Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday, 17 August 2012

Toynbee's road to Auschwitz

In Toynbee's beloved Scandinavia, they were still compulsorily sterilising the educational subnormal in the early 1970s. It was, we hoped, the last shudder of the left's inhumane obsession with Eugenics, Euthanasia and breeding a more perfect and rational socialist Uberman; an obsession particularly at home in Britain's Fabians. Shaw wanted a 'humane lethal gas' to be used to remove undesirables from society, and Virginia Woolf, on seeing a queue of the mentally ill, remarked "Imbeciles - every one of them a miserable, ineffective, shuffling, idiotic creature. It was perfectly horrible. They should certainly be killed." Nye Bevan, one of the most evil hypocrites ever to sit in Parliament, defended the Soviet regime on the floor of the Commons long after he knew the facts of the Holodomor, presumably on the grounds that the rise of Socialism was more important than the lives of a few millions of Ukrainians. In the years before the war, the left found nothing at all wrong with Germany's T4 Euthanasia programme, in which the severely mentally and physically disabled were 'humanely' killed; it was only at Nuremberg that we learned that many who went on to manage the extermination camps had graduated from the Fabian-approved T4 programme. 

Today they're back again. In the Telegraph this morning, a report supporting the destruction of human embryos that carry 'undesirable' genes; the doctor (and it's always a doctor) promoting the idea says 'we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to harm themselves and others'. Killing children in the womb is probably aesthetically more acceptable to the left these days than using Shaw's humane gas, I guess. And Toynbee writes in support of Euthanasia; the Guardian presents this as reason, but we have seen the sort of ratcheting and escalation that Toynbee's thinking leads to in the past. It starts with 'voluntary' Euthanasia, then progresses to Euthanasia at the family's request for individuals deemed incapable of making a rational choice, then Euthanasia at the State's behest. Even Germany's murderous T4 programme needed the signatures of two doctors - all very proper and correct. 

Toynbee unashamedly dangles the plight of Tony Nicklinson before us in an act of emotional blackmail. But hard cases make bad law; to open the legal door to the left to Euthanise our fellow citizens on whatever grounds cannot be allowed. If Toynbee is truly personally committed to procuring Tony's death, she can easily acquire over the internet the chemicals used by the US States to execute the condemned. 


Anonymous said...

Polly is way past her usefulness, if indeed she was ever useful at all - I blame her parents who should have used a condom.

Edward Spalton said...

I saw a video clip of George Bernard Shaw advocating the "hunane" killing of the socially useless. He did it in a charming, slightly roguish, Dublin-Irish way. ("Sir, Madam, please step this way").

Shaw certainly continued to have a keen following amongst "progressive" people after the war and into the Fifties and Sixties.

It was in a thoroughly researched film about communism/socialism put together by a group of MEPs from former communist countries.

It was on an American website under a title like "Why real socialists don't mind killing". When I went back to look for it, I couldn't find it. There was also coverage of the technical co-operation between the Soviet and Nazi mass murder organisations after the occupation of Poland in 1939.

Does anyone know where to find the film?

Also, do not forget that Marie Stopes, the founder of one of the West's largest abortion factory groups, was a keen admirer of Nazi methods. She even disinherited her son for marrying a genetically sub standard girl whose defect was that she needed to wear specatcles.

G. Tingey said...

The Nazis poisoned the well, probably irretrievably, here.

And yet.
Do you REALLY want an ESN/Down's/(Ect - list of horrible/inherited/ degenerative rottings to be appended here ...) baby, if it can be stopped in time?
To be born into a life of considerably more pain & suffering than is our normal lot?

Once, born, however, and alive, that's a different story.
They are now humans, and we have a duty of care.
Please note the difference!

Raedwald said...

Greg - the guy's not talking about Downs' or Cystic Fibrosis here but 'personality flaws' - he means, no doubt, a predisposition to criminality or violence, but who is to say that potentially 'argumentative' embryos won't also be destroyed?

That would be you and me both consigned to the sluice before we'd had chance to draw breath ...

Fidel Cuntstruck said...

Just had a read through Polly's wibblings and the thing that strikes me first is that in one paragraph she claims that the chap has decribed his life as a living hell and has asked a Judge to allow him to die .. then she goes on to state that the same guy can only communicate by blinking!

So what's going on there? is he being asked questions about his circumstances and desires to which he responds with a blink for yes and two blinks for no? - if so, then that would seem very open to mis-interpretation and no Judge in his or her right mind is going to make decision other than to refuse the case. But it keeps Polly in champers I guess.

Edward Spalton said...


Perfectly healthy unborn children are being murdered by the million for reasons of social convenience - merely "lifestyle choice". And the law says "Killing, no murder" . The cases of handicap and disability you mention are a tiny minority of this holocaust (which now exceeds 6 million in Britain alone).

There is something terribly wrong with a society where this industrial scale killing is unremarkable and acceptable and carried on by members of the supposed healing profession.

I certainly share some of your feelings about the severely handicapped but that doesn't make my feelings right or moral. One of the most effective Nazi posters was a picture of an obviously defective mental patient with his nurse. The caption read (approx) "His lifetime care costs xxxx thousand marks. That's your money too".

And, of course, once you start killing at the beginning of life, it's a small step to killing the old and useless at the end of it. The NHS has a procedure for this called "The Liverpool Pathway".
Patients are sedated and given "nil by mouth". In fact they are thirsted to death.

The vet's attentions to our old cat were more humane by far. That doesn't mean that I advocate either process for humans! It will always be a "grey" area. Give professionals official powers of life and death and they will surely exercise them according to their own priorities or official directions.

Nick Drew said...

a pedant writes ...

Bevan, please !

Edward Spalton said...


You are quite right that the case of the unfortunate Mr. Nicklinson is being used in rather an publicity-seeking way to try to expand the culture of death. They don't just want to relieve his suffering but to have official sanction too.

The father of a friend of mine had been an active farmer all his life. He had a stroke which left him helpless and speechless. When they sat and told him what they were doing on the farm, he tried to talk but made a noise like a dog howling. The vicar was so upset on his first visit that they had to pour him a stiff whisky!

My friend and his mother looked after him at home with the assistance of the District Nurse.

The District Nurse left an extra phial of morphine "just in case" with a nod and a wink "in case the suffering got too great".

My then agnostic but Christianly brought up friend told me "I just couldn't do it" - even after a lifetime of dealing with farm animals.

Either by their own initiative or with similar, sympathetic professional help, I am sure the Nicklinsons will have had the same option.

So one's real sympathy for anyone in this appalling situation is conditioned by the reasonable assumption that the case has been brought as part of a wider movement.

Anonymous said...

Good piece Raedwald...

These socialists are very dangerous...

To be very simplistic... Take a look at an old photo or an old movie of something familiar to you, and see how dramatically it has changed into what it is now. A fleeting thought goes through the mind... Did I really wear/drive/eat that or go there? A perfectly rational seeming act ten years back seems like lunacy today.

But, that's only a photo... Polly wants to do this with people!

Anonymous said...

@Nick Drew:

Bevin was E(a)rnest!

prog said...

'we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to harm themselves and others.'

I guess that should also apply to those embryos that might, potentially, develop into adults who suggest that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to harm themselves and others'.

Elby the Beserk said...

G. Tingey said...
The Nazis poisoned the well, probably irretrievably, here.

And yet.
Do you REALLY want an ESN/Down's/(Ect - list of horrible/inherited/ degenerative rottings to be appended here ...) baby, if it can be stopped in time?
Having worked with Downs' kids, I can tell you Tingey that you are beyond redemption. Their souls are as filled with life as any "able-bodied" person.

God help you. You need it.

Anonymous said...

the late (and very lamented) Michael Crichton's novel "Next" is well worth a read.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Tingey - who the hell are you to judge someone else not to be worthy of living?

Raedwald said...

Nick - Bevan now corrected. Damn silly mistake. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Greg: "the Nazis poisioned the well .."

Soviets never, never engaged in any form of Eugenics.

Or perhaps they did but the Socalist filth in the West coverer for them?

Ian Hills said...

Quite possibly sterilisation of the parents of socialists like Polly Toynbee might have produced agreeable results. Or the parents of last August's looters. Toynbee is playing a dangerous game, seeking to engineer social change via eugenics.

G. Tingey said...

The illiterate who rants against my comment on Down's victims (Elby) HASN'T READ WHAT I WOTE.
I, personally, know a Down's sufferer ....
I'm talking about stopping it beforehand, not afterwards, and there is a huge difference.

Or hadn't you noticed?

As for Edward Spalton: MORON.
Millions more are "murdered" before conception by BigSkyFairy than are ever done so by any artificially induced abortion.
Approx 1 in 2, possibly 1 in 3 fertilisations results in a live birth, and it has always been so.
This applies to all mammals, though our success-rate is apparently quite low compared to others.
Which stuffs your logic completely, desn't it?

Is Spalton an RC brainwashed?
I think we should be told.

Edward Spalton said...


I am neither brainwashed nor Roman Catholic, neither have I been rude to you.

Naturally occurring deaths are obviously in an entirely different category to those intentionally procured by human agency.

But you are clearly feeling so angry for some reason as to be incapable of logical thought or common courtesy. I will pray for your recovery from this problem.

Edward Spalton said...


A fortnight ago I had the pleasure of addressing members of the Campaign for an Independent Britain in Belfast - an audience overwhelmingly of Protestant people who impressed me as highly principled, solid citizens.

Amongst the other issues for which some members and their friends were campaigning was the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child.

So concern on this matter is by no means limited to Roman Catholics, as you appear to think.

Wildgoose said...

Greg, as a fellow atheist (humanist in my case) I think you're being completely out of order.

The Right to Life is absolutely fundamental. Nobody should be able to decide to terminate someone else's life on the basis of a belief system, whether that be in a "Big Sky Fairy" or indeed whatever you profess.

And being verbally abusive to people who don't share your set of beliefs appears to be something you have in common with religious bigots.

Unfortunately, this then colours other people's perceptions on what atheists and humanists are actually like. You are doing atheism a disservice.

Ukgoldbug said...

Couldn't we sterilise Toynbee and her offspring and screen for the "champagne socialist" gene in all expectant mothers.
All believers in big government, right or left are authoritarian and, sooner or later, it grows into some Nazi like tendencies. The mob join in the rallying cries against whatever poor unfortunate is the latest scapegoat and there you are. Totalitarian government.

Edward Spalton said...


Thank you for your comment. I recently attended the humanist funeral of a neighbour. He was a good neighbour and a pillar of the local community but a fierce political opponent.

He was senior in the European Movement and I have been in the independence movement since I first discovered what the EU was really about.

It didn't stop us disagreeing politely, enjoying each other's company and lending each other books etc.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Spalton, I agree with everything you say........ well nearly everything.
The right to life is fundamental for all human beings, we nurture life, it is unconscionable to end it before it has even begun.

Being a supporter of the big fairy in the sky, I find that the basic tenets and morality relating to human behaviour are prime and irrefutable.
They even allow for atheists and agnostics, humanists, secularists, abortionists and zealots to exist together in relative peace and harmony in our great and tolerant country.
I do not believe, that this would be possible in many countries in the Middle East nor in most Socialist totalitarian republics, Toynbee is a menace but it's still a [for now] a free-ish country.

In 30 years or so, free Britain, it won't be at all, because the Socialists and social engineers of the Frankfurt School - engineered a Marxist cultural revolution.
In this wilfull destruction, Toynbee her cohorts are complicit but you must be careful for what you wish for.

