Re: [Lawmen 4733] Eugenics is NOT A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Bob Hurt
May 19, 2012, 7:50:06 PM5/19/12
to Jerry O'Neil, Charles Lincoln, Ronald Gillis, Lawsters, Lawmen, JOHN WOLFGRAM, Brad Henschel, Peyton Yates Freiman
Abraham and his close kin practiced endogamy, as have Ashkenazi
Jews, traditionally, which accounts for their stellar intelligence.
So have the semitic tribes of the Middle East, without much
intelligence luck. Apparently Abraham and his immediate descendants
did it in a more methodical, disciplined way according to rules that
perpetuated a high IQ. Endogamy can, but often doesn't, preserve
desirable traits like high intelligence, but it makes
nation-building virtually impossible and rather deprives the tribe
of the benefits of biodiversity.
The 13th Amendment removed incompetent slaves from their caregivers and threw them on the mercy of carpetbaggers and other opportunists. I consider that inhumane. So I would make it apply only to people with the cognitive ability to graduate from high school.
Most of the rest subsist on crime or welfare (including jail/prison), so they have already become wards of the state, and YOU pay for it. The 13th Amendment set the path to your own slavery, and Congress paved it with related and welfare laws.
As to item 2 below, smart women already seek smart, productive men for mates. Stupid women go for something else in the men they select for mates. That doesn't do much for average IQ. The stupid don't have a marker on them indicating their stupidity. You can ensure smart women choose smart men ONLY if you get those women away from stupid men, or sterilize the stupid men. Otherwise, when a stupid woman choses a smart man for a mate, the union typically results in offspring less intelligent than the median between the two parents. In other words, it dumbs down the gene pool.
The welfare system needs revamping, but remember that we have that system in order to keep the stupid (poor) from having to steal or beg or sell themselves into slavery (prostitute themselves) in order to get by (HAVEN'T YOU EVER VISITED A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY?). I have suggested the perfect system of revamping it without slaughtering or imprisoning the stupid.
As to 3, you have begun to see it my way. SOF (the law of survival of the fittest) takes out the mostly unfit with wars and famine, but it lets the least fit survive through hiding or slavery, and that provides a serious problem to civilization because of miscegenation of the masters with the slaves, or the more fit with the least fit: it dumbs down the gene pool, so to speak. It results in fewer most fit people and lowers the average fitness of the society. That diminishes the ability of that society to compete for survival in wars and other competitions with other societies. So it is a dangerous move indeed for the most fit to tolerate the existence of the least fit without some program of sterilization or population control of the least fit.
Regarding polygamy in your point 3, it could serve many purposes, but does not constitute the ideal relationship for rearing children. If you want me to explain why, let me know. So society should discourage it except in emergencies (fertile you stranded on a desert isle with a horde of fecund females as the last humans on the planet. Poor you. Your paradise wouldn't last long. In 15 years or so, the young males would begin to threaten your hegemony. Then what?
On 05/19/2012 03:18 PM, Jerry O'Neil wrote:
The 13th Amendment removed incompetent slaves from their caregivers and threw them on the mercy of carpetbaggers and other opportunists. I consider that inhumane. So I would make it apply only to people with the cognitive ability to graduate from high school.
Most of the rest subsist on crime or welfare (including jail/prison), so they have already become wards of the state, and YOU pay for it. The 13th Amendment set the path to your own slavery, and Congress paved it with related and welfare laws.
As to item 2 below, smart women already seek smart, productive men for mates. Stupid women go for something else in the men they select for mates. That doesn't do much for average IQ. The stupid don't have a marker on them indicating their stupidity. You can ensure smart women choose smart men ONLY if you get those women away from stupid men, or sterilize the stupid men. Otherwise, when a stupid woman choses a smart man for a mate, the union typically results in offspring less intelligent than the median between the two parents. In other words, it dumbs down the gene pool.
The welfare system needs revamping, but remember that we have that system in order to keep the stupid (poor) from having to steal or beg or sell themselves into slavery (prostitute themselves) in order to get by (HAVEN'T YOU EVER VISITED A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY?). I have suggested the perfect system of revamping it without slaughtering or imprisoning the stupid.
As to 3, you have begun to see it my way. SOF (the law of survival of the fittest) takes out the mostly unfit with wars and famine, but it lets the least fit survive through hiding or slavery, and that provides a serious problem to civilization because of miscegenation of the masters with the slaves, or the more fit with the least fit: it dumbs down the gene pool, so to speak. It results in fewer most fit people and lowers the average fitness of the society. That diminishes the ability of that society to compete for survival in wars and other competitions with other societies. So it is a dangerous move indeed for the most fit to tolerate the existence of the least fit without some program of sterilization or population control of the least fit.
Regarding polygamy in your point 3, it could serve many purposes, but does not constitute the ideal relationship for rearing children. If you want me to explain why, let me know. So society should discourage it except in emergencies (fertile you stranded on a desert isle with a horde of fecund females as the last humans on the planet. Poor you. Your paradise wouldn't last long. In 15 years or so, the young males would begin to threaten your hegemony. Then what?
On 05/19/2012 03:18 PM, Jerry O'Neil wrote:
Bob, Charles and others,
1) Bob states, "Americans with good sense should demand a change to the 13th Amendment to impose a system of involuntary servitude on able-bodied people who, by their nature, cannot or will not care for themselves without hurting or burdening others." There is no reason to change the 13th Amendment to take away the welfare system whereby able-bodied people burden others; and the 13th Amendment, as written, allows for involuntary servitude for those who, by their nature, hurt others.
2) If you take away or revamp the welfare system then women are more likely to seek productive men for mates. This would increase society's general IQ.
3) Historically there have been 3 actions that increased the intelligence of civilization; famine, wars and polygamy. If you think the ruling class is exceptional, they you might approve of the kings of yore having harems. I expect this might be the norm in some of the Muslim countries today.
Jerry O'Neil
On 5/18/2012 10:28 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:I guess I feel compelled to argue with Bob because he is a friend and, honestly, has helped me a lot through many a bad time/bad spot, and introduced me to at least one of my best friends, clients and colleagues ever (Dr. Kathy Lawson of Palm Beach). If it were anyone else, I certainly wouldn't bother to argue, but as you know I've done Seminars in Clearwater with Bob and... he's the editor and publisher of two major newsgroups, so I think we have to engage in dialogue. I certainly agree with everything you added: bureaucrats can't make competent judgments about approving beneficial cancer drugs in the face of "big pharma" lobbies. We can be sure that Medical Marijuana will only be legal nationwide (decriminalized under the US Code) when Monsanto, DuPont, and the heirs of Archer-Daniels-Midland want it to be legal as a matter of Federal Law, in other words, when they've learned how to monopolize it and maximize their benefits while "squeezing the little guy out." Bankruptcy Law, ostensibly for the benefit of the "honest but unlucky debtor", has been turned into a playground for the most corrupt corporate interests. If THESE areas of law are dominated by corruption---how much more corrupt would be the life-and-death choice in a government of Eugenicists be? The Hatfields and McCoys might be equally good or bad, but you can be sure that if the Hatfields make it to the Eugenics Control Board first, all the McCoys are going to be sterilized and enslaved as inferiors. It's human nature. Slavery is very much in the nature of Biblical original sin, like I said, and the goal has to be to minimize the effects, to save us as much as possible from all the worst effects of original sin, not to make them as severe as humanly possible: for humans to be bred and granted freedom or enslaved as a matter of Eugenics would pretty much be the end of all humanity in the human race, I think. In one of Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge's studies of the African origin of Egyptian Civilization, he comments on how in sub-Saharan African, slaves were kept in herds like Cattle to be eaten, and one of the mythical innovations of Osiris as God of the Pharaohs in Egypt was to abolish cannibalism and to protect the slaves. (The Biblical Hebrews may not have felt very good about their slavery in the brickyards of Egypt, but at least fear of being eaten was not among their worries). Anything which so dehumanizes other people that we would feel free to control their reproduction and selectively breed them would be risking much too much, I think, for any of us even to consider it. Now, a lot can be said about substantive due process and one's power over one's own body, but I firmly believe that the 13th Amendment draws a VERY important and valuable line in the sand. If anything, the prohibitions against slavery should be expanded, not diminished. The "Badges and Incidents" of Slavery are all too often discernible in the way the Income Tax, and even Mortgage Foreclosures, are enforced.... along with the treatment of parents in Family Court, the treatment of their children in schools where "compulsory education" also means indoctrination in certain fields that either may be the purest rubbish (like force-teaching "scientific" creationism which debunks the fossil record and principles of uniformitarian geology), or that may offend genuine traditional religious sensibilities (like force-teaching evolution). Freedom everywhere is the solution. "One thing I can tell you is you've got to be free."
Von: Ronald Gillis <ro...@yourswflnotary.com>
An: "lawmen...@googlegroups.com" <lawmen...@googlegroups.com>; Lawsters <laws...@googlegroups.com>; Lawmen <law...@googlegroups.com>; Charles Lincoln <charles...@rocketmail.com>
CC: Bob Hurt <b...@bobhurt.com>; JOHN WOLFGRAM <johnwo...@hotmail.com>; Brad Henschel <crusa...@yahoo.com>; Peyton Yates Freiman <freima...@gmail.com>; Senator Jerry O'Neil <on...@centurytel.net>
Gesendet: 20:12 Freitag, 18.Mai 2012
Betreff: Re: [Lawmen 4733] Eugenics is NOT A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment
Guess I could say well put Mr Lincoln. Further, if I (or whomever would be making the determination of intelligence/unintelligent) determine you or members of your family should be put into slavery because I feel you are unintelligent, even though you feel differently, too bad decision made. That would be asinine to say the least. We already have too many in government making bad decisions, for whatever reason, and to allow those same types of people to make decisions about you (or me) being put into slavery because you (or I) am stupid is certainly scary beyond comprehension. Focus on legitimate law discussions please, not garbage like this.
R
--- On Fri, 5/18/12, Charles Lincoln <charles...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
From: Charles Lincoln <charles...@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lawmen 4733] Eugenics is NOT A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment
To: "lawmen...@googlegroups.com" <lawmen...@googlegroups.com>, "Lawsters" <laws...@googlegroups.com>, "Lawmen" <law...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "Bob Hurt" <b...@bobhurt.com>, "JOHN WOLFGRAM" <johnwo...@hotmail.com>, "Brad Henschel" <crusa...@yahoo.com>, "Peyton Yates Freiman" <freima...@gmail.com>, "Senator Jerry O'Neil" <on...@centurytel.net>
Date: Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:49 PM
My Dear Bob Hurt:Your recidivism in your support of Eugenics is just appalling. You know I feel that way. Why do you keep coming back to this topic?Eugenics is the most outrageous of all infringements on the fundamental rights of humanity, whether we believe that those rights originate from the State of Nature or God's Endowment. The Ancient Latin Legal classification of slavery was a contractual arrangement both socially approved and lawful but contra natura.It is particularly appalling that you frame it (with a great deal of intellectual honesty and analytical integrity---for which at least you deserve due credit) in terms of a repeal of the 13th Amendment, and that you start off with a comparison to seat belts. You may recall---my war against Seatbelt laws and the police abuse such laws invite is at the root of everything that made me into a FORMERLY licensed lawyer, as well as a FORMER Republican (President of Tulane College Republicans 1976-78).I believe in freedom and liberty and I wouldn't trust ANY HUMAN BEING to determine my fitness or yours to live and breathe. I think I am basically as conservative as anyone could possibly be, but I do not consider Naziism genuinely conservative, even though I can admire and sympathize with some of the traditionalist, historical identity and heritage aspects of the Fascist movements in 20th Century Europe and Latin America.To me, the ideology of the Founders in 1770-1792 (Boston Massacre of 1770 through Washington's First Term as President under the Constitution of 1787 and the adoption of the Bill of Rights) and of John Randolph of Roanoke, Andrew Jackson, Roger Taney, John Caldwell Calhoun, John C. Breckenridge, Jefferson Davis, Judah P. Benjamin, and the all Founders of the Confederate States of America represent real, genuine, honest and truly American "Classical Liberal" conservatism. AND NONE of them would ever have tolerated Eugenics---because it is an interference with the fundamental rights of individuals and families.And that brings up an interesting point---you are advocating REPEAL or REVISION of the 13th Amendment in order to implement Eugenics?Now, I just said I deeply admire and support the memory of the founders of the Confederate States of America, and the Southern Partisans who preceded them, but Slavery and Freedom are, by definition, incompatible lifestyles. The 13th Amendment was adopted without the popular support of the 40% of the Nation who had no real vote in 1865, and yet today it is one of the least controversial provisions of the Constitution, and I think it needs to stay that way, and be enforced for every person.I agree that the citizenship questions created by emancipation and left unresolved as of today are a threat to a homogeneous society in which freedom can flourish, but I totally disagree that slavery on any pretext, including the criminal laws of the United States, or Eugenics through anything as totally malleable and manipulable as IQ scores, could or should be allowed to exist. In my opinion, segregation of the races might be a better path to restoration of true freedom and dignity for all, as well as a more natural path to foster divergent evolutionary paths which could, in the long run, compete my old Harvard neighbor and Museum of Comparative Zoology Professor