Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Ed Jewett]

Well, of course I'm saying JFK was in favor of the UN and saw it as the best way to achieve world peace. I happen to agree with that which I don't think you do on the basis of your post which rips the UN as part of the eugenics movement.

That's a whole 'nuther thread. Be careful with your assumptions.

How is the UN doing so far on that movement to achieve world peace?

[Gary Severson]

What assumptions Ed? Read about the UN and JFK in James Douglas' "JFK & the UNSPEAKABLE". I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

[Greg Burnham]

What assumptions Ed? Read about the UN and JFK in James Douglas' "JFK & the UNSPEAKABLE". I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

Gimme a break, Gary. If Sorensen said what you claimed he said, it is speculation only. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Sorensen to predict what JFK would have thought about a subject that was not relevant during his (JFK's) lifetime. For him to predict what JFK would think of such a subject, nearly 50 years after he died, is highly specious! Either Sorensen did not say what you claim he said or Sorensen was speaking in suppositions. I've seen you conveniently discard logic and critical thinking to serve your purposes before. I'm not buying it for a second.

[Gary Severson]

How could I have discarded logic before when I've only reported what scientists have researched. It has never been my logic to discard. What incidences are you referring to in any case?
It goes without saying that Sorensen would be saying something as conjecture about JFK's position on an issue that wasn't big at the time. But the fact that he knew JFK as much as anybody is a pretty good bet that he knew what JFK would have thought. It is interesting that you are so threatened by the possibility that JFK held some position in favor of an issue (MMGW) that you are so passionately against. I suppose you'd say too that JFK didn't feel the way about the UN that Douglas says he did.

[Ed Jewett]

What assumptions Ed? Read about the UN and JFK in James Douglas' "JFK & the UNSPEAKABLE". I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

You are going to have to be more specific, Gary. I own both versions of the book and the UN doesn't show up as an indexed item in either one of them. I do see references to two speeches JFK gave at the UN on nuclear test-ban treaties and nuclear disarmament. Was he lobbying for nuclear proliferation? Did he authorize the development of mutagenic warfare?

I don't see how this demonstrates that JFK should be considered a eugenicist. I don't see eugenics noted in the JFKU index either. If you are suggesting that JFK is a eugenicist because he was aware of the explosion in world population, that is fine; but that awareness doesn't make him a eugenicist. If you have something more, put it on the table; it'll be news to me. And I'd like to hear the logic spelled out, if you don't mind.

There's lots of information suggesting that a lot of people who would make the list of mechanics, facilitators or sponsors of JFK's assassination were oriented that way, but why would they kill one of their own ensconced in the White House and who was working on preventing nuclear holocaust?

And I'd like to hear the logic you used to derive the supposition that JFK was a eugenicist from the article I posted. Spell it out and parse it for those of us who are less adept at seeing these things.

[Greg Burnham]

How could I have discarded logic before when I've only reported what scientists have researched. It has never been my logic to discard. What incidences are you referring to in any case?

Logic belongs to no one, Gary. It makes no difference whether the argument was authored by you or by a scientist, if it is illogical it remains illogical irrespective of authorship.

It goes without saying that Sorensen would be saying something as conjecture about JFK's position on an issue that wasn't big at the time. But the fact that he knew JFK as much as anybody is a pretty good bet that he knew what JFK would have thought.

Not necessarily true, Gary. I'm not buying it.

It is interesting that you are so threatened by the possibility that JFK held some position in favor of an issue (MMGW) that you are so passionately against. I suppose you'd say too that JFK didn't feel the way about the UN that Douglas says he did.

You are way off topic, Gary. This has nothing to do with JFK's views about anything. If it did I would have started the thread under a JFK forum. But, even if it was on topic, I really can't reliably predict what JFK's view on this subject would be, in any event... and neither can you and neither can Sorensen.

It is nearly as impossible to be clairvoyant enough to know JFK's post-mortem position on this subject as it is to predict the future global CLIMATE! Because the weather and climate is a CHAOTIC, random, non-linear, complex system it would be even more improbable than predicting a dead man's opinion nearly 50 years later!

[Gary Severson]

Geez Ed, it seems you're not reading my posts . I was being sarcastic. I believe you guys are connecting the UN & the eugenics movement therefore since JFK was an ardent supporter of the UN he would fit right in to the eugenics movement using the guilt by association method you seem to have used to implicate the FDA in the same.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Gentlemen - let's chill please, I'm not sure this argument is going anywhere.

The "perfection of the human species" through Eugenics was a widely held belief amongst "intellectuals" in the first half of the C20th. It was also clearly and demonstrably at the root of much of the international birth control movement, particularly the foundations which promoted sterilization of those they determined to be "unfit".

My own judgement, based on research and some original investigation, is that eugenic beliefs are still widespread in ruling circles. Widespread, but unspoken. The Nazi genocide of Jews and Gypsies made it impossible for those eugenic principles to be openly articulated.

Elite statements about "useless eaters" typically give the game away.

Have certain UN programmes appeared to further eugenic aims? Yes.

However, the UN is multi-faceted, and much of their work is genuinely humanitarian.

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks Jan. Except for the fact that the UN has held some relevant positions on eugenics in the past, this thread's topic was not about the UN. Since JFK was long dead before MMGW (totally off topic) became a concern, his speech writer's opinion about it is off topic, too (even in a MMGW thread, which this is not). Therefore, this thread's not even peripherally about JFK either.

This is a pattern that I have observed regarding apologists' reaction to both subjects, skepticism about over-population alarmism and Man Made Global Warming skepticism. These subjects seem to educe the same reaction from "alarmists" no matter what the subject of alarm. For instance, those who are alarmist regarding "peak oil" react similarly to those who are skeptical about that subject, as well.

In my view, "alarmism" can not be sustained through critical thinking. It must be sustained through catastrophic thinking. The argument "What if it is true though?" -- is no argument. Rather it is an Appeal to Emotion. More specifically, it is an appeal to fear. It reminds me of those who remain Catholic (or whatever religion) technically, even though they really don't practice their faith. On their death bed they may even receive the Last Rites "just in case it's true" after all.

This post is generic and is NOT targeting any specific member of this forum.

[Gary Severson]

Greg, in post 18 the writer talks about climate change and you didn't suggest he was off topic. Then in post 35 you talk about climate change & no one accuses you of being off topic. But here we are almost 4 mths. into the thread and when there are finally posts made that use analogies about JFK, the UN & MMGW you cry foul. You doth protest too loudly.