Richard Dawkins and the NWO

[Outer Haven]

Richard Dawkins is a world renowned evolutionist/biologist. He is also a kind of an atheist guru. He's always bashing all religion. Do you think he might be connected to eugenics/NWO?

I remember that in one of his documentaries, about "people that do not use reason" or something, he accused "conspiracy theorists" for not using rational thinking or whatever, and he even said that questioning the official story of 9/11 is immoral... 

Discuss.

[N.E.P.]

Bill Mahr has a severe "man crush" on Dawkins. Yeah, I think Dawkins is hardcore NWO.

[Dok]

you cant really believe in evolution with out believing in Eugenics.

Survival of the fittest and all. Only the best races can survive.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Just which ones are the Favoured Races's?

[zeke105]

I remember that in one of his documentaries, about "people that do not use reason" or something, he accused "conspiracy theorists" for not using rational thinking or whatever, and he even said that questioning the official story of 9/11 is immoral... 

Do you remember where this is from? I would be curious to see what Dawkins says about 9/11.

A lot of conspiracy theorists are not rational. This is one of the biggest problems with the movement.

[Outer Haven]

Do you remember where this is from? I would be curious to see what Dawkins says about 9/11.

A lot of conspiracy theorists are not rational. This is one of the biggest problems with the movement.

I just found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVb08NR0yVw

It's at the end.

[squarepusher]

Just in this other thread, I have a fight with this obsessively brainwashed Chomsky cult follower called Roman Bridger. And he's also an adoring Richard Dawkins groupie - not surprising given the fact he 'worships' the 'sciences', and in specific 'Darwinian evolution' - and 'Darwinian evolution' is exactly that which Dawkins tries to defend even when faced with evidence by non-creationist, credible scientists that Darwinian evolution is about as credible to evolution as Freud is to psychology.

But, anyway, to the point:

Richard Dawkins APPARENTLY would like us to RECONSIDER eugenics.

No, I am not kidding.

Here, I'll just copy a previous post I made. And just ignore the pejoratives and insults on my part, because I was in a nasty mood after that exchange with the Chomskyite.

[squarepusher]

I just found out that the cvnt you worship, Mr Richard Dawkins, is a supporter of eugenics.

You liberal socialist Gaia-worshipping scumbags never cease to amaze me.... hiding behind the veneer of 'wanting to help everyone with science', and then wanting to resurrect  your age-old eugenics supermen bullshit.

Richard Dawkins wants us to reconsider an old taboo - eugenics - because hey, what's wrong with supermen?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155

Everywhere I look with these atheist Darwin-worshipping freaks - I always find out they want 'eugenics' back. They want their 'ultimate religion'/'science' restored to its former stature.

[zeke105]

I just found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVb08NR0yVw

It's at the end.

Thanks.

[Roman Bridger]

Regarding the link you provided on Dawkins.  You seem to take something from the article that isn't actually there.  It's quite simple to understand.  What is he saying that you don't agree with?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155

[Roman Bridger]

This may help in understanding it:

http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=2037

[squarepusher]

This may help in understanding it:

http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=2037

He's trying to 'acclimatize' you to the idea idiot. He's reasserting eugenics as a 'creed', a moral 'conviction', a 'political movement' if you may, as Julian Huxley himself stated was UNESCO's sole mission - to re-legitimize 'eugenics'.

You don't really know much beyond the tripe you learned at university, do you kid? You can't get past your little idols and you can't read between the lines and actually GET what they're really saying. You're just star struck with your little atheist/Tavistockian pied pipers.

Man it must suck being you.

[Unintelligable Name]

Dawkins's position is weak, and he knows it. He propels the NWO forward by his activities, whether intentionally or not.

[Roman Bridger]

What is he saying that you don't agree with?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155

[squarepusher]

What is he saying that you don't agree with?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155

I'm getting real tired of your shit, OK buddy?

At least don't play dumb, buddy, OK? I'm onto your game - I know you're just in this for the shits and giggles. You're some kind of piece of crap COINTELPRO operative - or failing that, a totally brainwashed college grad high on Chomsky who doesn't even 'get' the crap he has chosen to infatuate himself with.

If you can't 'get' the fact you're being acclimatized to eugenics by this sick excuse for a human being, then it validates all of the pejoratives I've attributed to you. That, besides your college indoctrination, you're not really all that smart and you wouldn't survive one day in the 'real world' when left to your own devices.

You have no imagination of your own - you have no thought processes of your own - you have no BRAIN of your own, even. You can't even READ an article like this and get the gist of what someone is saying - what his MOTIVES are - what the underlying reason is why he's writing it. You NEED TO MAIL THE AUTHOR FOR AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID - YOU CAN'T EVEN READ.

That's why America is in the trouble it's in - because braindamaged, neurologically damaged cretins like yourself think you're 'smart' - yet you can't even DECIPHER what an article says or what it means. That's the ultimate of dumbed down-ness.

[powderfinger]

What is he saying that you don't agree with?

Pretty much everything...

[Roman Bridger]

I'm getting real tired of your shit, OK buddy?

It's not a requirement on these forums that you in particular keep responding to my posts, nor do I want you to continue responding, as you seem to be...well...unstable, and I don't wish to upset you further.  Perhaps someone who won't act like a rabid dog in order to justify what he's saying can respond instead.

[Roman Bridger]

Pretty much everything...

Would you mind giving me a quote, even just a sentence, by Dawkins, and then tell me what you disagree with.  I'd appreciate that, as I have no idea about what it is that you disagree with.  Thanks.

[Dok]

[Dok]

I have one, 

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
Richard Dawkins

Yet his whole beliefs are based on Faith, themselves.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[powderfinger]

IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

The notion that eugenical tamperings are rejected purely because Hitler perverted/soiled eugenicist ideals is logically unsound. What Dawkins is attempting to do is to assuage the average person's objections to treating human beings like "cows, horses and dogs" by projecting the objection as "Hitler's fault", meanwhile disregarding any valid objections one might have. Why would Dawkins lead off his article in this way, I wonder?

Is it time we "ask the question?" Is it really all Dawkins wants - for us to ask the question? Sounds like Dawkins is attempted to direct this discourse to meet his pre-determined/eugenical ends before it even begins.

Dawkins' article is dripping with eugenics buzz words. Do I disagree with even the mere proposition of considering pursuing eugenical means? Absolutely.

[squarepusher]

It's not a requirement on these forums that you in particular keep responding to my posts, nor do I want you to continue responding

Yet you were directly asking ME what it was about his article that I disagreed with. So it does indeed seem to be you wanted me to respond - yet now you keep up this pretense that 'you don't want' me to continue responding. Very funny semantical games you're playing here.

And powerderfinger did a good job outlining just how deceptive and sinister Dawkins' article is in terms of the rhetoric he employs to reignite age-old eugenical ideals and concepts.

as you seem to be...well...unstable, and I don't wish to upset you further.

Trust me, having to venture inside what might constitute as your brain is bound to make someone a little unstable. Basically, you, Mr. Darwinian evolutionist and blind obedient follower to Richard Dawkins, are surely going to agree with everything this fellow says. So if he leads you to the slaughter, you will undoubtedly follow. That is sad indeed - that basically precludes any kind of 'logic', 'thought' or 'reasoning' on the part of the acolyte. They didn't learn you this at school I'm willing to bet - to 'think for yourself' and not to be a 'follower'. That's why you can't seem to grasp what I'm saying.

So if he's going to say: "Yeah, well, Hitler perverted eugenics, but hey, we can really use it AGAIN - and this time it'll work" - you will agree with that. It's that simple. And indeed, I'm not going to bother responding to anymore of your posts - because YOU CAN'T THINK FOR YOURSELF - Richard Dawkins or Noam Chomsky instead does the thinking for you. They say 'Jump', you just say: 'How high?'.

[Dig]

Would you mind giving me a quote, even just a sentence, by Dawkins, and then tell me what you disagree with.  I'd appreciate that, as I have no idea about what it is that you disagree with.  Thanks.

