LEGO, your post to me "Most people believe in Eugenics" absolute clap trap. The proof you offer is "gold diggers", over compensated "Fabio's", and rich silly old men. It was a joke post....YES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4gHNMECx1M&ab_channel=achievalist

"Nazism was “applied biology,” stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess. During the Third Reich, a politically extreme, antisemitic variation of EUGENICS determined the course of state policy. Hitler’s regime touted the “Nordic race” as its EUGENIC ideal and attempted to mold Germany into a cohesive national community that excluded anyone deemed hereditarily “less valuable” or “racially foreign.”

LEGO, is the above your ideal of how Eugenics should apply?

To paul1405.

1. Parents prefer that their children "marry up", not "marry down." Men prefer beautiful, intelligent, young, healthy women, not old, ugly, dumb, overweight ones. Women prefer successful, healthy, intelligent men. That is selective breeding. Selective breeding is the basis of eugenics. I almost feel sorry for you, if you do not possess the wit to recognise and understand self evident logic. Although, it does explain a lot about your worldview.

If you can not understand how selective breeding applies to eugenics, I am sure others can, and they are looking askance at you.

2. You submitted some information about Nazism and eugenics, which I already knew. But you neglected to explain how your information was relevant to the subject of this discussion? Could you please explain what point you are implying? I can go from there.

3. The answer to your last question is "no."

4. Try writing an entire 350 word article starting with a clearly stated premise that you are prepared to defend with a reasoned argument. Writing curt replies dealing entirely in implications is hardly going to impress anybody into thinking you have an opinion worth reading. Neither is, just repeatedly asking loaded Dorothy Dixer questions. You may think that it makes you look authoritative, but it just makes you look like an ignorant person winging it to vainly defend a position he passionately holds, but has little knowledge of.

Which is what you are doing.

No Lego, just someone who likes to express my opinion.

To Chris Lewis.

You are doing a lousy job of expressing your opinion if you submit a 2000 word article basically supporting the grievances which created CRT, then saying you don't support CRT because it is "simplistic". Then replying to a 350 word critique of your logic with one sentence replies.

The modern western world needs smart people. Unfortunately, the USA has within it's borders an ever growing number of people from certain ethnic groups who's collective intelligence is so low that most of them can never prosper in the western world. That is the problem. Most of these people will always remain an underclass with very high levels of criminal behaviour and welfare dependency. What is worse, is that the numbers of this underclass keeps increasing through birth rate differentials and immigration, both legal and illegal. This is not going to end well.

But it can be taken advantage of by slimy politicians who see that pandering to this ever growing class of dysfunctional people is the way to win office. The trick is to claim that there is nothing wrong with these people at all, that they are equal in every way to everybody else. Therefore, the only possible explanation for the fact that they can never prosper must be the fault of the majority of US people, who do have the brains to prosper.

Asian people are collectively smarter than white people. Asians are so racist that they could teach the Nazis a thing or two. They are literally laughing their heads off at how stupid the white Europeans are for refusing to admit that races are not equal. Asians have no intention whatsoever of opening their borders to any ethnicities who's collective intelligence is so low that they will become a burden on the state forever. That is a major reason why they are beating us.

But nobody, certainly nobody from Monash University in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Victoria will say that. It is even illegal to say that in your part of this country. Telling the truth in Victoria is illegal.

Hi LEGO,

On the subject of Eugenics, I know you gave me the evidence of gold diggers, playboys, old farts with too much money and a moose peeing on it leg or something. All good stuff in my book, but I have a serious question. Why is it, if a farmer has a herd of cows and puts a bull in with them, they all end up pregnant. Not only the good looking cows get up the duff, but the ugly cows as well, regardless if the bull is a handsome dude, or an wart faced old chap. I believe Heinrich Himmler was doing some work on that before he met his untimely end. Please explain.

To Chris.

It is Sunday, Chris, so I thought I would toss a double broadside at you. I think you have a brain, so it might be possible to give you a reality check to deprogram you.

On page 2 of this topic, you tossed a question at me that I was unable to answer because of the accursed 350 word limit. But I can rectify that now.

You asked me to explain why legislation was passed in the 60's in the USA to alleviate black disadvantage? I am not sure exactly what legislation you are talking about? But I assume that you mean civil rights legislation like integrating public schools, and even Affirmative Action?

The erroneous concept that "all men are created equal" was first proposed by the slave owners who drew up the US constitution. By the 60's the growing new class of university schooled eggheads saw civil rights as the way to alleviate the crushing poverty of African Americans, who were subjected to extremely racist and discriminatory laws, especially in the US South. The idea was, that providing equal schooling opportunities, removing very discriminatory and humiliating state laws, and enacting racist laws like Affirmative Action, would eventually see African Americans obtain equality.

While it certainly allowed the small proportion of smart African Americans to prosper, it could not be considered a success. Equality with whites meant the opportunity for very dumb and very violent young black men to obtain guns, and that did not work out too good. It was just like allowing Australian aboriginal people to buy alcohol on the grounds of "equality." That did not work out too well, either.

I opine that giving equality to some ethnicities could never work out well because it is based upon a false premise. That all races are equal in every way. With the failure of equality of opportunity to do much, we now see leftists demanding that governments enact more racist legislation, to ensure equality of outcomes.

At least we can all agree that racist laws can be considered okay if they are done for good intentions.