Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Alien Workshop has always had graphics exposing government control and conspiracies. The brainwash graphic came out in the mid 90s and the "divide and conquer" graphic came out in 2000 for the election. They also had the sheeple graphic and many others. Look at some of the imagery in their videos, Workshop has always been into this stuff, it's nothing new. I think it's rad and with the pro liberty, free minded and conspiracy theme this is a great collab. I bought both boards and the tee shirt yesterday, just as I bought Spencer Hamilton's first pro board exposing GMO and Monsanto a couple weeks ago.
Infowars and may come off as "right wing" especially now that we have a president whos a democrat it would seem they are ultra critical and focus mostly on the left. However they criticize the republican party just as much as especially when they're in office. I don't think labeling them "right wing" is a fair and should be left up the mainstream media in an attempt to prersuade you not to visit their site(another divide & conquer tactic). I mean sure they are pro second amendment and pro life but they are also anti war and pro civil liberties and came out against the patriot act, bail outs, ndaa etc. Infowars is more of a constitutionalist libertarian leaning news website along with Alex Jones who has been an avid Ron Paul supporter for years, and as I said very critical of the right wing, neocons and republican party.
I think it's important to have alternative news sources like Infowars, but if you think that Alex Jones is anything more than a crazy conspiracy theorist, I don't know what to tell you. And saying "pro-life" and "constitutional libertarian" is a contradiction.
Care to explain either claim?
Nah he doesn't, that's what he's been taught by state run media and public education so he must be right.
Well, first off, the Constitution does not claim to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's the Declaration of Independence, so claiming that that is a function of the government is a tenuous argument (the DoI is not a rule of law document). But regardless, pro-life individuals believe life to begin a conception, tricky claim to prove as there is little to no scientific backing for when life begins. Their belief system is based on a (generally) religious one and hence, is a belief system that is based on "faith" more so than "facts." Libertarianism is a political philosophy that believes in as little government intrusion into private and personal matters as possible. What is a larger intrusion than telling an woman what she can and can't do with a ball of cells in her own personal body? Libertarian philosophy holds the body to be an almost sacred space and an individual can do as they please with their own body so long as it does not harm other unequivocally living people. A zygote does not fall into this definition. Can one be against abortion and be a Constitutional Libertarian? Yes. But the implication of "pro-life" is that one believes laws should be enacted to ban abortions, which is a step by the government to control a person's actions and morality--a step antithetical to Libertarianism. That is why I believe that are incongruous belief systems.
To claim that abortion, which has existed in some form for thousands of years, is based on the eugenics movement, which really came into the spotlight in the early 1900s, is a horrible argument. You're picking and choosing which history of abortion and access to abortion you prefer because saying that abortion only had its roots in eugenics allows you to claim that there is no other legitimate argument for it. It's an ad hominem attack. And regardless of that, it never existed in a solely eugenics sphere and it very easily passes into women's rights and the rights of a person to their bodily space more generally.
As for Alex Jones being a conspiracy theorist, I said that because of his severe distrust of all other news sources, his belief that reality cannot exist in a way explained by other people, and his tendency to ignore the most reasonable explanation for a situation in favor of tying together flimsy facts and disparate events into a more complex, overarching narrative that can be clearly traced back to some oppressive "elite puppetmasters."
Oh, and just so you know, my most formative education was at a private university that is one of the bastions and founders of libertarian economic and social thought. Nice try though.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution go hand in hand, you don't have a Constitution without the Declaration of Independence. Life is listed as an unalienable right(meaning they cannot be altered by any law). I understand the definition of life is up for interpretation just as whether life begins at conception or not. I know that if a women is pregnant with a child and her husband pushes her down the stairs and she loses the child, he will be charged with assault and for murder. I understand it is her body but it is his child too and if she has a right to kill the child shouldn't he have one too? How ridiculous does that sound? All I'm saying is that it's not an oxy moron to be a constitutionalist libertarian and be pro life.
The modern abortion movement is completely based on eugenics. Margaret Sanger was one of the founders of the American Eugenics Society and later founded the American Birth Control League which became the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Dorothy Brush who also worked for Planned Parenthood was another founder of the American Eugenics Society along with JP Morgan and others. Today Planned Parenthood is the single largest provider of abortions in the US. They also get government funding meaning our tax dollars to carry these abortions out. That would be the like the government funding the NRA in the eyes of anti gun advocates.
Let me go through a few Marget Sanger quotes for you and you can decide what her intentions were....
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
"There is only one reply to a request for a higher birthrate among the
intelligent, and that is to ask the government to first take the burden of
the insane and feeble-minded from your back. [Mandatory] sterilization for
these is the answer."
"[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds ... a
deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to
the race."
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent
Multiplication of this bad stock."
"Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most
adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and
social problems.
"I think you must agree ... that the campaign for birth control is not
merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims
of eugenics ... Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the
eugenic educator."
"On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and
discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population
their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with
social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most
successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if
it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Does that last quote sound familiar? Planned Parenthood is still carrying out Margaret Sanger's plan today with President Obama and Oprah Winfrey speaking on their behalf. Is her Eugenics plan working? Well let's see....
Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.
78% of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority communities.
If you wanna label yourself "Pro Choice" after knowing all this go right ahead, but I can't get down with this shit.
Sources:
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255
Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith
Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in
Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth
Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization , 1922. Chapter on "The
Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library
edition."
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda."
Birth Control Review , October 1921, page 5.
Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eugenics_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_SangerI figured I'd add this too because it is somewhat relevant with the discussion of eugenics and government.....
John Paul Holdren is the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President?s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). This guy who is a senior advisor to the president(who openly backs planned parenthood) co authored a book called 'Econscience: Population, Resources, Environment' in which he called for forced abortions and depopulation. Here are some of those quotes:
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption?especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. "
"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility?just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns?providing they are not denied equal protection."
Remember this isn't some mad scientist saying these things this is a senior advisor to President Obama and the White House who published this stuff in a book.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_HoldrenEcoscience: Population, Resources, Environment
As for Alex Jones, I'm not going to spend my time defending him and his actions. I don't agree with him on every issue but I do find his website and show to be a useful tool in the liberty movement. I think he is one of the most aggressive voices out there, though I'm not always on board with his tactics. He always has informative guests on his show and I'd rather read articles from an independent news source such as his sites and others over state and corporate funded media. It's hard to label something a conspiracy theory just because the government who are known liars say it is.