http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGOmlZGqfbg&feature=related

Alex Jones is a radio host who does great shows on politics and usually does a good job of bringing underground news to light. The link above is to show he did recently. He called it his most important show ever.

The topic he discusses in this episode is Eugenics. Eugenics is defined by wikipedia as "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)." His show focuses on the first definition.

To very briefly sum up this show, Alex Jones explains the methods of which he believes the US Government are currently using to sterilize us. If what he's saying is true, heavy metals and drugs are in our tap water to effectively reduce our fertility as a people. These pollutants are also blamed for increased cancer and disease rates. These pollutants are undoubtedly in our food as well. Also, FYI, Birth Control is the number one pollutant in the worlds fresh water supply. Obama's head science adviser is a strong advocate of mass sterilization of people in order to reduce human populations.

The show takes a while to get started, but if you have time (I'm sure if you're on SEN, you do) I recommend you give this a watch, scan it over, or at least do some of your own research on the topic. If you watch the first few parts to this series on youtube, you will surely have heard enough.

Tell me, if it's true, is it wrong? Alex Jones assumes that forced sterilization is wrong. (I tend to agree)
If it's wrong, how do we fight this? What does this mean about our perception of government?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 6 2009, 5:02 am by yenku.

I know it's a very basic thought, but, putting aside the ethic side, why would this human population's regulation be bad? :S

EDIT: I watched a bit of the link you provided us and, first of all, skip the intro, it's over 1 minute of unrelated stuff talk. After that, I decided to randomly click somewhere: 4 minutes 25 seconds. Based off the 45 seconds I've watched, this guy do not seems pretty reliable just because he uses a lot of sophism in a very little amount of time and also because this show seems very "americanized", as we'd say in Quebec: it seems to be about impressionism. I've even had the time to hear some really out-of-context music in the very few I've watched... why is there Moby playing? -.-
I know my witness seems flawed and it probably is because I didn't have much time to spend on this link (sorry), but it seems like this show isn't the greatest in terms of "intellectuality".

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 6 2009, 4:29 am by payne.

Forced sterilization is a devilish plot. If we want population control, we should be doing it morally through the spreading of ideas, not through poisoning our own people.

You're right about that payne, but I think he's used to talking to the same crowd. Its hard to get through parts of it because its so slow moving, but he does provide evidence and support his blathering. Farther in, he gets moving better.

What do you think about the actual stuff he's talking about?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puLCxuDrBeo&feature=related#movie_player This is the second part of it on youtube, start listening at 7:00, he's talking about how the science adviser wants 90% of the population dead and how most biology dept. heads are for eugenics.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 6 2009, 7:14 pm by Vrael. Reason: double post

I listened from 6:50 to 8:49 and it was enough: still sophism over sophism -.-
Anyways, my english's listening comprehension may have not helped on this, but I'm not sure if he said why Obama and all these 95% of the people, as he says, wants 90% to 100% of the population dead?
Anyways, to me, this show do not seems reliable at all

I'm of the crowd that believes 90% of Americans probably shouldn't have kids. Is it morally wrong, probably, but it doesn't change that this country could go from brainless to intellectually dominant in one generation with selective breeding. We do it with horses and dogs, why not with people?

Because intelligence isn't the only useful trait that a person can have.

I'm going to pull a devilesk here and ask you to define 'useful'. Do you mean useful to society? Personal survival? Greater good?