Breed for Greed!

‘Extreme’ blog councillor resigns

WebsiteThe blog claimed there should be compulsory sterilisation

A Medway councillor has resigned after claiming on his website that there should be compulsory sterilisation for parents on benefits. John Ward prompted comparisons with the Nazis after attacking what he called “professional spongers” whom he claimed “breed for greed”.

The Tory councillor, who lives in Chatham, told BBC South East Today the views were not his own.

He lifted them from other sites, and has since deleted the page, he added.

When asked if he supported the concept of sterilisation, Mr Ward said: “No.

“I’d hope that before it became such a big problem that the nanny state does impose something like that the way they tend to do, with compulsory ID cards, compulsory whatever.”

‘Extreme and unpleasant’

The sentences from Mr Ward’s blog said: “I think there is an increasingly strong case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have a second, (or third, or whatever) child while living off state handouts.”

Now, then. What are you thinking right now? What is that seedling thought sprouting under that pile of old Guardian newspapers in the recycling bin of your mind?

Am I being harsh on you? Or are you actively censoring your own thoughts? These are interesting questions, should you choose to address them. In the privacy of your own head, should you wish.

On Tuesday, he said he had lifted the words from other websites to promote debate, and had been interrupted before he had had a chance to make that clear on the web page he then published.

Adding that he had resigned, he said he felt “delighted”, with a “weight lifted from his shoulders”.

But councillor Bill Esterson, from Medway’s Labour group, said: “It had nothing to with the benefits culture issue.

“It had everything to do with some extreme and very unpleasant views about forced sterilisation of people – the sort of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes, that happened in Nazi Germany.”

Of course, Nazi Eugenics. But discussions about eugenics have not stopped since world war II, but have been swept from the table of politically correct society. There are people who make the case for eugenics today. They argue:

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it’s a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective “misery quotient.”

It’s hard to argue against those statements, isn’t it? So what should society do? That’s the important question. The eugenics supporters would say society at present not only stands idly by and watches the less intelligent members of society breed, but actively encourages and supports this behaviour by supplying them with free medical care, housing and food!

Of course, normal people (you are normal, right?) would find the eugenics argument abhorrent, arguing perhaps that by providing care and education society can propel these people upwards on the scale to the benefit of all mankind. But didn’t the eugenics people say intelligence is mostly genetic? Hmm. And is there evidence that providing handouts is helping society? Hmm.

Political blogger Iain Dale said: “The problem is if you’re writing a blog and you get angry about something, you’re anger transmits itself from your brain through your fingertips on to the keyboard and on to the internet.

“Ten minutes later, you might think ‘maybe I’ve gone a bit over the top there’, but it’s too late.

“You can amend what you’ve written, but it’s already out there and someone, somewhere, will have found it.”

I wonder how many kids this man has.

Googles cache of the ‘offending’ blog:

Saturday, 15 March 2008

What You Probably Won’t Read in the Press

One side of the Shannon Matthews story you are unlikely to read in the mainstream Press is what the police themselves know about this sorry tale. Inspector Gadget has it HERE. Note the “seven children” part in particular, and the implicit reasons for that…

At least there was a good outcome on this occasion, which makes a pleasant change from so many of the “missing child” news stories of recent years.

This one, though, is yet another example of “Breakdown Britain”, about which so much has been reported over the last several years, much (if not most or even all) of which stems from the Government-encouraged change away from the hard-working and decent family structure to an increasingly self-indulgent immoral and State-funded lazy lifestyle, with huge handouts to provide for just about all one’s needs and desires, at next to no personal expense or effort. Children become just a means toward that end, and are of themselves of little if any further significance in this new society. What was once a small issue has now become mainstream.

I think there is an increasingly strong case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have had a second (or third, or whatever) child while living off State hand-outs. It would (if one thinks about it) clearly take a lot of social pressures off all concerned, thus protecting the youngsters themselves to some degree, and remove the incentive to “breed for greed” — i.e. for more public subsidy of their lifestyle (a now well-known dodge, worth ever greater amounts to countless thousands of professional spongers).

