BS: The BNP conundrum

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:21 PM

I dunno, I'm sure some people joined the Nazi Party because they hoped it would make the trains run on time (They were wrong - Mussolini couldnt' really manage it either, but the Deutsche Reichsbahn under Hitler was particularly chaotic. Another illusion shattered...)

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:57 PM

Jesus wept Keith, just go to the front page of www.eugenics.net.

Out of their own mouths.

If you don't immediately recognise most of the titles they cite you have done less homework than [insert suitable expression].

If they don't horrify you, they should.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 10:39 PM

thankyou royston, when you were on about it before, i didn't know what it meant! i assumed (wrongly)that it was something to do with all the statistics that i didn't understand fully in the first place.

when i think about all the poor kids lives being turned upside down, being prodded and probed and tested, then to watch half their class being led away never to be seen again, i could cry.

i am just about to look into this colman person, and the modern version of this, eugenics stuff.
but please, let us not get bogged down by one person.
ths thread is so much bigger than that.

everyone is entiltled to their point of view and as far as i can see, everyone making a contribution to this thread deserves to be heard and thought about.

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 11:40 PM

that should have been evryone is welcome to express themselves.....except trolls, but i thought that went without saying.

the had second thoughts for although you all know that, the trolls don't and i really don't want them to think of me as their friend or champion.

j x x x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: GUEST,Tina Edwards
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 04:46 AM

Express themselves yes, but getting tormented on Facebook is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:10 AM

Richard, you have directed us to the site of an American far right racist wacko!
Marian Van Court, "The Cosmic Mother of Transhuman Eugenics"
Why did you?
How does it relate to our discussion?
They are natzi eugenicists. Even Royston concedes that Coleman is not.
Are you suggesting Coleman approves of ANYTHING there?
Please answer clearly.
You are using Natzi tactics. You can not match a brilliant man's arguments, so you seek to discredit him with lies and smears.
Contemptible.
You only call him eugenicist because of his association with this charity.
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/ Can you find one thing wrong with it?
Can you associate Coleman with one, single, discreditable statement, idea or theory?
If yes please say so clearly.
No lawyer's weasel words.
If not, listen to Jade and leave this great man alone.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:21 AM

Oh very clever Tina. Not. ROFLMAO - at you. Nobody from here is tormenting you or any of your cretinous friends (well, left hand, right hand) on facebook.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:34 AM

It's really quite fantastic how stupid the BNP are. They really seem to imagine that anyone will believe their invented stories about FaF members sexually harrassing their slightly OTT imaginary women profiles on Fakebook are true, or that anyone will believe that the pictures (from several years ago) of now FaF members that they have lifted off various web-pages and hosting sites, and photoshopped, really do show FaF members consorting with the BNP.

Keith, I sent you to a eugenics site because it's about eugenics.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:39 AM

Richard, it is not about Coleman though is it?

Can you associate Coleman with one, single, discreditable statement, idea or theory?
If yes please say so clearly.
No lawyer's weasel words.
If not, listen to Jade and leave this great man alone.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 05:49 AM

Keith,

I specifically excluded Coleman from my discussion with Jeddy.

Richard said

"Jesus wept Keith, just go to the front page of www.eugenics.net.

Out of their own mouths.

If you don't immediately recognise most of the titles they cite you have done less homework than [insert suitable expression].

If they don't horrify you, they should."

Which has no mention, reference, or implication concerning Coleman.

Why have you such an abnormal obsession with this man? I think the two of you should get a room, soon!

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 06:09 AM

Thanks Royston.
I take it then, that you find no fault with the man though you oppose his views.
Fair enough, again thanks.

And you Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 08:05 AM

Jade, how are you getting on with all that stuff on eugenics?
Before you waste too much time, remember it was only brought in to the thread to smear David Coleman.
It was brought in by Emma b on the 29th Sept.at 06.07pm, and then by Royston on 30th at 04.06am.
The both were trying to link bad eugenics with poor David.
Royston has now said that there is no link to him.

So Coleman does not support it, no one on this thread does, and BNP have probably never heard of it!

I just don't know why it keeps getting brought up.

keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 08:10 AM

Oh, I see, Keith. Coleman is good eugenics, and the rest are bad eugenics? Do me a favour.

THe BNP's views would appear to draw strength (if that is the right word) from both.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 08:24 AM

Coleman IS NOT EUGENICS!!!!!!
He is demography.
WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING HE IS???

I ask you again
Can you associate Coleman with one, single, discreditable statement, idea or theory (eugenic or otherwise)?
If yes please say so clearly.
No lawyer's weasel words.
If not, listen to Jade and leave this great man alone.

NOW ANSWER PLEASE

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: mandotim
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 09:33 AM

'Demography of Immigrants and Minority Groups in the United Kingdom: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium of the Eugenics Society, London 1981
by D. A. Coleman, Eugenics Society (London, England)
Softcover, Academic Press, ISBN 0121797805 (0-12-179780-5)'

I would assert that this publication suggests that Coleman is associated with the field of Eugenics, since he consented to the publishing of his work by the Eugenics Society, of which he was a member at the time of publication. The subject matter is demography, the context is Eugenics. It's never a good idea to let hero-worship get in the way of objectivity.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 09:52 AM

The Eugenics Society is the previous name ot the Galston Institute.
It changed its name because of the misuse of the word to mean only the evil type work of the Nazis.
The Society never did support or promulgate any discreditable stuff at all.
You can not judge it because of the name.
This is the same society.http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/

There is nothing wrong with it or Coleman.
If you can find one single thing then please share it.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 10:11 AM

Mand Tim, I did link to the Galston just a few posts down, and Coleman himself talks about it and its name on the piece I linked to 2 days ago.
Here again http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544898/Academic-hits-back-in-migration-row.html

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 10:23 AM

Coleman on the Galton Institute.

Four substantial demographic publications edited by me, with others, have appeared under its aegis, mostly published by Academic Press and Macmillan.

The pre-war British eugenics 'movement' was innocent of Continental excesses, although like many 'meritocratic' ideas it was afflicted by the simple-minded understanding of heredity at that time.

The Institute aims to promote knowledge of human heredity, discussion of its moral and ethical aspects and its consequences for human well-being. The academic distinction of its Council will be evident from a glance at its website http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/.

Its President is Professor Steve Jones of UCL, one of the country's foremost geneticists. Most of the Galton Institute's research fund at present is spent on a big reproductive health project in Ethiopia.

The pressing need to help women in the poorest countries such as Ethiopia to avoid unwanted childbearing was emphasised very recently in the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development.

In the past it was associated with the pioneering efforts of Marie Stopes to help women avoid unwanted childbearing.

It attracted membership from across the political spectrum, including Arthur Balfour, Sir William Beveridge, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, Bertrand Russell and other notables.

Among its Nobel Prize winning members included John Maynard Keynes, James Mead and Lord Rayleigh. Its Galton lectures have been delivered by such notables as J.D Bernal, A.H. Halsey, Josiah Stamp, Sidney Webb and Havelock Ellis.

It helped to 'invent' demography in Britain by funding the Population Investigation Committee at the LSE in 1936.

My own doctoral supervisor at the LSE, the eminent sociologist D.V.Glass, a prominent member, became the PIC's first Research Secretary in the 1930s.

One might suppose that a left-wing Jew would not have been inclined to associate with anything tainted.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 10:34 AM

still wading through so much info.

i have a major pronlem with one of the

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 10:40 AM

EH? i was happily typing away and it did this!!!

yes.. very worried about the sterilization of mentally ill women.

i understand that although, most of the women talked about would not make great mothers, it is unfair to term all mentally ill people with the dribbling wreck brush.

also, instead of protecting their bodies from becoming pregnant, how about trying to stop, the disgusting and deprved men from violating these women in the first place?

it feels like the egincis society is saying that it is ok to rape these unfortubate women as long as it doesn't end in pregancy!!!!!

i am rather disgusted.

