Unhypnotized
Truth feeder
Best-selling author Michael Crichton became a noted critic of the highly-politicized ‘global warming’ agenda before his death in 2008. What has now shifted into the “climate change” issue was a central theme in his 2004 novel State of Fear.
That fatal flaw for the global warming agenda is, for Crichton, paralleled by one of history’s ‘cautionary tales’– that of the Eugenics movement. The dangers of a political agenda parading under the cover of a scientific pretext have already been exposed by the agendas of the past, and that cost can be measured in human lives lost.
On Eugenics, Crichton states that “the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.” Eugenics, like the Climate Change, Global Warming and Population Control agendas all sought to control human behavior in the name of curbing a crisis based on everyday human activity– human breeding, human consumption, human competition for food and other resources, and the very air humans breath– humanity was pegged as the problem, and people were killed as a result of politically-advocated action to meet the crisis.
Yet in hind-sight, each of these ecological-crises has proved to stand on shaky factual ground and misplaced, but often well-meaning, concern. Such good intentions have indeed paved the way to hell– including the genocide of ‘undesirable’ human existence.
The alarm bells sounded by Al Gore and his ilk may come with a price– a loss of sovereignty to global treaties, restricted human behavior and a negative, or disposable, view of human life. The fudged data of CRU researchers who, ClimateGate emails show, sought to “hide the decline” global temperatures is yet another indicator of a movement gone wrong and quickly spiralling out of control. For humanity’s sake, we cannot lose sight of what the truth really is when we are coaxed into a ’state of fear’ to accept totalitarian and sometimes genocidal solutions.
Below are excerpts from Crichton’s State of Fear essay warning of the parallels to eugenics:
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear)
Michael Crichton
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudo science. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful — and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing — that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones — the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the “feeble minded.” Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century — “dangerous human pests” who represented “the rising tide of imbeciles” and who were polluting the best of the human race…
(Cont’d)
Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science…
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed.
The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale.
But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
Source...
