Home > Eugenics History, Modern Eugenics > Global Warming, Eugenics and the Fabians

Global Warming, Eugenics and the Fabians


ORIGINAL LINK: Global Warming, Eugenics and the Fabians

In terms of the Austrian School of Economics man’s natural state is one of abject poverty at the subsistence level. Any improvements to this natural state are the result of man’s purposeful actions to change his personally felt existing state for a better one, and to lessen or remove his personal sense of uneasiness. Man improves his lot by personal exertion. Wealth in and of itself does not exist naturally. It must be created by personal exertion.

So the thoughtful article written by David Sewell in the Spectator Magazine late last year, “How Eugenics Poisoned the Welfare State” raises some interesting points concerning socialism in general and Fabian socialism in particular. He writes:

We live in a country where the poorest members of society are literally trapped. We pay them millions not to work, simply maintaining them at subsistence level like prisoners of the state. Tied up with bureaucratic regulations and subject to crazy marginal rates of tax, there are few chances to escape for Britain’s welfare-dependent. A million of those out of work have been jobless for a decade or more. They see their chances of getting a job in the future as so remote as to be barely worth considering. The chances of their children ever finding work are beginning to look slim too. The neighbourhoods in which they live are falling apart. The squalor is palpable; crime rampant; local schools are very often failing or ‘sink’ schools. If you think I’m exaggerating, choose any area with a high level of welfare-dependency and go and look for yourself.

So what went wrong with a welfare state that was supposed to make ‘ignorance, squalor and want’ things of the past, and guarantee greater social integration? Or have we simply misunderstood what that project was really about.

Most accounts of the origin of Britain’s welfare state begin with the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, drafted by Sidney and Beatrice Webb during the first decade of the 20th century. Beneath their seemingly compassionate rhetoric, the founders of the Fabian Society were snobbish, elitist and harboured a savage contempt for the poorest of the poor. Both husband and wife were enthusiastic supporters of the eugenics movement, which held that most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited. In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class.

Eugenics had been the brainchild of Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, and was developed in response to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. It was taken up as a programme of political action by Darwin’s son Leonard. The eugenicists aimed to replace natural selection with a planned and deliberate selection. They were alarmed by the fact that the poorest in society bred faster than the middle class, forecasting that this trend would lead to a spiral of degeneration in the gene pool. Their aim was to encourage the rich to have more children and the poor to have fewer. They quickly got the science establishment on their side, creating a national panic about genetic deterioration that became as widespread and salient as fears of global warming are today. In this scenario, the poorest with their ‘defective’ genes were the bogeymen, a class that threatened to contaminate future generations.

For the Fabians, eugenics was not merely some eccentric hobby or sideline, but central to their social thinking. Beatrice Webb regarded eugenics as ‘the most important question’ of all, while her husband revealed the statist and dirigiste character of the movement with his declaration that ‘no eugenicist can be a laissez faire individualist… he must interfere, interfere, interfere!’ Even for George Bernard Shaw, ‘the only fundamental and possible Socialism’ was ‘the socialisation of the selective breeding of Man’.

Fabians? Those ever so polite and nice people who have intellectual debates actually are not the nice people they make themselves out to be? (The UK Labour party and the ALP here in Australia are controlled by the Fabians, socialists whose goal is the same as the Marxist-Leninists but who can’t afford AKG47s and thus adopted the ‘termite-method’ of political realignment of society.

And global warming? That link started at a conference in 1975 in the US organised by the anthropologist Margaret Mead, 1974 president of the AAAS.

"Global Warming" is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world’s population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.

Mead—whose 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud—recruited like-minded anti-population hoaxsters to the cause: Sow enough fear of man-caused climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development. Mead’s leading recruits at the 1975 conference were climate-scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell, and the current AAAS president John Holdren—all three of them disciples of malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.[1] Guided by luminaries like these, conference discussion focussed on the absurd choice of either feeding people or "saving the environment."

Mead began organizing for her conference, "The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering," shortly after she had attended the United Nations Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, in August 1974. She had already bullied American scientists with her malthusian view that people were imperiling the environment. She wrote in a 1974 Science magazine editorial that the Population Conference had settled this question:

At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment…. The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated.[2]

The North Carolina conference, which took place Oct. 26-29, 1975, was co-sponsored by two agencies of the U.S. National Institutes of Health: the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (Mead had been a Scholar in Residence at the Fogarty Center in 1973.)

It was at this government-sponsored conference, 32 years ago, that virtually every scare scenario in today’s climate hoax took root. Scientists were charged with coming up with the "science" to back up the scares, so that definitive action could be taken by policy-makers.

Global cooling—the coming of an ice age—had been in the headlines in the 1970s, but it could not easily be used to sell genocide by getting the citizens of industrial nations to cut back on consumption. Something more drastic and more personal was needed.

Eugenics and the Paradigm Shift

Mead’s population-control policy was firmly based in the post-Hitler eugenics movement, which took on the more palatable names of "conservation" and "environmentalism" in the post-World War II period. As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain’s Eugenics Society (1937-44), had announced in 1946, "even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (Source)

And the IPCC is part of the UN, which was set up by the Fabians to achieve their socialist goal over time. More detail on the background of the Fabians, in particular Keynes, is here.

Suffice it to say that the ALP/Greens, together with the support of the three independents recently re-elected in Australia’s 21 August election, will most likely form government, and it helps to understand the philosophical and hence political background of those who support the global warming policy, since most of them are also members of the Australian Fabian Society.

Advertisements
  1. October 22, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    Very good blog! Do you have any tips and hints for aspiring
    writers? I’m planning to start my own site soon but I’m a little lost on everything.
    Would you recommend starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid
    option? There are so many choices out there
    that I’m completely overwhelmed .. Any tips? Cheers!

  2. August 5, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    Simply desire to say your article is as amazing.
    The clarity in your post is just great and i could assume you are an expert on this subject.
    Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep
    updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the enjoyable
    work.

  1. February 6, 2016 at 7:39 pm
  2. January 8, 2017 at 4:06 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: