroyed.

Solution? Who said it is our job to give them solutions? With people like you helping, you do more harm than good. Leave them be and let them help themselves through hard work and trade. Stop meddling in other's affairs

...you've come full circle, repeating my core point and claiming it as your own, all while acting/believing that I am somehow wrong or incorrect.

Please reread this comment chain. You've left me utterly astonished that one can sincerely do what you just have.

No you were talking about how to "solve" their problems with "Eugenics". I'm not working on how to solve their nations problems, I spend my time solving my own. They only thing I advocated is stop interfering (for charity or for empire) and let people be.

You're just not getting it. Oh well, we're already in agreement so let's leave it at that.

He doesn’t underdtand the definition of eugenics...

Are you a socialist, by chance?

Well, possibly in some circumstances, but it depends on many factors. Predominantly, no. Why?

I've found that most of the obstacles in the way of achieving a socialist utopia are personality traits and components of human nature that would need to be eradicated or controlled.

Socialist ideals, taken to their logic conclusion, ultimately result in eugenics and gulags.

So it wouldmy surprise me that a proponent of eugenics would mean heavily socialist, politically.

I firmly believe that you are correct; in order for socialism to truly work a society would need to be strictly homogeneous in physical, mental, and spiritual arenas. People always love to point at Scandinavian socialism as proof that it is the ideal governance for everywhere. They are ignoring much about the characteristics and/or holding completely fabricated assumptions with no basis in reality.

It's a very interesting realm of philosophical thought, to say the least

And also somewhat terrifying how conditioned most people are to have immediate, kneejerk overreactions to the subject. It's as if they believe even talking about it is tantamount to literally murdering a newborn. Same physiological reaction.

It's like no one has ever heard of a hypothesis or a thought experiment before.

Great conversation chain between you guys.

/salute

Comment chains like this is why I love r/conspiracy. Have a hard time finding another sub that allows for this type of conversation.

What is it your business how that other country is living? You are not the God of this world to say who lives or dies.

One can practice eugenics by withholding aid. I thought that was obvious enough for anyone to understand, yet here we are, you having thrown rocks through your own front windows.

Eugenics was a movement actively promoting the elimination of certain people deemed by them to be genetically unfit.

If people can thrive they thrive, if they don't their community can help them if they like. I don't care much for a person's genotype in that regard. Success is multifaceted.

Success is multifaceted.

Can't argue with that.

Holy fuck, you like, just threw that right out there. lol

It's going to make people very uncomfortable to even consider this line of thought. The Human Animal is a sacred Cow, Demi-gods.

You do it to organisms in a Petri dish and they hand you grants, acclaim and a Nobel Prize. Do it with Humans and best you can hope for is distain.

You just posted one of the biggest debates in political science in 2 alineas. It is indeed a very interesting question how to use money for developing the third world. The problem many identify is an inherant cost of liberalism. Governments invest in a country's economy, they invest in people with ideas. The irony of liberal politicians and institutions such as the UN that have many times attacked the principle of trickle-down economics, yet basically making trickle-down the core of their use of investments, is unfortunately lost on many.

From the 90's onward, mostly post-kolonialist and post-marxist researchers started questioning this line of development, as they saw that too little is being done to stop actual and very real poverty. What good do macro-economic numbers mean to a country if the big majority of the people is living in hunger and dies from the most basic of diseases? Ofcourse there is also the problem of dictators raking in the money themselves, this problem has in my opinion slightly been overblown. But it is a real problem and should in no way be ignored. The problem with development is that it is and will mostly always be rooted in a liberal nation-state reality, so it is really hard to circumvent these dictators, this however does not mean that we should stop trying.

The problem with development is that it is and will mostly always be rooted in a liberal nation-state reality, so it is really hard to circumvent these dictators, this however does not mean that we should stop trying.

As someone who works in development, I liked your entire post - but this last line especially deserved to be highlighted.

The irony of liberal politicians and institutions such as the UN that have many times attacked the principle of trickle-down economics, yet basically making trickle-down the core of their use of investments, is unfortunately lost on many.

I thought trickle-down economics is making investments into private corporations that will provide support to current and future employers/customers; not provide investments in the central government(s).

This is a good question. I should specify more.

The idea that is often used in third-world countries (exceptions such as micro-credits do exist), is that by directly dealing with poverty, you don't help a country become self-dependant. So instead of investing in people, they invest in companies to help a countries' macro-economy. The idea is ofcourse that this will create more jobs, and once you get a job, you get a good life. Except that's not what happend in countries such as India or on the continent of Africa. What happend is that a few people got rich, and the rest is still piss-poor.

Off topic, but the existence of strongmen is exactly why anarchy could never work. It will always succumb to stronger militarized ideologies.

We give foreign aid to the countries we first starve with sanctions. It's a con

We call it "aid" because calling it "hey, we probably owe you since we systematically pillaged and destroyed your country (and, tbh, continue to do so) and now your citizens don't have access to the most basic of needs" is worse for PR.

The aid is usually in the form of loans and then they become economically enslaved

Incidious, yet effective.

Darwinism is a real thing.

Survival of the fittest is a global constant. (Perhaps universal, we don't know though)

The INSTANT we're unable to dictate terms to other peoples, they will begin dictating terms to us.

You're a smart person with a good heart, this is obvious. Nature however doesn't care about our feelings. It only wants to thrive, Life wants to find a way, sometimes that way is ugly. Human societies are an extention of nature, to think otherwise is a mistake.

That doesn't mean we can't be charitable, far from it. It just means if the roles were reversed, (We sucked at war) we'd be the ones starving to death.

It's a little more complicated than just saying they sucked at war, though. It all comes down to resources and (natural civil) development - most of the countries we give aid to, we've never been at war with. We've just pillaged them and colonized them and enslaved them and propped up dictators who kill them.

Of course enviromental factors play a huge role, It was an over simplified flip remark. The main point is Given the chance they would be the conqueror, instead of conquered.

Exactly.. So to have us whities turn around and look down our nose at them like

"Oh, they just can't be civilized can they? Eugenics would take care of that"

Seriously sickening.

More money needs to be spent on educating farmers than handing out rice.

This has been tried repeatedly, it's not been successful.

One case had the UN sending U.S. farmers to educate sub-saharan african farmers about Modern Western Farming Techniques. They accused the US farmers of witchcraft and being wizards, and completely rejected the teachings.

It......doesn't always work out like that, But it's not working very well.

Can’t hurt to try and can’t cost more than the millions and millions in food aid everyone sends. If they can make 1 person provide for 5 and they can sustain that then progress can be made over time.

Absolutely, education is never a bad choice.

If it helps shift the culture slightly to accept new, more efficent ways of doing things, then I agree. Go nuts.

I believe the UN program has continued in spite of the less than stellar effect.

More money needs to be spent on educating farmers than handing out rice.

Ten billion people kill the planet, popcontrol is in high gear and has been for the past few generations. They're working to destroy the rural world while cramming more and more people into tight places with no rights. All part of the plan :-)

Foreign aid is mostly military aid. It takes the form of planes made by Boeing and missiles made by Ratheyon. The money is stolen from the taxpayers and is given to the stockholders of defense companies. If the receiver country has a war, they will buy replacement parts or planes because they are used to the US equipment. More money for the 1%. The strongmen overseas use the equipment to insure they can steal from their country. When they retire, they run to the US generally.

Primary sources never make it this far.

Without any proof: they also have foreign companies do the work get the profits then leave the country with the debt.

Problem with this line of thought is, Today in the United States, The Richest Country in the World, Freedom out the ass......a Homeless child starved to death.

Tomorrow another homeless child will starve to death. At LEAST 1. The day after, another.

https://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2016-united-states-hunger-poverty-facts/

The FACT that this happens daily, Here, where everyone is rich beyond the dreams of many third world peoples. is repugnant.

I console myself with the knowledge that it's competition and competition creates far more than it destroys.

Alright, I'll bite. Explain to me exactly how seeking to improve the lives of those who in suffering is evil.

Well, possibly in some circumstances, but it depends on many factors. Predominantly, no. Why?

I've found that most of the obstacles in the way of achieving a socialist utopia are personality traits and components of human nature that would need to be eradicated or controlled.

Socialist ideals, taken to their logic conclusion, ultimately result in eugenics and gulags.

So it wouldmy surprise me that a proponent of eugenics would mean heavily socialist, politically.

It's like no one has ever heard of a hypothesis or a thought experiment before.

You just keep repeating yourself but have provided absolutely no proof.

Comment chains like this is why I love r/conspiracy. Have a hard time finding another sub that allows for this type of conversation.