With over-population being the root cause of so much that negatively impacts Planet Earth, and thus needs to concern human society, the very last thing the world needs is to encourage excessive breeding.

There are some subjects in society that are taboo, and openly discussing eugenics is clearly one of them. But it should not be. Some very important people are discussing eugenics, and if you are censoring yourself then you are no longer able to argue either way. If you are guilty of being your own Thought Policeman, give yourself a nightstick upside your head.

Lightening the mood a little, here’s a little something for the idiocrats out there.


Enlarge


The TwoDaLoo is billed as the world’s first toilet two people can use … at the exact same time. It brings couples closer together and conserves our water supply all with one flush. The TwoDaLoo features two side-by-side toilet seats with a modest privacy wall in between. An upgraded version includes a seven inch LCD television and iPod docking station.

It’s just a small evolutionary step from this to spending 18 hours a day on a Lay-Z-Boy armchair with built-in toilet, watching trash TV and ‘bating.

Advertisements
About

We are the best.

Posted in BBQ, Censorship, Idiocracy, Politricks
2 comments on “Breed for Greed!
  1. […] doesn’t like my commnt on the Breed for Greed post, maybe you do: Civilization depends totally upon innate […]

  2. meaumeau says:

    Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence.

    ‘Civilization’ is not an entity, it does not have rights and cannot be used as abargaining chip over individuals (that are entities and can demand rights).

    Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

    The less educated (and so poorer) portions of the population have always had more offspring – in the past without social welfare many of the offspring would have died in childhood. Perhaps with the ‘best of the worst’ surviving to create the next generation?

    So what should society do? That’s the important question…

    Although a ‘passive’ eugenecist could argue that not supplying anyone with free medical care, etc. would be the best way of ‘standing idly by’, and allowing the cream of the crop to rise (and the unfit to whither on the vine). They may also point out that poorer, less intelligent (it is about intellect, right?) people generally have shorter lives.
    If they are a more active eugenecist they may reach for Plato’s Republic to show a template for ‘eugenic’ separation of certain classes of people, without the need for sterilisation.
    It is of course an incredibly flawed template, in all guises throughout history. In fact the state structures for societal/state support of the ‘stupid’ would be nothing to those required for eugenic separation or selection of the population. The eugenic state has to continuously monitor its population to prevent ‘degeneration’, its people have to give up their individual corporeal rights and submit to the state approving their right to reproduce, the state selected career path, the state will need to ensure that certain sets of mind are trained to not question eugenics so political programming would be required from an early age and continue throughout life

    Of course ‘society’ has no natural right to demand that certain people do not reproduce. Just as I feel those who cannot naturally reproduce have no natural right to demand state funded IVF treatment, is that so different from saying that those who cannot afford children should not have them – it seems the only the proactive nature of the intervention is different.

    Again eugenecists seem to assume that their offspring will be worthy, just as those who talk of overpopulation find ways to justify their own procreation and those who don’t oppose ID cards/NIR suppose the state could never disapprove of their own actions.

    So what should society do? How should it enforce that the money we provide is being used positively and not wasted in ways that get our backs up?
    If the state does nothing in this type of case what happens?
    – Perhaps the parent starts stealing to support their ‘lifestyle’ (but maybe we feel that our taxes are being stolen anyway) and has a wider negative impact.
    – Perhaps the children can’t be looked after and suffer neglect, I would say this is what ‘society’ most wishes to avoid.
    – Perhaps even the ‘parent’ is still living with their parent(s) as the state has not provided any support at all.

    This was the state of the slums before the welfare state existed. Would we let civilisation slip that far back if the state no longer provided, or would we support charities to a larger degree to prevent this would explicitly charitable support be any better focussed?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: