 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vandike
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Posts: 27
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:34 am Post subject: The "our human stock is threatened" speech |
 |
|
Sir Keith Joseph inspired Margaret Thatcher to convert to Monetarism, an economic and political theory he had read about and adapted his mind to during the mid-through-late 1970s. His influence in creating the economic system we now thrive in - the private-dominated mixed-economy as opposed to the public-dominated mixex-economy inspired of Clement Attlee's and Roosevelt's administrations - is unquestionable. Thatcher with Reagan by her side during the 1980s created the benchmark that would transform economies worldwide, a transformation that has persisted for over 25 years.
In a speech at the Grand Hotel, Birmingham on Saturday 19 October 1974 he said, and I quote:
| Quote: | "The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened. A recent article in Poverty, published by the Child Poverty Action Group, showed that 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.
Yet what shall we do? If we do nothing, the nation moves towards degeneration, however much resources we pour into preventative work and the over-burdened educational system. It is all the more serious when we think of the loss of people with talent and initiative through emigration as our semi-socialism deprives them of adequate opportunities, rewards and satisfactions.
Yet proposals to extend birth-control facilities to these classes of people, particularly the young unmarried girls, the potential young unmarried mothers, evokes entirely understandable moral opposition. Is it not condoning immorality? I suppose it is. But which is the lesser evil, until we are able to remoralise whole groups and classes of people, undoing the harm done when already weak restraints on strong instincts are further weakened by permissiveness in television, in films, on bookstalls?"
|
Sir Keith Joseph was undoubtedly the most important man of the 20th Century and a paragon of moral virtue. He ensured the future wealth, opportunity and freedom of billions worldwide with his vision and determination.
It's sad that his idea to incorporate birth control for poor women never saw the light of day. That it hasn't is proving to be the one remaining problem we have. So many immoral poor people are bringing more problem children in the world, and the virus spreads.
Does anyone agree poor women of questionable character, of inadequate education, of little value to society should be sterilized? Or is that not enough? Perhaps also, it's necessary to neuter poor men who lack the moral virtues our societies need? I truly think so.
What are your thoughts? I'd be most delighted to engage in a debate on this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Laz
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 09, 2005
Posts: 750
Location: Sheffield or Hertfordshire England
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well on the news this morning. We have a fertillity problem. We need more babies in this country and i don't think there too bothered who's out producing them by the looks of it with the tax credit they give out. All the sensible middle class types are waiting till there 30 odd with a decent financial base and career to have kids and this off set (next year i'll be the same age my mother got pregnant with me) has produced this eceonomic problem so really do we need birth control? Well in this country we need to start F***** and F***** fast OH wait whats the solution? Immigration oh well those assylum seekers may be our saviour after all if we can make um work the jobs we'll be too old and senile to do in the future |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vandike wrote:
| Quote: | | Does anyone agree poor women of questionable character, of inadequate education, of little value to society should be sterilized? Or is that not enough? Perhaps also, it's necessary to neuter poor men who lack the moral virtues our societies need? I truly think so. |
Offensive though I find these views I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised that there are people in the wings who will try to revive this discredited, extreme right wing/fascist, eugenics rubbish.
By the way, I am not totally convinced that you are serious and that you aren't just trying to be polemical, and playing a little game with us poor, weak minded aspies.
Laz wrote:
| Quote: | | We need more babies in this country and i don't think there too bothered who's out producing them by the looks of it with the tax credit they give out. |
I totally agree. Within ten years the moral climate will reverse completely, there will be public service broadcasts urging teenagers from whatever class to have children before they are eighteen, with offers of free housing and higher education for the mothers and daycare for the children.
Last edited by IgorStop on Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
ancientofdaze
Raven
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Posts: 103
Location: west wales, uk, overlooking the ocean
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sir Keith Joseph was undoubtedly an important part of a government which threw 5 million people out of work, condemned vast tracts of Britain to economic and social devastation from which many have not recovered more than twenty years on, starved even London of essential infrastructure (like Tube lines), and destroyed our steel and shipbuilding industries. A government which closed down our coal industry solely in order to destroy the miners' union, an act of criminal vandalism which has and will cost us very dearly indeed.
On his personal watch as Secretary of State for Education, his abrasive, ideological style antagonised teachers and led to industrial relations chaos culminating in a lock-out which lasted for many months, closing schools and depriving millions of children of a whole year's education.
He was a paragon of the sort of moral hypocrisy that regards the children of poor people as "a problem", but not the children of such as his idol Mrs Thatcher, whose son Mark, long a byword in Britain for "problem child", is now a convicted criminal, worth, apparently, £60million despite having been a national laughing stock for twenty years and contributing absolutely nothing to the well-being of the country.
The speech you quote is simply another of Sir Keith's misjudgements: having betrayed Tory leader Ted Heath who had promoted him despite their very different economic views, he was aiming to be Leader, but the speech exposed his 19th-Century mindset and scuppered that hope. Only then did he support Thatcher, who subsequently became PM of course and did so much damage to Britain and its people. For that, may God forgive him.
| Quote: | | It's sad that his idea to incorporate birth control for poor women never saw the light of day. That it hasn't is proving to be the one remaining problem we have. |
It's sad that President Bush, on unfathomable "moral" grounds, has prevented the United Nations from continuing its work of providing birth control to the poor in Africa. But if you truly think that is "the one remaining problem we have", then you and I, Sir, are living on different planets. This the Wrong Planet, btw, for autistic people. I note that you profile yourself as "neurotypical". May I respectfully ask what is your interest in coming here?
_________________________
__homage to hans asperger__ |
|
| Back to top |
|
rushfanatic
Deinonychus
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
Posts: 369
Location: Lovely Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hi, This is amazing timing to discuss this..Yesterday, I was reading Literary Digest from 1915, as I collect old magazines..One of the back ads was for Eugenics, and the progress it was striving for. So, I looked it up online, and it is basically eliminating the lesser class of people from having children who will repeat this cycyle of poverty, uneducation, etc. I was shocked to see it in the first place from 1915, let alone today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5302
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eugenics is a rather cold idea but even that sort of makes sense. People should not breed unless they can take care of the offspring. However, eugenics is still a very cold idea.
Besides, I have heard that the economic policies under margaret thatcher towards higher education probably increased the quality of that education. I need to find the article but English universities are pretty good and America has many of the top universities in the world and the article states that Thatcher is responsible for this development. I will try to find the article.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DrizzleMan
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 814
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since when does poor = immoral?
_________________
-to the best of my knowledge I am NA/NT, INTP/j-
Signature quote: "I apologise in advance for the cliches." |
|
| Back to top |
|
ancientofdaze
Raven
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Posts: 103
Location: west wales, uk, overlooking the ocean
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Awesomelyglorious informed us | Quote: | | I have heard that the economic policies under margaret thatcher towards higher education probably increased the quality of that education. I need to find the article but English universities are pretty good and America has many of the top universities in the world and the article states that Thatcher is responsible for this development. I will try to find the article. |
I look forward to reading it. It sounds original.
But don't forget to google up the political stance of its author and publisher.
And never forget that in history, it's the winners who write it.
_______________________
__homage to hans asperger__ |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vandike
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ancientofdaze wrote: | | This the Wrong Planet, btw, for autistic people. I note that you profile yourself as "neurotypical". May I respectfully ask what is your interest in coming here? |
I think I may have AS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ancientofdaze
Raven
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Posts: 103
Location: west wales, uk, overlooking the ocean
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Scoots5012
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Age: 28
Posts: 2244
Location: Cheyenne Wyoming
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DrizzleMan wrote: | | Since when does poor = immoral? |
For the most part it dosen't. The popular line that has been towed for years by those on the right is that....
Poor=Lazy
_________________
I live my life to prove wrong those who said I couldn't make it in life... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5302
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4339960
This article has a small section that lauds the successes of the American system stating that the lack of connection to the government is the reason for success, it is at the bottom of the article.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4339944
This is another interesting article talking about the successes of the American system.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4340031
The bottom of this article has what I was seeking and it states that Margaret Thatcher was moving in the right direction.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4340083
Another interesting article about markets and universities.
I suppose you may not like the economist as a source of information due to the capitalism it promotes but I think it does make some points which is why I included multiple articles. I also included these multiple articles because I had to search through them to find the one I wanted. Not much of it is focused towards Britain and more of it is lauding the American system.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ancientofdaze
Raven
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Posts: 103
Location: west wales, uk, overlooking the ocean
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5302
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, well, you only need 1 of them to find where it says that Margaret Thatcher's move to help privatize education was a good one. It is a small segment and does not go into how it has helped britain too much. Most of the articles glorify the American college system where the government does not have very much control over the schools at all. However, British colleges seem to do better than other European schools and American beat them all according to what I have seen on international colleges.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ancientofdaze
Raven
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Posts: 103
Location: west wales, uk, overlooking the ocean
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
The article you point out says "Britain's academics were aghast when Margaret Thatcher set about shaking up the universities in the early 1980s" but doesn't offer a single example of her shake-up or why it was a good thing, so it's hard to address. Britain's academics are still aghast at what many see as the destruction of the uni as we have known it, indeed of education in general as we have known it, which continues. We have not so much education as a learning industry, and the learning is for vocational purposes. All over Britain, uni's are closing departments, including world-renowned centres of excellence in their fields, because they are not seen as providing a ticket to a job. Philosophy? Forget it. Archeology? Old hat. Sociology? Wishy-washy. Close 'em down. But what else to expect when we have a so-called Minister of Culture who says studying history is a waste of time.
Call me old-fashioned if you like (I deny it) but I think these subjects are vital to the health of the body politic, to use an old-fashioned phrase. I think uni should be a time to expand one's horizons, to study things that one may never need to know about in RL, as it were, but which nonetheless enrich one's mind. Instead, it is increasingly a matter of narrowing one's horizons and learning only what will get one a particular job on graduation. That isn't education, it's vocational training. And the reason for this sad decline in academic values is precisely the shift to marketplace funding lauded by the Economist.
I did notice this in one of the articles, about the US but equally applies in UK, especially this year when tuition fees triple:
| Quote: | | The dramatic rise in the price of American higher education puts a heavy burden on middle-class families who are too rich to qualify for special treatment. It also sends negative signals to poorer parents who may be unaware of all the subsidies available... Americans increasingly regard universities as the gatekeepers to good jobs, but they also see them as prohibitively expensive... universities are becoming bastions of privilege rather than instruments of social mobility. |
_________________________
__homage to hans asperger__ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