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 11:13 AM

That was the Nazis in Germany Jade.
The Eugenics Society, a British charity now called the Galton Institute, has only ever done good things.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 11:43 AM

As background to the discussion about contemporary eugenics, some here may be interested in this document that I found about the British & United States Eugenics organizations:

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/eug.01-30.html
Eugenics becomes popular (1901-1930)

Here are some excerpts from that document:

"Notice that the eugenic policy may be divided into two: "positive eugenics" which aims to foster more prolific breeding among the socially meritorious, and "negative eugenics" which intends to encourage the socially disadvantaged to breed less or not at all. (see Kevles 1985, 85)

[Organizations]

The vogue of eugenics derived energy from the organizational efforts of its advocates. In 1907, inspired by Galton, a national Eugenics Education Society was founded in Britain. ... Branches of the society sprang up in Birmingham, Cambridge, Manchester, Southampton, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Sydney, Australia. Local eugenics groups sprouted across the United States, ... Eugenic themes diffused into groups devoted to sex education and sex hygiene, and were evident in the baby-health competitions that spread to some forty states before the war. Various efforts ... were mounted to organize eugnics on a national basis, along the lines of the British society; they culminated in the formation in 1923 of the American Eugenics society, which rapidly spawned twenty-eight state committees and a southern California branch. (Kevles 1985, 59)

[Eugenic contests]

The Fitter Families contests had started in Topeka, in 1920, at the Kansas Free Fair. Under the aegis of the American Eugenics Society, they were soon being featured---together with eugenic exhibits---at seven to ten state fairs yearly; ... Local publications gave front-page attention to the competitions and their winners. At the state fairs, the Fitter Families competitions were held in the "human stock" sections. ... Any healthy family could enter. Contestants had only to provide an examiner with the family's eugenic history. All family members had to submit to a medical examination---including a Wassermann test and a psychiatric assessment---and take an intelligence test. At the 1924 Kansas Free Fair, winning families in three categories---small, average, and large---were awarded a Governor's Fitter Family Trophy, ... (Kevles 1985, 61-2)


[The movement spread]

After the turn of the century, eugenic efforts---often called "race hygene"---had also developed in Sweden, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Germany, Poland, France, and Italy; in the nineteen-twenties, the movement spread to Japan and Latin America. (Kevles 1985, 63)

[Wide spectrum of supporters]

..."Eugenics enthusiasts in the United States and Britain were largely middle to upper middle class, white, Anglo-Saxon, predominantly Protestant, and educated. The movement's leaders tended to be well-to-do rather than rich, and many wer eprofessionals---physicians, social workers, clerics, writers, and numerous professors, notably in the biological and social sciences. ... Fully half the membership of the British eugenics society consisted of women, and so did about a quarter of its officers...

**


[Racism]

Racism---in that era racial differences were identified with variations not only in skin color but in ethnic identity---was a feature of both British and American eugenics. ...

[Intelligence tests]

Like Francis Galton, whom they took as their patron saint, eugeniticists identified human worth with the qualities they presumed themselves to possess--the sort tha tfacilitated passage through schools, universities, and professional training. They tended to equate merit with intelligence, particularly of the academic sort. ... the idea of systematically measuring intelligence had captured the attention of the French psychologist Alfred Binet, an acolyte of Galton's quantifying aims, if not of his particular methods.

[Eugenics and mental tests]

Whatever their prejudices, American and British eugenicists were alike distressed over the trend in their respective nations' intelligence. Before the First World War, eugenicists like Karl Pearson and Charles Davenport had warned that excessive breeding of the lower classes was giving the edge to the less fit. The growth of I.Q. testing after the war gave a quantitative authority to the eugenic notion of fitness. For the voque of mental testing did more than encourage fears regarding the "menace of the feeble-minded." It also identified the principal source of heedless fecundity with low-I.Q. groups, and it equated national deterioration with a decline in national intelligence. (Kevles 1985, 84)

[Eugenics and birth-control]

Eugenicists were generally against the feminist movement and the birth-control; but some people such as Margaret Sanger combined eugenic ideas with birth-control.

Women were said to expect sexual fulfillment in marriage without fear of pregnancy. Birth control had come to stay, and so, it seemed, had a steady decline in the birthrate of the upper classes. As Margaret Sanger put it, the sensible eugenic response to the differential birthrate was to make available to lower-income and less educated groups the contraceptive knowledge and opportunities enjoyed by others. Before the war, Sangar had linked birth control with feminism. Now, like her British counterpart Marie Stopes, she tied contraception increasingly to the eugenic cause. In 1919, she wrote: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit---that is the chief issue of birth control." (Kevles 1985, 90)"

-snip-

Italics added by me to highlight that phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 11:49 AM

Also, some here may be interested in reading this article which is titled "A Weapon of Eugenics: Sterilization as a Means to Better the Race"

http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Cincinnati/students.umw.edu/_ncinc5ce/eugenics.html


Here is an except of that article:

"It was no coincidence that modern sterilization procedures were developed as the science of eugenics emerged in Western thought. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term "eugenics" in 1883. This pseudo-science, an outgrowth of social Darwinism and Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance, stressed that heredity was law and that those with good genes should be harnessed while those with "defective" genes should be eliminated. Positive eugenics was the science of nourishing those fit to reproduce while negative eugenics developed methods to eradicate undesirable elements. This elitist science, which targeted the poor, the mentally and physically handicapped, and certain racial groups, found fertile ground in the United States where upper and middle class professionals feared "race suicide" among the fit. Indeed, the United States shaped and transformed eugenics into a movement which was mimicked all over the world—including in Nazi Germany.

The mid to late nineteenth century was a time when birth control knowledge and use was still very taboo and very illegal, thus doctors were not interested in developing sterilization for middle and upper class Americans but rather for those elements causing "degeneracy." At a time when many American scientific and medical circles believed criminality, poverty, depravity, and mental illness were genetically inherited, a technique to prevent reproduction of these qualities was greatly desired. Sterilization offered the "surgical solution." With a perceived sense that defective Americans reproduced much faster than normal ones, eugenicists, like Ochsner and others, viewed sterilization as a panacea.Sterilization become an integral part of a population control system where eugenicists, doctors, and politicians worked together to ensure the sterilization of the unfit. Eugenic sterilization laws legalizing the involuntary sterilization of the mentally ill, criminals, and other defectives, came to being in close to thirty states with more than 70,000 Americans losing the ability to reproduce by the mid-twentieth century."

-snip-

All of this to say, Keith A of Hertford, that for what it's worth, I definitely don't agree with you that "The Eugenics Society, a British charity now called the Galton Institute, has only ever done good things."

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 12:00 PM

Your extracts do not seem contradict my statement that the British society only did good things.
Did I miss a bad thing or must I read the whole article?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 12:18 PM

the thing i was talking about came from here.

http://www.eugenics.net/

in the Q&A section.


i am sorry we have gone slightly off point.
the nazi eugenics are important as this is what the BNP aspire to.

the new wave of the galton institue, does seem to want to hlep those who ask for it, i will say that i have only just been able to look at the news letters so i will wade through some of them when i get the chance.

i don't blame anyone for wanting to disassociate from the actions of others in the past, it is only fair i give them the benifit of doubt until i have read enough to make my own mind up.

however, if they are innocent of past crimes against humaity, they are being used by the BNP as much as immigrants.

this david coleman,may want to look at these thigns from a purely .. educational..no... scientific?..yes. point of veiw, but i feel like they are missing the fact that they are talking about people, feeling, thinking people.

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 12:46 PM

Keith

Thanks Royston.
I take it then, that you find no fault with the man though you oppose his views.
Fair enough, again thanks.

No, Keith. My personal opinion of anyone associated with the Eugenics Society when it was called that and who continued their fellowship of the Galton Institute (idolising the racist founder of Eugenics) remains suspicious to say the least.

The Eugenics Society is to the Galton Instiute as Windscale is to Sellafield. You can change the name, you can never entirely remove the toxic contamination. My opinion.

But my point to you is that we are talking about Nazi Eugenics, modern Eugenics and BNP Eugenic beliefs. We are not talking about Coleman. Only you seem to want to keep talking about Coleman. Please, stop talking about Coleman.

And to answer a qestion you put to Azizi - yes, you do need to read a lot more.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 12:51 PM

The BNP represents the worst parody of patriotism. It relies on jingoism and a self-conscious nationalism that discriminates against outsiders. There is no conundrum here.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 12:55 PM

Keith A of Hertford, that you could read those excerpts from those two articles that I posted at 02 Oct 09 - 11:43 AM abd at 02 Oct 09 -11:49 AM and still think that eugenics is a good thing tells me all I that I need to know about you.

**

Royston, you have much more patience than I will ever have.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 01:03 PM

abd=and

I suppose followers of eugenics would say that people of higer genes wouldn't make typos or people of lower genes wouldn't be able to catch the typos that they made.

I'm trying to be light about this very serious matter. But there is nothing "light" about those who deny their racism (perhaps even to themselves) and/or hide their bigotry and beliefs in White racial superiority under pseudo-scientific covers such as eugenics.

Here's a modern day African American proverb (which I just made up)

"Stink still smells even when it's hidden."

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 01:03 PM

Marie Stopes - the legendary abortionist and birth control advocate with a foundation named after her that continues its sefless efforts to stop poor people and less worthy people reproducing all over the world - was a leading member of the Eugenics Movement. She was also, like all Eugenicists a great believer in racial "value" and racial "hygiene"

The Eugenics Society supported and funded her work. In fact Stopes was regarded as the military wing of Eugenics.

The Galton Institute continues to give cash grants to the Marie Stopes Foundation in support of its birth control and sterilisation programs in the developing world.

I am fed up with cut and paste. Go to www.galtoninstitute.org.uk and look through the newsletters. Loads of Grants to MSI. I'm currently looking at the June 2000 newsletter (section: The Birth Control Trust) but there are plenty of entries. Or just google "galton eugencis marie stopes"

Dr. Marie Stopes was a vile racist, classist and murderous harridan. She wrote love poetry to Adolf Hitler.

For starters you could go HERE to the telelgraph website, not known for its left-wing spin or tendencies.

You see this is what taints Galton's followers, whatever they choose to call themselves this week.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 01:05 PM

Ha!

And I hadn't read that "guest" 02 Oct 09 - 01:02 PM
post before writing and submitting my 02 Oct 09 - 01:03 PM post.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 01:15 PM

Ah. Another typo.

"higer" means "higher" and does not rhyme with you know which racial slur.

I tend to make typos when I'm upset. And "Yes" this thread upsets me. But then again, I have no excuse. I knew that this thread wouldn't be a comfortable read given its title.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 01:45 PM

Azizi, you misjudge me and it hurts.
I do not "still think that eugenics is a good thing "

It has been misused for evil by many people in many places, but least of all by that British society.
You extracts identify plenty of nasty historical stuff, but do not accuse the British society, and that was a hundred years ago.

The eugenics issue was only brought in to the thread to discredit Coleman.
I am not defending the evil misuse of eugenics, only the reputation of one man.
I find him blameless.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: mandotim
Date: 02 Oct 09 - 02:36 PM

Keith; a polite enquiry. I think you need to be a little more specific when defending the Eugenics Society, in Britain or elsewhere. You use value-laden descriptors such as 'good', 'bad', 'blameless' etc. Since I may or may not share your definitions or perceptions of these terms, perhaps (from your reading) could give some specific examples of what you mean by 'good things' etc. in the work of Coleman and the Society, so that I and perhaps others can engage more meaningfully with your arguments? At the moment this all seems a little circular, as there are no points of common locus in the argument.
Thanks
Ps a small point; do try to get the names of your fellow contributors right, it seems disrespectful not to.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 07:49 AM

""I can't remember the precise genetic qualifications necessary to be "White" enough to allow you into mix with the pure Aryan breeding stock,""

Neither can I Crow Sister, but I do know that fat dark, ape-like Nasty Nick CERTAINLY DOES NOT POSSESS THEM!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 07:52 AM

Mandotim,
A couple of days ago I had not heard of Coleman, and knew only of eugenics that Nazi Germany used it to justify sterilisation of handicapped people and extermination of Jews, Gypsies and gays.

Then it was brought up to discredit Coleman and through him Migration Watch.

I googled all I could find on Coleman.
As an Oxford professor of Demography, he is a leading authority in the world on poulation changes.
Because he believes UK immigration is too high he was a victim of a far left smear campaign to get him sacked.
It failed because it was found to be groundless.

Eugenics is the Science of using genetics to improve the human gene pool. The Nazis and others thought to achieve improvement by eliminating "inferior" races and people.
Modern eugenics seek to do it by preventing the spread of inherited diseases by genetic profiling and counselling.
The word eugenics is rarely used because of the association with evil practices.

I found that the Galton Institute does no research, but organises lectures and seminars on the ethical use of genetics. They also have a trust that funds family planning help in poor countries.
Its president is a professor of genetics at Universty College London.

In Hitler's time the Jewish left wing sociologist Glass was invoved with it, which shows the gulf betweeen it and the nazis.

When I posted to Jade I remebered that she hates wading through figures and long explanations. I said the Galton only does good things.
Though simple, I have been able to find nothing that undermines that.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 10:33 AM

thanks keith, i hadn't heard of him before either, and as much as i have been looking i haven't found that much about him.
i have yet to look at the newsletters, so i might get somewhat of a shock.

this thread shouldn't be just about david colman though, he is not really the issue.

as in the case with george though, the galton institute,if in league with people who are racist and facist with regards to women, they are as culpable as those who think that way.

you cannot stand up and say one thig while befriending those who you say you dissagree with.

george, you know this was not meant as a dig at you, just to show a point. although i still do not fully understand your reasons for still being involved with the BNP, i do kind of understand what drove you there.

i think the reason we got on to eugenics in the first place was because once the BNP have doported everyone they can, they will then turn on the british people.

never forget that their hero is hitler. they want to recreat his vision and will go to any lengths, to make it so, if they ever get any sort of power.

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 11:06 AM

I have checked Jade, and the Galton is definately not in league with racists or fascists, and I agree with everything in your post except one thing.
Helen B brought eugenics into this thread, and she did it to try to make Coleman look bad.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 11:07 AM

Sorry, Emma B.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: mandotim
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 11:34 AM

Thanks for that Keith, the clarification is appreciated. Perhaps I could just add something though; from my searches, I get the distinct impression that the Galton institute has formed a particular 'world view' in terms of what is beneficial to the human species and what is not. This judgement is indeed based on some rudimentary thinking about inherited diseases (the role of spontaneous mutation is never considered), but also has roots in the now completely discredited work on intelligence by Eysenck and others. Add to that the avowed intent to pursue a cause of curtailing population growth among those classes of people, nations or races it deems to be less beneficial, there seems to be a commonality of ends (though not of means) with earlier practitioners of eugenics.
I find this disturbing on a number of levels; the main issue for me is the attempt by those who are successful in the genetic lottery to stack the odds against those who are less so. I'm disturbed on a personal level too. I'm a senior academic these days, but I'm the first male member of my entire family who didn't earn his living from working with his hands. My family also carries a gene for hereditary blindness. Had the Galton institute been as influential in the 1950s as they would no doubt like to be, my parents would have been discouraged (via 'genetic counselling') from having children, and I might not be here. Put another way, judgement would have been passed that my life, and that of my younger siblings (a history teacher, a doctor and a professional musician)would not have been worthwhile.
The problem with Coleman and so many other scientists of his ilk is that they have tremendous intellectual gifts in their field, but a narrowness of focus that prevents them fully considering either the wide moral compass of their work or the degree of uncertainty that the real world brings to the equation. I find Coleman's work interesting on that narrow level in the same way that the work of Thomas Malthus is interesting, but the moral critique of Coleman's ideas is far more convincing than the ideas themselves.
Thanks again for the thoughtful reply, I hope I've done it justice.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 11:56 AM

Thanks Tim. As you say there are major ethical questions about genetic counselling. Also the question of whether it is acceptable to abort a foetus because it has an abnormality.
That painful choice is now being offered to parents every day.

The Galton is not involved, except by encouraging debate on that and similar issues.

On birth control, would you deny people access to it?
The trust only offers it to those who could not otherwise afford it.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 01:11 PM

The Galton is not involved, except by encouraging debate on that and similar issues.

Except that via its division "The Birth Control Trust" and its outreach organisation, the Marie Stopes Foundation, it actively practices sterilisation and other birth control campaigns in the less developed nations and among the "less developed" races.

Imagine if all that brainpower and money were put into sanitation, agriculture, water and education in the same places. Healthy and educated people tend to make less babies. There is less need to reproduce when infant mortality rates are at Western standards. In mant parts of the world you have to have 10 kids just to be haf-way certain that one or two will make it to adults.

Nah, on second thoughts, screw that. Just set about them with the 21st century social equivalent of a jot of brandy and a knitting needle.

This is still not about any individual, it is about where Eugenics sits in the 21st century. A change of name and "voluntary" programmes, in the name of compassion.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 01:43 PM

Most people think family planning aid is vital to third world Royston.
World Bankhttp://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18324165
United Nations http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6193

President Obama http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7848038.stm

womenhttp://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3988

Me.

But not Royston

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 02:00 PM

Keith, you really are wilfully stupid aren't you?

I have worked with NGO's providing family planning in Afghanistan.

Family planning is barrier (condoms, coils, caps) and pharmacological (pills, hormone implants etc) contraception.

The Galton Insitute funds, and MSI delivers irreversible sterilisation programmes, as well as contraception.

If you can't see the difference between those then you are a lost cause.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 02:02 PM

In fact, Keith, I am concluding that from sitting on your 'A' in leafy Hertford, you know absolutely diddly squat about this world.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Peace
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 04:27 PM

"In 1928, the Province of Alberta, Canada, passed legislation that enabled the government to perform involuntary sterilizations on individuals classified as mentally deficient. In order to implement the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta in 1928, a four-person Alberta Eugenics Board was created. These four individuals were responsible for approving sterilization procedures. In 1972, the Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed, and the Eugenics Board dismantled. During the 43 years of the Eugenics Board, it approved nearly 5,000 individual sterilizations, and 2,832 procedures were actually performed."

FYI, Alberta was the first part of the British Empire to do this. It's disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Peace
Date: 03 Oct 09 - 04:28 PM

That was from Wikipedia. However, I researched it for a "Letter to the Editor" in the 1990s and unfortunately it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 05:24 AM

Some of the work they have done in India.
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0209/Birth_Control_Trust.htm
Let me educate you on something Royston.
Sterilization is the commonest form of contraception in some developed countries such as the USA where as many as 10 million are sterilized per annum, although a proportion (0.1 - 10%) subsequently regret the decision1. In most third world countries there is also an increasing acceptance2. The current population annual growth rate in Nigeria of 3% will, if continued, give rise to overpopulation in the near future3. The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Lagos Teaching Hospital has provided a family planning clinic since 1980.http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Biology_and_Society/BAS9009/Nigerian_Women.htm

You will probably be pleased to know that I have (voluntarily!) been sterilised after the birth of my third child some years ago.

Thirty minutes drive from "leafy Hertford" is a Marie Stopes clinic.
I have made that drive.
The young person I took had been referred by her GP, but they welcome anyone who needs help, and they give it for free.
I met some girls from Ireland there who dearly wished such help was available nearer to home.
I do not think that we were all victims of wicked eugenicists.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 09:26 AM

Keith, your vasectomy and the tube-ties on western women leave you, and them, reproductively intact. Some ops are reversible. If either western men or women change their mind then they just have to take the IVF or artificial insemination options that Western couples have,if they are rich enough.

Keith, if you can't see that Groups like the Galton Institute and Marie Stopes International - with all their dangerous and frankly evil histories - direct enormous resources at making sure the poor, 'ethnically undesirable' and disadvantaged don't or can't reproduce (rather than improving their environment) whilst others lavish every reproductive advantage on the rich and 'ethnically worthy'; and/or if that doesn't worry in the context of the awful histories of these groups then, Like Azizi I begin to suspect that you are not just stupid but something altogether more sinister.

Most NGO's are responding to infant mortality rates and reproductive health issues by working on midwifery, sanitation, post-natal care, barrier and hormone contraception as well as education.

You go and read the newsletter that you linked to. Look at the table and look how many sterilisation services Marie Stopes perform in India as opposed to other methods of contraception. Think about in the context of the history of Marie Stopes.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 09 - 11:17 AM

Royston, as you yourself said, they offer all forms of family planning help.
Would you deny poor people a method that we find so helpful?
Why shouldn't they have choice too?
At a certain stage in a person's life, when they are done with having babies, that is the most apropriate method.
Whatever the race.