How eugenics poisoned the welfare state

The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | November 27, 2009 | Dennis Sewell

[Schnucki]

A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, writes Dennis Sewell, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today

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

[Le Chien Rouge]

The hard lefts main agenda has ALWAYS been to ‘thin the herd’.

History has plenty of examples to back this statement.

[nmh]

“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.”

This sounds like the Demoncrats.

They have nothing but CONTEMPT, ELITEST and SNOBISH.

[nmh]

Yes, Dawin plays a MAJOR role:

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.

[Traveler59]

From the article; "...most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited. In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class.

Sounds like the mindset of a lot of Democratic congresscritters. Regrettably the very few welfare recipients will see this and question it.

- Traveler

[nmh]

Yes, who could forget the contempt Johnson and FDR had for the poor? When Roe vs Wade came along, the picture was complete. ABORTION was now legal for those poor, ignorant people that bred like rabits.

“In the years leading up to the first world war Leonard Darwin set about lobbying the government to act. He wanted to set up flying squads of scientists, armed with powers of arrest over the poor, to tour the country weeding out the ‘unfit’.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5571423/part_2/how-eugenics-poisoned-the-welfare-state.thtml

What made this particulary evil was the “poor” and others willingly murdered their unborn. Who would have thought this was COMPASSION? And this still push Darwin at our kids in school like it’s gospel. How sickening this is and we “wonder” why life is cheap and kids make the headlines more and more for “adult crimes”. We wring our hands and wonder, “what happened”? It’s obvious but we won’t stop pushing Darwin and the “survival of the fittest”.

...

William Beveridge, later to emerge as the midwife of the post-1945 welfare settlement, was also very active in the eugenics movement at this time. Today, Beveridge is generally portrayed as a kindly, avuncular figure, one almost dripping with compassion and benevolence.

Yes, evil with a smiley face!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5571423/part_4/how-eugenics-poisoned-the-welfare-state.thtml

Given the association of so many of its founding fathers with the dismal pseudo- science of eugenics, perhaps we should not be surprised that our welfare system has ended up preferring safety nets to trampolines, or that it prefers simply to warehouse the poor rather than give people who have fallen on hard times a chance to take responsibility for their own lives. Eugenics infected its adherents with a deeply pessimistic view of the poor, branding them as irredeemably genetically second-rate, and this view has cast a long shadow over social policy assumptions. Labour figures who mock the idea of ‘compassionate Conservatism’ or make light of David Cameron’s focus on our ‘broken society’ need to take a hard look at some of their own history and intellectual heritage. When it comes to who really can claim to care about the problems of the poor, the dividing lines are not so straight as Gordon Brown thinks they are.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5571423/part_5/how-eugenics-poisoned-the-welfare-state.thtml

It’s all too familiar. Liberals never get it. They have their heads hidden you know where. Liberals have nothing but didain for you. It’s their way of keeping you down and ideally getting rid of you if you are not like them.

[nmh]

From the article; “...most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited. In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class.

Such B.S.!

Abe Lincoln was dirt poor. He went through tragedies and came out on top. This points out their dismal view of life. Where you START out in life, has little to do with where you END up. It is up to YOU, the individual, to make the difference.

[squarebarb]

Genetically inferior? That’s so nutty. Genetically most people in the UK are all the same. Haplogroup R1a, I believe.

Fabians are scary, horrible people.

[Incorrigible]

I knew bits and pieces from this article but it was nice putting it all together.

Worthwhile noting that Margaret Sanger was a fan of eugenics.

[pnh102]

Shouldn’t the headline be the other way around. Sustaining numerous people who refuse to work helps make the case for sterilizing said people so they quit being a burden to everyone else.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[panaxanax]

“...vile pseudo-science of eugenics...”

Anyone who denies that genetics don’t have a bearing on an individual’s future is suffering from a genetic defect, e.g. lack of common sense.

[Gaffer]

What happened? If you take away the need to survive, the will to work to ‘survive’ becomes meaningless. That ‘work’ is what drives a human. If you take away the need for that drive all resulting behavior is predictable.

[riri]

Great article. Thanks for posting. I was largely ignorant of much of this.

[Tunehead54]

Reference Bump! ;-)

[Lancey Howard]

Wasn’t that big hero of the American left, Margaret Sanger, into all this eugenics stuff as well? The scumbag liberals award each other ‘Margaret Sanger’ trophies for encouraging abortions, if I recall correctly.

[freekitty]

And thieves.

[M.K. Borders]

I wonder sometimes if our concept of poverty is not flawed.

I have known families who had very little money living clean and respectable lives and I have known families who live in absolute squalor.

I have known families who with very little money, labor to keep what they do have in good order

I have known families with little resources running out to purchase things I can't even afford,

I have seen the poor rent homes in modest middle-class neighborhoods and trash the whole street with their activities.

I have seen the children of the poor become so hostile to poverty that they excel in work and school simply to never have to go back to that which they came.

I have seen the children of the poor who are comfortable with their situation. To them it's normal.

No. There is some poverty that can be explained by negative circumstances and there is some poverty that has a mental/emotional/cultural aspect that doom it's children.

We all have examples of this in our lives.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"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."

Swine Flu Vaccine and Miscarriages

Tetanus Vaccines, Spontaneous Abortions, and Population Control

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
- John Holdren, Obama's "science czar" on how to introduce population control drugs into the water supply

The same people involved with faking the global warming data have been
promoting population control and the Swine Flu panic.
Same people: same scientists, same politicians, same secret societies and foundations.

POPULATION CONTROL

[Natural Law]

"Yes, Dawin plays a MAJOR role:"

Let's stick to the truth and not embellish it to fit your perception of reality. Francis Galton was Charles Darwin's half cousin. They shared a common grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Charles Darwin NEVER advocated eugenics. Contrary to the posted beliefs of many, Charles Darwin did NOT invent natural selection, he merely observed and described it.