Replies

JonPreston: "Winston Churchill, a giant of the 20th century, was wildly pro-eugenics but ironically became the man who would stand up to Adolf Hitler, the tyrant who brought all the logical conclusions of eugenics into horrific reality."

From this article on the subject.

Eugenics had its day in the sun, in the early 1900s it was state-of-the-art science, positing that "mental deficiencies" were strictly genetically caused and therefore preventing the "mentally deficient" from reproducing would increase a country's overall wellbeing.

Many in the USA believed it, resulting in over 60,000 sterilizations from 1907 to 1981.
The Brits estimated they had 120,000 "mentally deficient" people and some proposed they should be forcibly sterilized.
One of those in 1911 was a rising young politician named Winston Churchill, then Home Secretary.
And for several years the Brits considered several different proposals, and found sterilization was strongly opposed by the church and other religious leaders.
Finally Parliament decided against sterilization and in favor of confinement, depending on how severe each condition was.

In the many years since, the whole idea of eugenics has been discredited as, first of all, junk science and second, unethical.
But in the early 1900s it had its day and sparked the imaginations of many who wanted to improve the lives of their fellow countrymen & women.
In the US it led to over 60,000 sterilizations and in Germany... well...
The Brits took a few years to think it over, and after Churchill had moved on from the Home Office to become First Lord of the Admiralty, they decided sterilization was not the right answer, and that confinement would depend on individual conditions.

So, by the time Churchill met with Hitler's representative in Berlin, in 1932, Churchill's scientific and ethical world had moved on past eugenics, just as the political realm was about to demonstrate what a ghastly horror it really is.

He wants to change the subject to how horrible England is because of some of the many horrible things that they did, without acknowledging any of the wonderful things that England did, because:

1. He's a paid Putin shill;
2. He's obsessed with the Irish potato famine, and can't get past it, due to the fact that his ancestors were in it;
3. Both of the above; or
4. He thinks I'm making light of England's past misdeeds, even though I've made it clear that I am not.

I stand by my prior conclusion, which should have sufficed for the entire argument, except that he either never read it, or is studiously ignoring it. Either way, here it is again:

But this is all a red herring. Your underlying premise, that Britain’s past misdeeds make them ineligible to say ‘boo’ in world affairs, and should allow Putin to run rampant in Eastern Europe yet again, is the underlying assumption of CRT and woke-ism, which goes as follows: America stole land and exterminated Indian tribes, enslaved blacks, and did racist stuff, so it is fundamentally immoral even today, and had better just shut up and pay reparations, and all white people should wear sack cloth and ashes forevermore.

Britain was once a mighty empire. America is a mighty empire at present. Russia was once a mighty empire. So was France and Rome and Greece and Persia and Babylon. Mighty empires, over the centuries, do many things, some of them great and wonderful, and some of them odious and criminal. But, as deTocqueville points out, nations are not like men. A man who commits crimes must be punished for them, or atone for them, and can’t go on from there. A nation, however, can start anew with each generation, even without tearing down statues of Jefferson and Jackson, or Churchill, all of whom were as complex as the nations they led, and who committed many terrible things, too, in addition to the great things that they undoubtedly did.

So blather on about how evil Britain supposedly is because of the potato famine, the Struma, Amritsar, or whatever. Those were in past generations. Right now, Russia is committing criminal acts and trying to destroy and absorb a smaller nation. Britain can and should help that nation defend itself, racist past or not.

Or, if you want, blather on about Ukrainians collaborating with Hitler, and the statues of Banderas and Khmelnicky. There’s also a monument memorializing the dead of Babi-Yar as well.

There is no moral justification for Putin’s invasion. There is no moral impediment to another nation helping Ukraine defend against Putin’s invasion. Period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObKJrz8Sjg

Child in need of a CGM system.

https://gofund.me/6452dbf1

Pip pip. Cheerio, Preston. Have a good 'un.