I guess it is the way he blames Hitler for messing up the use of genocide and pharmaceutical slavery for his New World Order plans. The following (as mentioned earlier and deserves repeating) is one of the 1,000 quotes that kind of piss me off. Do you have one quote that you like from this psychopathic delutional NWO shill?

`````````````````````````````````
RICHARD DAWKINS:

"IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

[Dig]

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f**k off." -Richard Dawkins

[Dig]

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."
— Richard Dawkins

I agree with this statement concerning state-sponsored religion.  And Richard Dawkins proves this again and again with his Darwinian cultist state-sponsored religion and the National Academy of Science.

[Dig]

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
— Richard Dawkins

I guess I also agree with this one to the extent that the government uses it to explain Project Paperclip, MK Ultra, OK City, 9/11, etc.

[Dig]

"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
— Richard Dawkins


Yup, this one definitely could be used to describe Dawkins himself. Just like Glenn Beck, he uses bona fide axioms to promote his delusional insanity.

[EvadingGrid]

Richard Dawkins himself is the religious nutcase - (Mystery Babylon Religon)

[Dig]

How about this cherry where he lays the seeds for the scientific technocracy where computers and not our creator decides who should be born and who should be aborted:

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."
— Richard Dawkins


Bravo asshole!

[squarepusher]

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f**k off." -Richard Dawkins

This guy [Dawkins] is extremely immature, to say the least. He wants to re-impose his own beliefs on other people - such as Christians and other religious people. And he really seems to have it out for them - he basically attacks them all day and even goes so far as to pay for putting up posters and billboards denouncing a belief in God.

That, and he's part of the Humanist Society, despite the protestations of Roman Shitbuilder to the contrary.

[Dig]

Another marvelous stroke of genius from this moron...

"Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them. "
— Richard Dawkins


He is actually comparing the CIA agent who has killed maybe 50,000 tops to the genocidal maniac 4th generation skull and bonesman who exterminated over 1.5 million and directly transformed the remnants of the republic into a socialist subsidiary of the United Nations.  Wow.

[Dig]

"One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding."
— Richard Dawkins

I wonder where he came up with this one. Is he referring to the fact that there are things in the universe that we will never understand? And he is saying that it is a virtue to deny this reality? No wonder why he is such a delusional psychopath.  Maybe he should read Einstein every once in a while.

[Dig]

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
— Richard Dawkins


bwaaaaaaahahaha...how is this guy not completely cookoo?

[Dig]

If the following does not piss you off, then maybe "The god delusion" has a following bigger than I thought...

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that."
— Richard Dawkins

[squarepusher]

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
— Richard Dawkins


bwaaaaaaahahaha...how is this guy not completely cookoo?

Yeah - this guy just seems to be in love with himself and his petty prose. I guess he is the new HG Wells in that he is constantly denouncing religion and promoting 'SCIENCE' - oh sorry, Darwin.

His latest love fest with Darwin - 'The Genius Of Charles Darwin' (yes, that's the actual title of the documentary) is a brilliant case in point example of this childish, yawning infatuation with a long since-dead aristocrat.

And - get this - this aristocrat had the most delusional and 'weak' family of all - certainly, if Herbert Spencer's 'natural selection' theory were to have any validity, then Darwin would certainly not make up part of the genetic superclass. More sons of his died in childbirth or ended up in mental institutions than we have prisons and institutions for.

[squarepusher]

Darwin's son - Major Leonard Darwin - was a total psychopathic nutjob and a close second to Hitler in promoting a Nazi-like New World Order. He was the FIRST PRESIDENT of the 'International Congress' on Eugenics. Look that up, Roman - and then go read Charles Galton Darwin's (yes, the Galton family and the Darwins were related) book 'The Next Million Years' and find out this ENTIRE family are eugenicist Hitler-esque scumbags.

http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/Major_Leonard_Darwin

In a critical appraisal of the Third International Eugenics Congress in The New York Times, Major Leonard Darwin's views on society's future hierarchical structure were revealed:

    "And there is the arch-eugenist, Major DARWIN, who sent a paper to be read at New York, frankly admitting that he would like to see a caste system introduced "so rigid as to prohibit all movement between the different social strata" in order to remedy the "harm done by educational facilities generally." - [1][2]

This is actually quoted from The New York Times, an article from 1927. Get this: THIS GUY WAS MORE HITLER THAN EVEN HITLER WAS. There were people champing at the bit - including Darwin's son - to do what Hitler was going to do. Hitler was the Obama of his age - the guy who was going to handle this subject called 'eugenics', just like Obama is going to tackle this subject called 'climate change'. Hitler was the big 'reformer', the big idealist, the guy with the big 'idea'.

It was only years later that people woke up to him.

[Dig]

Who would have guessed that Dawkins loves CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES and the end of the family unit...

"THE MAJORITY of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all"
— Richard Dawkins


Yeah Dick Dawkins...let's have the state deal with this issue with more indoctrination. Or better yet bring back the Nazi baby programs!

[squarepusher]

Who would have guessed that Dawkins loves CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES and the end of the family unit...

"THE MAJORITY of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all"
— Richard Dawkins


Yeah Dick Dawkins...let's have the state deal with this issue with more indoctrination. Or better yet bring back the Nazi baby programs!

Yeah he is basically like Skinner and the other behavioralists - it's 'bad' to have parents, it's 'bad' to have parents 'INCULCATE" their children with 'beliefs' and 'morals'.

That's bad, you see - the STATE has to do that. (or, rather, don't do that in terms of giving children 'morals')

See, this guy [Dawkins] - is in favor of the 'scientific dictatorship' that Huxley and Bertrand Russell were talking about. These guys all join each other at the hip to push this agenda and reinforce it.

What this guy essentially wants - is Brave New World-like Children Hatcheries and Conditioning Centres.

[squarepusher]

New York Times: Babes Of The Future: Major Leonard Darwin Tells True Purposes OF Eugenics

This is an article from The New York Times, dated 1912. And of course, Major Leonard Darwin being a total psychopathic nutjob, he of course had to tell a few blatant lies mixed in along with the propaganda:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9402EFDB103CE633A25752C2A9649D946396D6CF

From the article:

The main aim of the eugenist is to insure the interests of the unborn of the future always being held in view in connection with all of our social customs and all our legislation."

In other words: we protect their interests by NOT LETTING THEM BE BORN.

"As to our other aims, they will become more definite as our knowledge increases"

Oh yeah, they became more definite as their knowledge increased alright. Like - gas chambers - forced sterilization - segregation and all that jazz.

We can, however, positively affirm that we do not advocate any interference whatever with the free selection of normal mates in marriage

A blatant lie - because these 'normal people', you see - must go through eugenic 'screeners'. Hence, you can be 'normal' and still be classified as a 'feeble-minded degenerate'. And, if you have a little thing such as a stock market CRASH, like, oh, I don't know the Great Depression, you might become POOR - in other words, a pauper. And if you become a 'pauper', suddenly you are a DEGENERATE - you have the poverty gene.

Nice con, huh?

There will no doubt always remain a class outside the pale of all moral influence, and of these there will be a small proportion who, if they become parents, are certain to pass on some grievous mental or bodily defect to a considerable proportion of thier progeny."

Same argument as today. See, these 'defectives' - these genetically inferior pieces of trash - these people that think eugenics is a bunch of crap and say something to the effect of: "To hell with that". And they inform their kids about the bogus nature of eugenics as well. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT, YOU SEE.

Translate 'eugenics' to 'Darwinian evolution' and hence you have the one sole, underlying connection between this evolutionist claptrap and eugenics. This is why their leaders - the Richard Dawkins - come out in strong support of eugenics - BECAUSE IT'S ONE AND THE SAME, YOU SEE.

Finally, we advocat economic forces being brought to bear in certain directions;

See, people? EUGENICS IS ALWAYS ABOUT ECONOMY - IT'S CENTRAL TO IT.

as for instance, in making taxation, and also the pay of employees in all public services, vary somewhat with the size of the family to be maintained, and in administering the poor law so as not to encourage reproduction on the part of degenerate paupers."

See - if you are POOR, according to the son of Mr Charles Darwin, you are a 'degenerate' - you are a 'defective'. You should DIE and not pass your seed on to others.

They were so MUCH CLEARER IN TERMS OF LANGUAGE BACK IN THE DAY - none of this pussyfooting around.

These are, in brief, the aims of our societies, for which we appeal for widespread sympathy.
LEONARD DARWIN, President,

Sieg Heil, mofo!

[grapecrusher1]

Who would have guessed that Dawkins loves CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES and the end of the family unit...

"THE MAJORITY of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all"
— Richard Dawkins


Yeah Dick Dawkins...let's have the state deal with this issue with more indoctrination. Or better yet bring back the Nazi baby programs!

Classic how a quote turns into a speculative cathartic whirlwind.
Dawkins is criticising how religions have a bad habit of indoctrinating their young through the parents.  Example "Why do we hate the neighbours Daddy" "They are protestants Becky cant you see that!!"  From that point forward Becky always knew she didnt like the neighbours.
I totally agree with Dawkins on this point and many others.    
How this becomes tacit support for children hatcheries and scientific dictatorships is beyond me.  But keep stroking yourselves fellas,  Knock yourselves out!!

[Dig]

Classic how a quote turns into a speculative cathartic whirlwind.
Dawkins is criticising how religions have a bad habit of indoctrinating their young through the parents.  Example "Why do we hate the neighbours Daddy" "They are protestants Becky cant you see that!!"  From that point forward Becky always knew she didnt like the neighbours.
I totally agree with Dawkins on this point and many others.    
How this becomes tacit support for children hatcheries and scientific dictatorships is beyond me.  But keep stroking yourselves fellas,  Knock yourselves out!!

Speaking of "stroking yourself"...Dawkins seems like he is getting just a bit too exited about his "discoveries".


"The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver."
— Richard Dawkins


C'mon Dawkins stop beating around the bush (as the saying goes), let's see your O face...