E.O. Wilson has recently described the sociobiological origins of racial separation and competition (http://www.vdare.com/articles/e-o-wilson-nationalist, review of "The Social Conquest of the Earth.")Black Slavery was, in so many ways, America's "original sin"---every student of the Bible knows that "original sin" is that in which we all share, as human beings, from which none of us can ever completely escape except through Salvation. Original Sin is "sin" because it embodies and reflects everything that we need, everything that we want, naturally, and yet it is wrong. People WANT to live free of care, fear, labor and all kinds of responsibility, which they would like to dump on someone else's broader shoulders. The Africans were naturally strong and by selective breeding in slavery they were made stronger. Was this a good or desirable result for the White People? For the White Race as a whole? As an evolutionary experiment? No, it was not. It was in fact a disaster---a continuing disaster.But Bob---what you are suggesting is that we use IQ tests, one of the results of the "Original Sin" of Slavery having been to artificially import and then depress the intelligence of the Africans and other groups by educational intent, and then solidify that back into history by restoring IQ as a substitute for skin color in the restoration of slavery.This is, I think, wrong in every possible way. I do not believe that miscegenation is the road to happiness or a cure for the original sin of slavery, because I think that race-mixing destroys the natural diversity of the species---which I think is a GOOD and POSITIVE thing---even if it results in some people SEEMING dumber, less intelligent, or attractive to us than others. We need to MAINTAIN the diversity of the world AND the freedom of each individual by securing individual and family autonomy, not slavery.In the Ancient World (Rome & Greece), Slavery was almost always a temporary thing, by contract (arising from debt), and there were no permanent slave classes. Slaves were often extraordinarily talented artists, cooks, musicians, actors/dancers, or even poets, and Slaves often tutored their masters' children. Even when Rome brought in captive armies or whole communities as slaves, these communities did not stay enslaved forever, from generation to generation. (I think of the comment about the Angles [Ancestors of the English] whose appearance was so beautiful on the Streets of Rome that Pope Gregory the I said, "non Angli see Angeli" and promptly dispatched as missionary the future Saint Augustine of Canterbury to preach to the Kentish Angles as well as the South and Eastern Saxons of Sussex and Essex---the point being that there was no pretense that the Angles would be a hereditary class of slaves forever).But worst of all, I think your criteria for selecting a "slave" vs. a "free" class are more subject, and hence more unfair than even the Nazis could devise. It is normally fairly clear, after all, who is Black or White, who is Jewish or Christian by birth or heritage.But in what I can only call an adoration of pseudo-science, you equate IQ and wealth with class and entitlement. This, too, is appalling. All IQ tests have been shown to be matters of learned behavior---"nurture not nature", and so education would be the solution for that, except that compulsory education is itself a form of governmental interference with the absolute freedom into which all living beings and creatures are born.I believe that people have to be free to make choices, good and bad, just like genetic mutations, some of which are beneficial, some of which are not, but most of which are simply neutral.NO GROUP OF HUMANS has the God-like capacity or the God-like right to try to guide evolution or the "re-creation" of the human species.I don't know whether you ever saw the movie Serenity directed and produced by Joss Whedon (whose latest creation is the new Avengers), but Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the "Good Ship Serenity" (a "Firefly" Class Spaceship) engages in the following key monologue, after the discovery of what had really happened to the people of Miranda---who were poisoned by Government experiments in "behavioral improvement" based on similar pseudo-science:This report is maybe twelve years old. Parliament buried it, and it stayed buried til River dug it up. This is what they feared she knew. And they were right to fear, 'cause there's a universe of folk that are gonna know it too. (touches the cylinder) They're gonna see it. Somebody has to speak for these people. (everybody waits) (CONTINUING) You all got on this boat for different reasons, but you all V0 come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. 'Cause as sure as I know anything I know this: They will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground, swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that.
Charles Edward Lincoln, III"Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht."
Deo Vindice/Tierra LimpiaTelephone: 512-968-2500
In case of emergency call Peyton Yates Freiman (Texas)
at 512-968-2666 or e-mail freima...@gmail.com
Matthew 10:34-39Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . .
Von: Bob Hurt <b...@bobhurt.com>
An: Lawsters <laws...@googlegroups.com>; Lawmen <law...@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: 13:21 Freitag, 18.Mai 2012
Betreff: [Lawmen: 4733] A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment
--I welcome discussion of the questions and issues raised below, but please keep hateful or insulting rejoinders to yourself.
A Reason to Revise the 13th AmendmentCopyright © by Bob Hurt 18 May 2012. All rights reserved
Pesky Questions About Bozos
Does a society have the right to enact laws that effectively prevent members of the society from
Law and Likelihood of Harming Others
Consider the legislative enactments regulating business practices, highway traffic, and human relations. Take for example seatbelt laws. Government requires people to buckle themselves in because:
Qualities and Uses of Intelligence in Civilization
According to Wikipedia's IQ article, IQ has high heritability, intgelligence highly correlates to SAT scores, and people with IQ of 70 to 90 will likely engage in criminal behavior. Lynn and Vanhanen's books on IQ show the high correlation of national average IQ to gross national product. Therefore, means exist for society to determine the intelligence (g factor) and IQ of its members, and their corresponding value to society in terms of productivity, academic achievement, likely crimnality, burden on society, and the likelihood of low-intelligence parents procreating low-intelligence children.One must have an IQ of at least 85 to graduate from high school. US IQ distributions from actual tests reveal that at least 75 million of its people have IQ below 85 and even more cannot graduate from high school because of behavior and health problems associated with low intelligence.In the past 150 years the US has moved away from circumstances requiring massive numbers of low-intelligence people in its military and work forces. The military leaders of today desperately want recruits to have high school diplomas, and many manual labor jobs have moved to 3rd world countries as mechanization has modernized farms and factories. America needs people who can think, arrive at correct evaluations, and make correct decisions.Hypocrisy of Ignoring the Gene Pool
Wouldn’t it make sense to reduce the need for protective laws, prisons, and welfare infrastructures legislating to elevate the quality of the gene pool?I see the refusal to take such action as rank hypocrisy:
Intelligence Strata (Classes) in America
The existence of 75 million relatively unintelligent people in America and the lack of available jobs for such people poses a serious problem that has resulted in America's prisons bursting at the seams.America has entered an age where it handles unintelligent people as follows:
The 13th Amendment and Reverse Slavery
This makes it apparent that the 13th Amendment did not actually abolish involuntary servitude. In reality, it appears that Americans, through their misguided sense of fairness, justice, and altruism, have destroyed the effectiveness of community charity programs for the feckless, handing those to government, and converted the middle class into slaves of the low class AND the high class.The upshot of this weird dilemma: Americans have upset the Law of the Survival of the Fittest with a system of legislated slavery of the middle class to the high class through usurious debt and to the low class through taxation. Victims of this system can only imagine that the high class engineered it intentionally. It does seem pretty slick when one ponders it. And that explanation clarifies the reason Government refuses to patrol the borders or impose some kind of check on the presently unrestrained procreation of children by unintelligent parents.This dilemma and its causes constitute a wholly immoral, unethical perversion of civilization's ideals. A society ought to engineer civilization for evolution toward some age of light and life, so to speak, where no crime, poverty, or war exists, and people can prosecute their ambitions without unduly burdening their fellows. That can never happen in an increasingly mechanized society in which 25% of the people haven't the cognitive ability to graduate from high school, and will certainly resort largely to crime or welfare abuse to get by.People of low intelligence make sense in a free society so long as others don't become systematic slaves to them. The unintelligent must have a means of becoming gainfully, self-sufficiently, and happily employed, or the wards of those willing to care for and obtain economic benefits from them. The unintelligent simply cannot become and remain wards of the state without an economic justification. Liberty, after all, comes at the expense of commensurate responsibility.Reverse Slavery Justifies 13th Amendment Revision
The foregoing discussion sheds new light on the 13th Amendment. That Amendment should stand, but ONLY for people with sufficient IQ and ambition to operate self-sufficiently. So, Congress ought to modify it a bit to that end.Though many might feel loathe to admit it, involuntary servitude gave many benefits to many people, in spite of members of master and slave classes abusing one another.Potential Benefits of 13th Amendment Revision
It provided sustenance, employment, and regulation for the servants and labor and other economic and personal benefits for the masters. Both sides benefited and to a large extent enjoyed the arrangement. And most of the servants, though slaves, escaped far worse conditions in their homelands.But, involuntary servitude had serious deficiencies:
# # #
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawmen" group.
To post to this group, send email to law...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawmen+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen?hl=en.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages