The point is made nicely in a piece by Colin Liddell on the stupidity of liberals.
the idea that the Muslims are backward and need to catch up with us is clearly wrong. Indeed, it is entirely the other way round. In terms of demographic effectiveness, the Muslims are streets ahead of us, as are Non-Islamic Africans, Hispanics, and Indians. This might be one tiny little point lost in the great big bundle of Western technological, cultural, and consumerist superiority, but come back in a hundred years and see the difference it makes.In response to which there is the comment:
Nature endowed us with sex for a purpose: to replicate ourselves. We have an education system, a media and an entertainment industry dedicated to disguising this basic [fact]. Perhaps we should stop listening to the hostile elite that controls those institutions and return to our traditional value system that developed the West, Christianity, and start listening to the Pope and his Protestant counterparts in these matters. They are at the very least promoters of policies that will energize us in the race war being waged against us.Precisely. Why is so hard for liberals and leftists like Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens and their vast army of admirers to understand that simple biological reality. Or are they all self-hating racists intent on the genocide of their own people?
On the whole, the latter seems quite possible. Certainly during the interwar years, there was a vogue for genocide among the leftist elite in Europe, as exemplified by the appeal of Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw to the chemists "to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel," for use in the disposal of the unemployed and other useless eaters.
Since then, Hitler's use of gas chambers has given the wholesale liquidation of supposed undesirables a bad name, so genocide has to be conducted by other means. Social manipulation and brainwashing now provide a slow but sure means to destroy the nation states of Europe, and replace them by a mongrelized population of Third Worlders and demoralized remnants of the original ancient peoples.
Are you sure about GBS's "appeal"? Looks like a rather clever satire to me, aimed at the more extreme elements of a movement that had wide support before the War - including from Winston Churchill, who wrote to Asquith in 1910:
ReplyDeleteThe unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate.
Yes, quite sure.
DeleteOther Fabians, H.G. Wells, for example, who was a great admirer of both Hitler and Stalin, held similar views.
Churchill's opinion, which you quote, reflected the majority view among Britain's liberal elite during the first half of the 20th century (Churchill was a Liberal at the time). It was certainly the view of Dr. Marie Stopes, Britain's most famous advocate of contraception who disinherited her own son because the woman he married was short-sighted.
It was also the view of the economist Maynard Keynes who was a director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. "Eugenics, Keynes said, is "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists."
"Yes, quite sure."
ReplyDeleteI normally enjoy your blog, CS, bit this post is quite sloppy. It's quite clear that the GBS quote (and it needs to be read in full, along with others of a similar nature and alongside those which convey his actual opinions on eugenics) is a quite obvious attempt at ruductio ad absurdum and I'm quite surprised you haven't picked up on it.
A more subtle example, which outraged Catholic media (though I suspect they were in on the joke), appeared not long ago in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
I have to inform you, anonymous, that you don't know what you are talking about.
DeleteYou say that the GBS quote I gave "needs to be read in full." But, the link I gave was not to a text but a video of Shaw uttering the words quoted. Moreover, there is no doubt that the words quoted were fully consistent with Shaw's long-held conviction of the need to exterminate "worthless" persons.
That is why he, and most of the pre-war left admired the dictators. They were ruthless tyrants prepared to kill any number of people to create their new world order. Shaw, HG Wells, the Webbs, who founded the London School of Economics, all paid court to Stalin and held this bloody tyrant, who murdered tens of millions of his own people, in the highest esteem.
As stated here:
"Shaw was an advocate of eugenics. "Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly," he wrote. "[I]f we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.[18] In one public address, Shaw gave expression to the Nazi doctrine of "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben):[19]
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?
If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won't, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.[20]”
One of Shaw's long-term obsessions was mass murder by means of poison gas. In a 1910 lecture before the Eugenics Education Society, he said:
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living... A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them.[21]"
In the BBC's weekly magazine, Shaw made a 1933 "appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane not cruel..."[22] His appeal would shortly come to fruition in Nazi Germany. As Robert Jay Lifton notes in The Nazi Doctors, "The use of poison gas—first carbon monoxide and then Zyklon B—was the technological achievement permitting 'humane killing.'"[23]
Shaw admired not just Stalin, but Mussolini and even Hitler.[24] He despised freedom, writing, "Mussolini... Hitler and the rest can all depend on me to judge them by their ability to deliver the goods and not by... comfortable notions of freedom."[25] Asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, Shaw replied, "Welcome them as tourists."[26]
So don't come back with more denials sincere or phony. Just check the facts.
As for your comment on the J. Med. Ethics article "Why should the baby live," it suggests that you are a liberal unable to come to terms with just how vicious liberalism really is.
DeleteThe difficulty is understandable. Liberals assume as a matter of principle that they are the good guys. To find that one is, in fact, in league with the mass murderers must, therefore, come as a bit of a shock.
Certainly, it is implausible to assume that a journal owned by the British Medical Association would publish an article on infanticide as a joke.
If it were established that infanticide is murder, then the members of the BMA would be in some trouble. Hardly a matter for hilarity.
Here is my comment on the B. Med. Ethics article.
Actually, under British law, infanticide is murder. The article in question equates infanticide with abortion which is not considered under British law to be murder. The inference is thus that infanticide should be legalized because,as the article states, a new born child has "no moral relevance."
DeleteOne is tempted to say that the authors of the article and their amused supporters have "no moral relevance."
Response to Colin Liddell: Nature endowed us with sex for a purpose: to replicate ourselves. We have an education system, a media and an entertainment industry dedicated to disguising this basic [fact]. Perhaps we should ...eturn to our traditional value system that developed the West, Christianity, and start listening to the Pope ...
ReplyDeleteCS: Precisely. Why is so hard for liberals and leftists like Richard Dawkins... to understand that simple biological reality.
Levantine: The chief founder of biological realism, Darwin, recognised that evolution in modern humans runs mainly culturally, and that this cultural role is increasing. I can't replicate myself through sex if my child is taken away from me and raised by culturally different people. And as a matter of fact, it regularly happens that parents can't recognise themselves in their children. Why is it difficult for some to understand these realities?
Your genes may be perpetuated through your children and the children of members of your family, tribe and nation. But for how long?
ReplyDeleteWe know that the ancient cultures of ancestor worship, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been effective in providing their adherents with a genetic posterity.
But what if your national identity and cultural tradition are destroyed? Looking at the West today, the answer seems obvious. And that is why Raphael Lemkin who coined the term "genocide" included the destruction of national identity and cultural tradition as means of genocide.
So yes, mad men, and women, like George Bernard Shaw, and the other Fabians who adulated the totalitarian mass murderers were a menace. But as one sees in the West today, it requires only rationalist liberals intent on moral uplift and the reform of everything together with the democratic socialists intent on achieving all good things for everyone equally to insure the destruction of the Western nations to the advantage of the adherents of the more resilient cultures among those of the immigrant groups.