On 20 February I blogged regarding the attitude of the neo-fascist parties towards disabled people (for that post please visit https://kevinmorris101.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/fascist-attitudes-to-the-disabled/). I subsequently drew attention to my post on an Amazon forum devoted to the discussion of Andi Ali’s book “Dead Paki Walking. A study of the BNP” and received the following response (On the Amazon Forum) from Heather Barge which I’ve quoted, verbatim below. (For the entire thread please go to http://www.amazon.co.uk/tag/biography/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_oldest?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3X2MGPJU8BUG&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=TxY6RU3E4CSZUD).
“Well K.Morris. I read your pathetic attempt to smear the BNP . At least you posted the link to the source. Had you bothered to analyze what was actually
said, rather than give your typical, paranoid knee jerk reaction, you would have learned that the post was more about multi-culturalism than eugenics.
He was concerned as I am about the prolific breeding of people with a low IQ. There followed discussions about withdrawing finances enabling people to
breed prolifically. i.e Not providing council homes for single teens. Hardly the murky and sinister world of laboratories and swastika wearing doctors
that exist only in your fantasies.
You completely fail to acknowledge that his arguments were consistently demolished by other posters in that forum. In fact one poster accurately pointed
out that eugenics is a leftist concept:
“Interestingly, eugenics comes from the LEFT of politics.
The concept of eugenics was the brainchild of Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin), and was promoted by Darwin’s son Leonard, so I suppose you could say that
it is the product of atheism, and it was enthusiastically adopted by those on the left.
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, founders of the Fabian movement, were keen eugenicists, as were other leading lights of socialism such as George Bernard Shaw,
Bertrand Russell, J M Keynes, H G Wells, etc, as well as feminists such as Marie Stopes and Baroness Stocks.
Labour MP Will Crooks, supported the compulsory sterilisation of those inferior people who were “like human vermin” and who “crawl about doing absolutely
nothing, except polluting and corrupting everything they touch”. Shaw went furher and believed that they had “no business to be alive”!
Beveridge, eulogised on the left as the father of the welfare state, was also a supporter of eugenics, and stated: “`those men who through general defects
are unable to fill such a whole place in industry, are to be recognised as unemployable. They must become the dependents of the State… but with complete
and permanent loss of all citizen rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood”.
It is, of course, true that respected Tories have also said things which some people consider verges on eugenics, such as Sir Keith Joseph in his famous
1974 speech in which he said: “a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring
them up. They are born to mother who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5. Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted
or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable
emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness which are more important than riches. They are producing problem children, the future
unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters. Yet these mothers, the
under-twenties in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births. A high proportion of these births are a tragedy
for the mother, the child and for us”.
In the 1970s, in America, a ‘genius sperm bank’ was set up privately to provide sperm from men of great achievement (such as Nobel prize-winnners); this
was extremely popular with women and demand greatly outstripped what was a very limited supply. The sperm bank was responsible for 217 children by the
time the founder died and it closed, among them a number of ‘child geniuses’. Exactly how successful this project was in breeding geniuses cannot be evaluated
however due to the anonymity and confidentiality of most of the recipients and their children, and the fact that you would need to exclude environmental
factors (the mothers who wanted children from this sperm bank were likely to encourage their children educationally).
It is clear, therefore that any claim that eugenics is the preserve of nazis, fascists and the like is ignorant and false.
Many extremely able and intelligent men have been born from poor families, so it would be wholly wrong (both morally and practically) to adopt any policy
of forced sterilisation of the poor. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with criticising a welfare state that enables poor people to have unlimited
children, as this is economically and environmentally foolish and has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics.
We do not need to give financial help to people to encourage them to breed. Having children is a natural instinct and desire that most (though not all)
people feel and both the wealthy and the poor will do so whether you give them benefits or not. Seeing how Britain is both bankrupt and overpopulated it
is clearly absurd to give people money to do something they will do for free!
Nothing there about tipping people out of wheelchairs and making the pop cyanide pills eh?
Once again, your lies and attempted smears backfire on you. You are entitled to atttack the BNP and their policies, but you are not entitled to lie, but
of course this is the tactics of the UAF Pretend to fight against fascism with fascism.
Anglo is right. You really are a troll and have been exposed as such!”.
Heather is, of course correct that eugenics was not invented by the Nazis and that eugenic ideas had been in circulation before Hitler came to power. However it was under the Nazis that eugenics took on it’s most extreme form, with the Action T-4 Programme under which thousands of mentally and physically disabled people where either killed or sterilised. (for a good brief summary of the T-4 Programme please visit http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html).
Am I maligning the BNP and similar organisations by pointing to the similarities between their views (and those of the Nazis) on the issue of eugenics? The former leader of the BNP, John Tyndall once said “Mein Kampf is my bible”. In Mein Kampf Hitler discusses eugenics in its most extreme Social Darwinist form (Hitler and other extreme advocates of Social Darwinism believe that Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” can and should be applied to human society, I.E. the weak should be left to die or positively assisted to do so). So given that Hitler espoused the most extreme form of Social Darwinism and Tyndall (as noted above) regards Mein Kampf as his bible I believe that we have ample evidence that the BNP is a Nazi party who espouse eugenics.
Granted the BNP is now lead by Nick Griffin and the party now states that it opposes eugenics. However (as previously pointed out) Jeff Marshall, the BNP’s former Central London organiser voiced support for eugenics in the context of the tragic death of Ivon Cameron, the severely disabled son of David and Samantha Cameron. This incident took place on Griffin’s watch. Again Griffin once remarked “Adolf went a bit to far”. One wonders whether Mr Griffin considers Hitler’s killing of the disabled as going a bit to far.