Eugenics Question
Rocio Carrasco
argument with eugenics because I don't have too time to think about it.
But I have one question regarding a glitch that eugenics may face:
Once the gene pool in a population is engineered as desired, then how
can damaging mutations such as those caused by gamma rays, solar
radiation, chemicals, viruses, gene breakage, and cross-linking be
arrested?? Such mutations could cause a reversion back to how the genes
were before. And how would genetic variety be introduced to avoid the
problem of lethal genes...as seen when two albino birds breed and the
chick dies. Or severe hip dysplasia in Pure bred German Shepards.
Thanks for entertaining my curiosity :)
Ciao and Hail Satan!!
Rocio Carrasco
SVsite
Mao Tse-Tung however you want to spell it). But the COS is not
advocating any KIND of eugenics like ....EUGENICS advocated
historically, so they are fighting a shadow here. Bioengineering is
RUBBISH because of just what you said. It is as ABSURD as imaginging
that anyone WOULD engineer a retrovirus and program it to infect people
with melanin - first cause we all have the same number of melanocytes
despite race (the distribution is different) and second because viruses
MUTATE. It's the same with bioengineered corn - the latest stupidity.
Sure - make it resistent to insects that attack it and the INSECTS end
up evolving. They are SO STUPID with this. THEN, because Al Gore is
dead against it, the morons of the right wing called him a Lysenkoite!
When they speak out AGAINST eugenics (they are speaking against it
here) they are, at the SAME TIME, in favor of genetic engineering.
Sigh, try figuring that out... You know, I TRIED to explain it to them
every way possible. They don't understand biology. THEY KNOW POLITICS
tho. Their analyses are 100% right politically and economically but
their SOLUTIONS, in my opinion, SUCK.
Tani
In article <3883EBE7...@indy.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mi...@mim.org
Rocio Carrasco <sarr...@indy.net> wrote:
> The above question is NOT a flame or an attack. I don't have any
> argument with eugenics because I don't have too time to think about
it.
> But I have one question regarding a glitch that eugenics may face:
>
> Once the gene pool in a population is engineered as desired, then how
> can damaging mutations such as those caused by gamma rays, solar
> radiation, chemicals, viruses, gene breakage, and cross-linking be
> arrested?? Such mutations could cause a reversion back to how the
genes
> were before. And how would genetic variety be introduced to avoid the
> problem of lethal genes...as seen when two albino birds breed and the
> chick dies. Or severe hip dysplasia in Pure bred German Shepards.
>
> Thanks for entertaining my curiosity :)
>
> Ciao and Hail Satan!!
>
> Rocio Carrasco
>
mi...@mim.org replies:
Let's see these Satanists defend
eugenics from their own magazines.
One is on sale in ebay!
Too bad they have entire magazines
on the subject and all they can do
is say, "we don't mean it the way
it has been meant historically."
Translate: "we aim for a pipe dream."
Translate: "we don't speak of history,
because we aren't on this planet."
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
SOD of CoE
> Let's see these Satanists defend
> eugenics from their own magazines.
> One is on sale in ebay!
> Too bad they have entire magazines
> on the subject and all they can do
> is say, "we don't mean it the way
> it has been meant historically."
I don't know to what you refer, but I'll defend eugenics as a
Satanist to you (I gather you also support it and are goading).
eugenics and euthanasia go hand in hand. good births (as few
as possible, maximizing healthy diversity) are essential to
a blossoming and viable biosphere. as our knowledge about
what different cross-breedings will yield is enhanced, then
individuals will be able, with home technology such as a
personal computer, to do their own genetic analysis and
discern the likely results of a mating with any particular
individual. it is also likely that at some point genetics
organizations will make material available to potential
mothers so that they can select precisely what kind of child
that they wish to carry to term, bear, and raise. this power
should not be restricted from women who are willing to bear
the financial brunt of such a family (or have it shared with
their current legal partner(s)).
the 'controversy' over eugenics is quickly evaporated once
termination of unwanted conceptions becomes uncommon. it
is an identical situation in the case of abortion, which
will in all likelihood disappear in a century with the
availability of substances capable of rendering the choice
of conception totally under the control of both sex partners
(or a multitude, provided additional peculiarities in
genetic technological development).
selection of genetic progenation is a natural result of
high technology, and Satanists should be allowed to gain
control over their own genetic material (and accept or
deny whatever paired material may be presented for a
conception) just as readily as any other individual.
at some point there will be limitations on the number and
type of children who may be born, and this will depend on
the realistic carrying capacity of the biosphere and our
impact upon it as our species grows in knowledge and rapacity.
simultaneous to the enabling power of technology with regard
to the control over birth, so also ought we be enabled to
control the method and timing of our deaths (euthanasia).
this enhanced personal control over our lives will benefit
everyone and improve the quality of life for many species.
boboroshi (SOD of CoE)
--
mailto:naga...@luckymojo.com; mailto:yron...@luckymojo.com
TOKUS: mailto:bobo...@satanservice.org; http://www.satanservice.org/
notification: I may post any email replies; cc me if some response desired.
mi...@mim.org
sp...@luckymojo.com wrote:
> 50000122 IVom Hail Satan!
>
> mi...@mim.org:
> > Let's see these Satanists defend
> > eugenics from their own magazines.
> > One is on sale in ebay!
> > Too bad they have entire magazines
> > on the subject and all they can do
> > is say, "we don't mean it the way
> > it has been meant historically."
>
> I don't know to what you refer, but I'll defend eugenics as a
> Satanist to you (I gather you also support it and are goading).
The following message is what I refer to and other
assorted casual references. Anyone who
reads COS or alt.satanism stuff will see it.
From: ubel...@yahoo.com
Subject: Lot of LaVey/Church of Satan publications for auction
Date: 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8640ge$p45$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client
63.23.255.158
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 19 09:35:10 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDubelengel
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
I'm getting rid of a bunch of stuff that's sadly been collecting
dust over the last five years, as I will be moving to another state
later this year and would like to be as compact as humanly possible.
There are several lots of items up for sale now on eBay
<http://www.ebay.com>, all accessible by going to their "Search" page
<http://pages.ebay.com/search/items/search.html> and searching "By
Seller" for my username, "ubelengel."
One of the lots up for bids is the perfect gift for the beginning
Satanist in your life (We all had to start somewhere, right?): A lot of
Anton LaVey / Church of Satan books and magazines including "Thirteen
Eugenic and Environmental Departures Toward a New Satanic Ethnic" by
Blanche Barton, The Cloven Hoof magazine (issue #127), The Satanic
Bible, The Satanic Rituals, The Satanic Witch, The Devil's Notebook, The
Secret Life of a Satanist (authorized biography of Anton LaVey) by
Blanche Barton, The Church of Satan by Blanche Barton, Jayne Mansfield
and the American Fifties by Martha Saxton, High Society adult magazine
(August 1994) featuring "Dinner with the Devil" an exclusive interview
with Anton Szandor LaVey.
I also have three lots of Marilyn Manson memorabilia including T-shirts,
stickers, audio and video tapes, magazines, photos, newsletters, early /
unreleased fan club materials, and more rare stuff, as well as a lot of
Gothic / Industrial books and magazines up for bids as well.
I know someone out there will appreciate this stuff and give it a good
home. All auctions are starting at $1.00, as I'm not out to rip anyone
off.
Thanks for reading.
-Veronica Jayne Kirchoff
n article <8640ge$p45$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
ubel...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
> There are several lots of items up for sale now on eBay
> <http://www.ebay.com>, all accessible by going to their "Search" page
> <http://pages.ebay.com/search/items/search.html> and searching "By
> Seller" for my username, "ubelengel."
>
> One of the lots up for bids is the perfect gift for the beginning
> Satanist in your life (We all had to start somewhere, right?): A lot
of
> Anton LaVey / Church of Satan books and magazines including "Thirteen
> Eugenic and Environmental Departures Toward a New Satanic Ethnic" by
> Blanche Barton, The Cloven Hoof magazine (issue #127),
mi...@mim.org replies: Pathetic, there's a whole
magazine on the subject and none can discern
the improper definition of eugenics floated in this
newsgroup and worse still, no one comes forward
to say "this or that in COS literature is
wrong/right. Here's where MIM is right/wrong."
To be so much memorabilia
in an auction--I can hardly think
of a worse fate for Anton LaVey, wrong as he
was about eugenics.
mi...@mim.org
> I don't know to what you refer, but I'll defend eugenics as a
> Satanist to you (I gather you also support it and are goading).
>
> eugenics and euthanasia go hand in hand. good births (as few
> as possible, maximizing healthy diversity) are essential to
> a blossoming and viable biosphere. as our knowledge about
> what different cross-breedings will yield is enhanced, then
> individuals will be able, with home technology such as a
> personal computer, to do their own genetic analysis and
> discern the likely results of a mating with any particular
> individual.
mi...@mim.org replies: Hey, I saw that movie too, but
it was ONLY a movie. Try backing your ideas with
some scientific references! (And LaVey does not count!)
it is also likely that at some point genetics
> organizations will make material available to potential
> mothers so that they can select precisely what kind of child
> that they wish to carry to term, bear, and raise. this power
> should not be restricted from women who are willing to bear
> the financial brunt of such a family (or have it shared with
> their current legal partner(s)).
mi...@mim.org replies:
Can't Satanists come up with some new pick-up lines
instead of screwing up politics?
What do you not understand about this argument
that has been going on? Perhaps you are new to it,
but eugenics has been trashed for A LONG TIME.
"As the popular side of the eugenics movement picked
up steam after 1915, biologists began to withdraw
their support. There were several reasons,
which we can summarize briefly:
"1. increasing evidence that few genetic traits
were determined by single genes;
"2. evidence that even genetically identical
individuals showed variation, underscoring the
importance of gene-environment interactions;
"3. penetration of the idea of genetic equilibrium,
which began to convince scientists of the difficulty
of removing undesirable genes from a population;
"4. increased skepticism about the methodology
used by eugenic researchers."
Gar Allen, "Genetics as a Social Weapon,"
Science and Liberation, Ritat Arditti, Pat
Brennan and Steve Cavrak eds. (Boston:
South End Press, 1980), p. 51.
>
> the 'controversy' over eugenics is quickly evaporated once
> termination of unwanted conceptions becomes uncommon. it
> is an identical situation in the case of abortion, which
> will in all likelihood disappear in a century with the
> availability of substances capable of rendering the choice
> of conception totally under the control of both sex partners
> (or a multitude, provided additional peculiarities in
> genetic technological development).
mi...@mim.org replies: Here is where your argument falls
apart. The nature of procreation is what kills
eugenics' effectiveness. Even in
the most genetic-minded theory favorable to eugenics,
some of the most damaging conditions are on recessive
genes. In other words, your pc would ONLY be able to
spit out PROBABILITIES of genetic combination. That's
why you need to consult POPULATION GENETICISTS on this.
That's not to mention that some combinations
of genes might be BAD for one thing and GOOD
for another.
>
> selection of genetic progenation is a natural result of
> high technology, and Satanists should be allowed to gain
> control over their own genetic material (and accept or
> deny whatever paired material may be presented for a
> conception) just as readily as any other individual.
mi...@mim.org replies: I already contrasted eugenics
with genetic engineering in this thread. Genetic
engineering is available to all in theory. Eugenics
is aimed at procreation and necessarily involves
targetting subgroups and it implies state coercion over
tens of thousands of years before a situation could
arise where "unwanted conceptions" would not occur.
Eugenics is like trying to cultivate land for farming
with a stick.
Contrary to some Khruschevite pablum in this thread,
genetic engineering IS much more in line with Stalin's
conquering attitude toward science than eugenics is.
Like eugenics, genetic engineering has the problem
of being able to identify genes that cause this or that
and it may be much more complex than presented in movies.
Unlike eugenics, genetic engineering has a much more
potentially progressive future. Of course, our
critics don't actually READ or UNDERSTAND
what they read in population genetics.
[In the quote below population
geneticist Richard Lewontin used the
word "schizophrenia." I placed "X."]
"For if it were the case that there were X-producing
genes, then techniques that excised those abnormal genes
from the genome of affected individuals and replaced
them with their normal alleles would presumably
prevent the expression of the disorder. If
X were a single or even two- or three-gene
defect, such techniques are not wholly beyond the
reach of contemporary molecular genetics--what
is sometimes called genetic engineering. There are serious
research programs now under way in several laboratories
to make gene libraries from schizophrenics and isolate
and clone the 'schizophrenic genes' with a view
to studying their possible replacement. Granted the
reductionist premise, the therapeutic logic would
be impeccable."
R.C. Lewontin, Steven Rose & Leon J. Kamin,
Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature
(NY: Pantheon Books, 1984), p. 207.
>
> at some point there will be limitations on the number and
> type of children who may be born, and this will depend on
> the realistic carrying capacity of the biosphere and our
> impact upon it as our species grows in knowledge and rapacity.
mi...@mim.org replies: We do not believe there
are limits like that to scientific advance.
Planets can be constructed. COS-oriented Satanists
orient us toward old technological ideas that
are very weak and inefficient, because they
subordinate science to decadent politics--
the need to attract Nazi filth and issue
general pick-up lines.
>
> simultaneous to the enabling power of technology with regard
> to the control over birth, so also ought we be enabled to
> control the method and timing of our deaths (euthanasia).
>
> this enhanced personal control over our lives will benefit
> everyone and improve the quality of life for many species.
>
> boboroshi (SOD of CoE)
> --
> mailto:naga...@luckymojo.com; mailto:yron...@luckymojo.com
> TOKUS: mailto:bobo...@satanservice.org; http://www.satanservice.org/
> notification: I may post any email replies; cc me if some response
desired.
>
--
mi...@mim.org
it is also likely that at some point genetics
> organizations will make material available to potential
> mothers so that they can select precisely what kind of child
> that they wish to carry to term, bear, and raise. this power
> should not be restricted from women who are willing to bear
> the financial brunt of such a family (or have it shared with
> their current legal partner(s)).
>
> termination of unwanted conceptions becomes uncommon. it
> is an identical situation in the case of abortion, which
> will in all likelihood disappear in a century with the
> availability of substances capable of rendering the choice
> of conception totally under the control of both sex partners
> (or a multitude, provided additional peculiarities in
> genetic technological development).
mi...@mim.org replies:
"In practice, the prospects of compulsory selective
breeding are both unwelcome and unlikely. And any
voluntary program would have to be on a very large
scale to achieve any significant results. For example,
if every male above IQ 140 donated sperm to be used
with participating females selected randomly with
respect to IQ, and as many as 10 percent of all
females participated, the expected change in mean
IQ in the first generation, assuming H is .50 would be
1.1 points. In later generations, the mean gain
would decrease and eventually level off. If selection
were also carried out on females, the gains, at most
would double."
(N.J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, "Heritability and
Inequality," in Block & Dworkin eds., The IQ
Controversy, (NY: Pantheon Books, 1976), p. 491.
[H is the estimate of heritability of IQ.
Crypto-fascist war-mongers Richard J. Herrnstein
and Charles Murray put the figure at between .4 and
.8 in their book The Bell Curve.]
I don't know how anyone can read the above quote
or think about what is involved in mating and
reproduction and NOT see that eugenics is war.
HOW are IQ > 140 males going to have to achieve
this? What will IQ < 140 males say and DO?
How are even 10% of females going to be "persuaded"?
Will they all do compulsory service at age 18,
like joining the Marines for a college tuition?
Let's be clear that what we are talking about here
just to get this program rolling (and that will
have to last tens of thousands of years
and still be potentially for naught if any
"dysgenic" speed bumps arise) is war.
Rather than a eugenics program, it would be far more
environmentally helpful for the handful of elitist
war-mongers who want eugenics and would risk this
species on a eugenics program--
for them to die. "Dysgenic" or "eugenic" it won't
matter if the species has a nuclear war. The
fascist war-mongers have to be kept under control.
SVsite
IQ of 172.... become a singer or male stripper who can really dance and
really fuck worth the sizable thrust, for a few years. Get all the
girls you want! Trust me: it works.
TJ.
In article <86d2cs$a99$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
catherine yronwode
>
> sp...@luckymojo.com wrote
> > the 'controversy' over eugenics is quickly evaporated once
> > termination of unwanted conceptions becomes uncommon. it
> > is an identical situation in the case of abortion, which
> > will in all likelihood disappear in a century with the
> > availability of substances capable of rendering the choice
> > of conception totally under the control of both sex partners
> > (or a multitude, provided additional peculiarities in
> > genetic technological development).
>
> The nature of procreation is what kills
> eugenics' effectiveness. Even in
> the most genetic-minded theory favorable to eugenics,
> some of the most damaging conditions are on recessive
> genes. In other words, your pc would ONLY be able to
> spit out PROBABILITIES of genetic combination. That's
> why you need to consult POPULATION GENETICISTS on this.
No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your problem,
not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents who
have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm (yes,
even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of fearsom
proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
cat yronwode
JDT
mention below. As the technologies become available, not
only eugenics as you define but also genetic engineering will
be available for parents who desire not only a child free of
abnormailities but eventually preferred traits as well.
True, it is neither fascist nor satanic per se ... Essentially this is
just a future step along humankind's attempt to master nature
It's wisdom or lack there of notwithstanding
JDT
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:388CB2...@luckymojo.com...
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > sp...@luckymojo.com wrote
>
> > > the 'controversy' over eugenics is quickly evaporated once
> > > termination of unwanted conceptions becomes uncommon. it
> > > is an identical situation in the case of abortion, which
> > > will in all likelihood disappear in a century with the
> > > availability of substances capable of rendering the choice
> > > of conception totally under the control of both sex partners
> > > (or a multitude, provided additional peculiarities in
> > > genetic technological development).
> >
> > The nature of procreation is what kills
> > eugenics' effectiveness. Even in
> > the most genetic-minded theory favorable to eugenics,
> > some of the most damaging conditions are on recessive
> > genes. In other words, your pc would ONLY be able to
> > spit out PROBABILITIES of genetic combination. That's
> > why you need to consult POPULATION GENETICISTS on this.
>
JDT
prediction of what will happen
I use the term "Its wisdom or lack there of" very deliberately.
Frankly, I do not "support" eugenics of any sort.
I am however being morally scolded by one who supports the killing of
millions of Chinese and Tibetans
under the euphemism "Great Leap Forward"
You have no relevance to a discussion on satanism.
JDT
I certainly am against gassing Jews, expelling Latinos (from the US I assume
you mean)
I refer to blacks as human beings.
<mi...@mim.org> wrote in message news:86ivqr$egv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> mi...@mim.org replies: You have
> just been seconded by someone
> on this thread who has spoken on the Internet
> for gassing Jews, expelling Latinos and
> referring to Blacks as non-humyn
> primates.
>
>
> In article <86ifvg$n0g$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "JDT" <JD...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I think in the long run it will truly be a market choice as you
> > mention below. As the technologies become available, not
> > only eugenics as you define but also genetic engineering will
> > be available for parents who desire not only a child free of
> > abnormailities but eventually preferred traits as well.
> >
> > True, it is neither fascist nor satanic per se ... Essentially this is
> > just a future step along humankind's attempt to master nature
> >
> > It's wisdom or lack there of notwithstanding
> >
> > JDT
> > catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> > news:388CB2...@luckymojo.com...
> > > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > sp...@luckymojo.com wrote
> > >
> > > > > the 'controversy' over eugenics is quickly evaporated once
> > > > > termination of unwanted conceptions becomes uncommon. it
> > > > > is an identical situation in the case of abortion, which
> > > > > will in all likelihood disappear in a century with the
> > > > > availability of substances capable of rendering the choice
> > > > > of conception totally under the control of both sex partners
> > > > > (or a multitude, provided additional peculiarities in
> > > > > genetic technological development).
> > > >
> > > > The nature of procreation is what kills
> > > > eugenics' effectiveness. Even in
> > > > the most genetic-minded theory favorable to eugenics,
> > > > some of the most damaging conditions are on recessive
> > > > genes. In other words, your pc would ONLY be able to
> > > > spit out PROBABILITIES of genetic combination. That's
> > > > why you need to consult POPULATION GENETICISTS on this.
> > >
> > > No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your
> problem,
> > > not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
> > >
> > > Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents
> who
> > > have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
> > > pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm
> (yes,
> > > even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
> > > displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
> fearsom
> > > proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
> > > parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
> > >
> > > Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
> > >
> > > cat yronwode
> >
> >
>
SVsite
In article <388CB2...@luckymojo.com>,
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
> >
Thank you for your post. MIM posted this to alt.satanism and was
addressing the Church of Satan, a tiny organization comparatively
speaking, on their statements in favor of eugenics - proper meaning of
term. Having myself worked in epidemiology at UMDNJ, specifically
Preventive Medicine, I tried in vain to explain eugenics and euthenics
to these Maoists and it was a lost cause, even using street language.
They are REACTING to reactionary abuse of proper eugenics by Hitlerian
kooks who'd have ended up with dysgenics in the end anyway (pure bred
lines, etc).
The only thing it has to do with satanism is that Dr.LaVey advocated it
and now the COS is pro. That's it. For this they are accusing the COS
of being fascist. Whatever. Yawn.
Tani Jantsang.
> No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your
problem,
> not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
RIGHT, I told them this. 100 times. They refused to hear it 100
times. 101 times?
>
> Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents who
> have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
> pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm
(yes,
> even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
> displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
fearsom
> proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
> parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
>
As Jeff Gerber tried to explain regarding Tay-Sachs. 102nd time?
> Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
>
> cat yronwode
>
mi...@mim.org
> Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents who
> have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
> pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm
(yes,
> even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
> displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
fearsom
> proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
> parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
>
> Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
>
> cat yronwode
>
mi...@mim.org replies: It doesn't surprise
me that you think eugenics has nothing to do
with Satanism, because the premier Satanist
organization founded by Anton LaVey (COS) tends to
run from the full details of its program
whenever we show up. Nonetheless, you are
factually in error. Below we post a message
about this already posted on the same subject.
There are others that will come later.
From: fn...@atheist.tamu.edu (fnord)
Subject: Re: COS's eugenics unscientific
Date: 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7rpuai$mns$1...@atheist.tamu.edu>
References: <7rpj6f$eim$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <37E06C...@email.me>
Organization: atheist.tamu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Sep 1999 05:14:07 GMT
Reply-To: GOD <Bla...@tamu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
In article <37E06C...@email.me>, Ed Scalibur <do...@email.me> wrote:
>mi...@mim.org wrote:
>>
>> MIM Notes 194, Sept. 15, 1999
>>
>> Church of Satan platform on eugenics is not scientific
>>
>*snip irrelevant diatribe*
>>
>> Notes:
>> 1. http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/07/vermont.eugenics.ap/index.html
>> 2. http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html ; see "Pentagonal
Revisionism:
>> A Five Point Program," 1988, by Anton Szandor LaVey.
>
>Reread the page on Pentagonal revisionism:
>
>http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/PentRev.html
>
>Now kindly tell me where in the hell anything about eugenics appears.
>
>Twit.
>
>ed.
your comment is in error...the complete text which features Anton
LaVey's expansion of the first point appears in The Church of Satan by
Blanche Barton...on page 82 near the middle it says...
"We are of course, interested in the forbidden science of eugenics.
Satanists are born, not made. We're a minority religion which doesn't
believe in proselytizing or converting people -- so we must breed
(italicized in text) our new race of Satanists. We're interested in
preserving and improving our genetic integrity."
enjoy...
mi...@mim.org
> No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your
problem,
> not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
>
> Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents who
> have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
> pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm
(yes,
> even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
> displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
fearsom
> proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
> parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
>
> Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
>
> cat yronwode
>
mi...@mim.org replies: You, Gerber and
some others try to make eugenics into
something harmless. Hopefully you are new
to these discussions and would not intentionally
attempt to mislead other readers, for
eugenics is NOT a small matter for
the leading Satanists of Amerika. Although
few Satanists read their own material,
we do:
"...Those born in the '60's have had to reconcile
the *inevitability* of our determined self-destruction,
not through nuclear war, but through mindless,
uncontrolled overpopulation. They've had to somehow
resolve, in the face of recent history, that no amount
of yelling, protesting, placard waving, marching,
wailing -- or even more constructive attempts like
running for office or writing books with a message --
is going to do a damn bit of good."
Instead, LaVey advocates more productive forms of
protest: selective breeding, elitist stratification,
polygamous relationships based on genetic considerations,
and eventually establishing communities of like-minded
individuals. "We are, of course, interested in the
forbidden science of eugenics. Satanists are born, not
made. We're a minority religion which doesn't believe
in proselytizing or converting people -- so we must
*breed* our new race of Satanists. We're interested in
preserving and improving our genetic integrity."
See, http://www.satanservice.org/archive/theory/coscos2.txt
That is not a small matter; it's not
aborting a fetus with a genetic defect.
It is replacing rebellious politics
with eugenics. Read CAREFULLY!
And again, my apologies to those in the
euthanasia group are simply unaware of
the issue.
mi...@mim.org
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your
problem,
> not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
>
> Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents who
> have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
> pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm
(yes,
> even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
> displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
fearsom
> proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
> parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
>
> Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
>
> cat yronwode
>
Here is another message showing again
the link of eugenics to the top leader(s)
of COS. Peter Gilmore is in charge of the
official COS page. See his comments below.
From: mi...@mim.org
Subject: Re: COS's eugenics unscientific
Date: 18 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7rv5ck$e8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <7rpj6f$eim$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <37E06C...@email.me>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x21.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.6.193.33
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 18 04:45:09 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmim3
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
> Reread the page on Pentagonal revisionism:
>
> http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/PentRev.html
>
> Now kindly tell me where in the hell anything about eugenics appears.
>
> Twit.
>
> ed.
mi...@mim.org replies:
Try http://www.satanservice.org/archive/theory/coscos2.txt
Also see Gilmore's paraphrase of Pentagonal Revisionism
below and compare it with what MIM said.
"Satanists see the social structure of humanity as being
stratified, thus each person reaches a level commensurate
with the development (or lack thereof) of their natural
talents. The principle of the survival of the strong is
advocated on all levels of society, from allowing an
individual to stand or fall, to even letting those nations that
cannot handle themselves take the consequences of this
inability. Any assistance on all levels will be on a "quid pro
quo" basis. There would be a concommitant reduction in
the world's population as the weak are allowed to
experience the consequences of social Darwinism."
[snip]
"Satanists also seek to enhance the laws of nature by
concentrating on fostering the practice of eugenics. This is
not some exotic doctrine hatched in the brains of Third
Reich medical madmen. It is the practice of encouraging
people of talent and ability to reproduce, to enrich the gene
pool from which our species can grow. This was
commonly practiced throughout the world, as even a text
on eugenics endorsed by the Women's Christian
Temperence Union can prove, until it was given a bad
name by Nazi excesses. Until the genetic code is cracked
and we can choose the character of our offspring at will,
Satanists seek to mate the best with the best. Satanists who
know that they are defective refrain from reproducing."
"Satanism: The Feared Religion"
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
mi...@mim.org
just been seconded by someone
on this thread who has spoken on the Internet
for gassing Jews, expelling Latinos and
referring to Blacks as non-humyn
primates.
In article <86ifvg$n0g$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
"JDT" <JD...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I think in the long run it will truly be a market choice as you
> mention below. As the technologies become available, not
> only eugenics as you define but also genetic engineering will
> be available for parents who desire not only a child free of
> abnormailities but eventually preferred traits as well.
>
> True, it is neither fascist nor satanic per se ... Essentially this is
> just a future step along humankind's attempt to master nature
>
> It's wisdom or lack there of notwithstanding
>
> JDT
> catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> news:388CB2...@luckymojo.com...
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > >
> > > sp...@luckymojo.com wrote
> >
> > > > the 'controversy' over eugenics is quickly evaporated once
> > > > termination of unwanted conceptions becomes uncommon. it
> > > > is an identical situation in the case of abortion, which
> > > > will in all likelihood disappear in a century with the
> > > > availability of substances capable of rendering the choice
> > > > of conception totally under the control of both sex partners
> > > > (or a multitude, provided additional peculiarities in
> > > > genetic technological development).
> > >
> > > The nature of procreation is what kills
> > > eugenics' effectiveness. Even in
> > > the most genetic-minded theory favorable to eugenics,
> > > some of the most damaging conditions are on recessive
> > > genes. In other words, your pc would ONLY be able to
> > > spit out PROBABILITIES of genetic combination. That's
> > > why you need to consult POPULATION GENETICISTS on this.
> >
> > No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your
problem,
> > not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
> >
> > Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents
who
> > have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
> > pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm
(yes,
> > even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
> > displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
fearsom
> > proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
> > parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
> >
> > Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
> >
> > cat yronwode
>
>
--
IX Corp.
>Can't Satanists come up with some new pick-up lines
>instead of screwing up politics?
Do you see any Satanists "screwing up politics?"
I do not. I do not know any Satanist (other than a few de-factos) who
have bothered to make any kind of politics their career.
Maoists, on the other hand, are damned good at "screwing up politics."
c.f. Chairman Mao's "Great Leap Forward" for example.
So, dipshit; you gonna tell us what your relevance here is? Too
chickenshit to go preach your fairytales in the jails?
-Lupo
"We avenge intelligence when we deceive a fool."-Casanova <i...@io.com>
SVsite
Opening a web page takes time.
So what's wrong with this coming from a minority group: Satanists?
I would not tend to KNOW boring morons or associate with them. I would
not tend to KNOW people I've nothing in common with, or KNOW peoplw who
were leechy. Ergo I'd not tend to fuck and mate with them either. AND?
I'm also attracted to specific people, not ALL people.
You are against a Satanic Nation maybe? You aren't against other
certain people having nations. You aren't against, eg, Amerindians
(First Nations) having their own nations and their religion; so why do
you hate COS for this since they are also a minority group with a
minority religion? You can't explain that - or you will but it will be
a lotta double talk.
You hate all white people DESPITE the fact that the example I gave of
the Germans being IDENTICAL to that of Amerindians was VALID - I just
took the Germans back in time to when they were tribes on their own
indegenous lands. You resent that SOME FOLKS took over where OTHER
FOLKS used to be the rulers. Those present day 3rd world shit holes
USED TO BE the overlords of the world not all that long ago. I wrote
about what fucked them up - you didn't want to hear it even though you
are also against patriarchy (which is what fucked them up). You talk
out of two sides of your mouth. At least when I talk out of 100 sides
of my mouth in an effort to give you a run for your money, I am aware
of it. And what do you do? YOU RUN, MIM. YOU RUN. And you even
started to do worse than that: slander and post selected portions of
things I said. LIAR. That's what the global capitalist pigs do with
information on the USSR. SAME TACTIC.
TJ
In article <86iujc$dke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> In article <388CB2...@luckymojo.com>,
> catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> > No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your
> problem,
> > not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
> >
> > Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents
who
> > have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
> > pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm
> (yes,
> > even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
> > displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
> fearsom
> > proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
> > parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
> >
> > Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
> >
> > cat yronwode
> >
>
> --
> ## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
> # # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
> # # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
> # # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
IX Corp.
>In article <388CB2...@luckymojo.com>,
> catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>> mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
>> No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your
>problem,
>> not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
>>
>> Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as parents who
>> have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in the
>> pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and sperm
>(yes,
>> even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting fetuses
>> displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
>fearsom
>> proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of prospective.
>> parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
>>
>> Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
>>
>> cat yronwode
>>
>
So, dipshit; what is your problem with the above statements?
I can think of plenty of religious groups which promote exactly the same
thing. The the oldest and most obvious being Judaism. Or Mormonsim. Or
Zoarastrianism. Or Leninism. Or even Branch Davidianism. Or people who
want sperm donations from Ph.D.'s in physics. Of course, none are so
honest as to call it what it is.
What is your obsession with this topic?
Afraid nobody will fuck you, should you overcome your political
puritanism?
-Lupo
"He has made a tabernacle of demons, who labors in this world for riches
and fame, and after he has got them gives himself to lechery, so that
lechry may waste all that covetousness has gathered together" -St. Gregory
<i...@eris.io.com>
Brian
>Rather than a eugenics program, it would be far more
>environmentally helpful for the handful of elitist
>war-mongers who want eugenics and would risk this
>species on a eugenics program--
>for them to die. "Dysgenic" or "eugenic" it won't
>matter if the species has a nuclear war. The
>fascist war-mongers have to be kept under control.
>
>## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
># # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
># # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
># # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
How about killing the do-nothing lumpuns like yourself that have nothing
new or creative to add to the march of life. Spouting the drivel of a dead
chinese commie does not a revolutionary make.
Brian, king of man
JDT
ok understood
I wish u had said that to begin with
I was simply responding to Ms Yronwide's ideas, am not CoS etc
JDT
<mi...@mim.org> wrote in message news:86lj4u$bcl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...> # #
mi...@mim.org
I don't know if we are relevant to Satanism.
My guess would be that we are because
we are militant materialists, much more
militant than the average persyn calling
h/herself "Marxist."
The first Satanist we met was a prisoner
and he seemed to think we were relevant,
as he did a lot of work with us. However,
we rebut eugenics ideas wherever they pop up,
whether we have relevance to Satanism or not.
Fortunately we have now gotten the actual
stand of COS in the open in this thread
and we have some
COS people here defending it in its full
stupidity. Some of the more meek have
tried to say it is only a matter of some
selective abortions. For them it is necessary
to rub their noses in the words of their
own leaders. If Anton Lavey, Blanche
Barton or Peter Gilmore wanted to say
eugenics is only some abortions, I'm sure
they could have said that. They were/are
capable writers to at least that degree.
Instead such words as "concentrate on"
and "Satanic race" and so on were used.
That is why we insist on careful reading
and we call on COS people with any
discernment at all to call their own
leaders mistaken on this question. If they
want to advocate selective abortions,
they should go ahead, but they should
correct the rest of what has been said:
it is much more.
In article <86jgir$vej$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
"JDT" <JD...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I haven't been seconded by anyone. Also, if read what I wrote this is
a
> prediction of what will happen
> I use the term "Its wisdom or lack there of" very deliberately.
>
> Frankly, I do not "support" eugenics of any sort.
>
> I am however being morally scolded by one who supports the killing of
> millions of Chinese and Tibetans
> under the euphemism "Great Leap Forward"
>
> You have no relevance to a discussion on satanism.
>
> JDT
>
> I certainly am against gassing Jews, expelling Latinos (from the US I
assume
> you mean)
> I refer to blacks as human beings.
>
> <mi...@mim.org> wrote in message news:86ivqr$egv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > mi...@mim.org replies: You have
> > just been seconded by someone
> > on this thread who has spoken on the Internet
> > for gassing Jews, expelling Latinos and
> > referring to Blacks as non-humyn
> > primates.
> >
> >
> > In article <86ifvg$n0g$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "JDT" <JD...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > I think in the long run it will truly be a market choice as you
> > > mention below. As the technologies become available, not
> > > only eugenics as you define but also genetic engineering will
> > > be available for parents who desire not only a child free of
> > > abnormailities but eventually preferred traits as well.
> > >
> > > True, it is neither fascist nor satanic per se ... Essentially
this is
> > > just a future step along humankind's attempt to master nature
> > >
> > > It's wisdom or lack there of notwithstanding
> > >
> > > JDT
> > > catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:388CB2...@luckymojo.com...
> > > > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > sp...@luckymojo.com wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > the 'controversy' over eugenics is quickly evaporated once
> > > > > > termination of unwanted conceptions becomes uncommon. it
> > > > > > is an identical situation in the case of abortion, which
> > > > > > will in all likelihood disappear in a century with the
> > > > > > availability of substances capable of rendering the choice
> > > > > > of conception totally under the control of both sex partners
> > > > > > (or a multitude, provided additional peculiarities in
> > > > > > genetic technological development).
> > > > >
> > > > > The nature of procreation is what kills
> > > > > eugenics' effectiveness. Even in
> > > > > the most genetic-minded theory favorable to eugenics,
> > > > > some of the most damaging conditions are on recessive
> > > > > genes. In other words, your pc would ONLY be able to
> > > > > spit out PROBABILITIES of genetic combination. That's
> > > > > why you need to consult POPULATION GENETICISTS on this.
> > > >
> > > > No, the misuse and appropriation of the term "eugenics" is your
> > problem,
> > > > not of eugenics (a good birth) by definition.
> > > >
> > > > Selective breeding is by no means inherently coercive, as
parents
> > who
> > > > have dealt with matters of heritable diseases and deformities in
the
> > > > pre-birth stage can tell you. Selecting non-carrier eggs and
sperm
> > (yes,
> > > > even if the gene is recessive it can be marked) and aborting
fetuses
> > > > displaying genetic flaws is NOT a discredited fascist program of
> > fearsom
> > > > proportion -- it is a medical service that millions of
prospective.
> > > > parents pay for -- and GLADLY.
> > > >
> > > > Also, i believe it has lttle to do with satanism per se.
> > > >
> > > > cat yronwode
> > >
> > >
> >