Toynbee's offspring and her peers, if they attempt to keep to their mothers' 'creed' - may well be forcibly made to change their 'religion', a bitter irony?
Nah, insensate Polyanna wouldn't see it.

G. Tingey said...

I have never advocted terminating the life of an already existing person, unles they are know to be guilty of either treason or piracy.
What I am advocating is the careful use of birth control, and trying to prevent the birth of deformed or damaged babies, long before they become anythign remotely capable of living.
Some people dao't seem to be able to tell the difference between those very different stances.

As for the prods in Belfast, they're still christians.
Bekievers in BigSkyFairy.

G. Tingey said...

I would like to add a link, showing a very admirable graden centre near York (which I help support in aVERY SMALL way ....
This place helps Down's and others similarly afflicted perform useful work - their plants are good as well.
I see no contradiction in supporting such a place, and, at the same time, trying to ensure that there are (at least) as few as possible such unfortunates join us in future.

thefatlady said...

Radders, it's not often that I agree with Toynbee, in fact it's unheard of, but this time she is right. You do yourself a disservice by conflating eugenics and the plight of Tony Nicklinson. They are totally unrelated and I am sure you know it.
I note that the court allowed to the slow starving to death of Tony Bland (Hillsborough) who, being in a persistent vegetative state, could not express his wishes at all, yet the lucid and reasoning Tony Nicklinson is denied his wish because the court cannot make that judgement. Someone please explain the logic in that.

anon 2 said...

I think we're fussing at the wrong point of application. Whether euthanasia is legal or not, the health services practice it. Most of the time they don't even bother to pretend that they're not "killing the patients." That's the application we need to address.

In practical terms, the law is presently irrelevant except for a few few "show cases."

G. Tingey said...

Has anyone asled Pterry's opinion on this?
I think you should take note ...

[ "Pterry" (?) = Sir Terry Pratchett ]

Edward Spalton said...

Thinking about this full and frank exchange of views jogged my memory. There are quite a few supposedly scientific papers kicking around which purport to show that there is a GENETIC CAUSE for RIGHT WING VIEWS (such as Climate Change "Denial"). I think this may have been the train of thought which started Toynbee on her course in this matter - the possibility of breeding a whole race of Toynbee look alikes and think-alikes.

If you are as convinced of your own good intentions and rightness as she is, disagreement is obviously a personality defect which may have genetic causes.

Then I recalled a conversation from way back in the late Fifties between my father and our family doctor. He looked after three generations of our family from the Thirties to the mid Sixties and was of decidedly socialist views but a family friend nonetheless.

They were having a drink and talking about comprehensive education, which was brand new at the time. . My father said this would result in levelling down and discourage the higher achievers.

"But we don't really need them, Robert" said our doctor "What we need is what you would call a nice, level sample". (Our family was in the grain trade).

So the socialist ambition for achieving a standardised sort of person is of long standing and Toynbee stands in that tradition. The Soviets believed they were creating "homo sovieticus" by social conditioning.

Sorry to go "banging on" but this seems to go to the heart of things. If you are a materialist, then there must be a purely material cause for everything and genetics is one material cause.

To quote from a paper by Ulica Segertrale of the Illinois Institute of Technology.
"Biological determinism is, then, a reductionist explanation of human life in which the arrows of causality run from genes to humans and from humans to humanity. But that is more than mere explanation. It is politics. For if human social organisation, including the inequalities of status, wealth and power, are a direct consequence of our biologies, then, except for some gigantic program of genetic engineering, no practice can make a significant alteration of social structure or of the positions of individuals and groups within it (Lwontin, Rose and Kamlin 1984:18)

Anonymous said...

The same feeling, or lack of, is present in parties to the right.
Nobody seems to pay much attention when people prattle-on about birth control to limit population. Birth control can never limit population, only increase the amount of elderly which the young have to toil to support (never mind your private pension)
Only by extending birth control to include length-of-life control can the population be lowered. Something the greens believe in, but never speak of.
Coming soon: truckin' your folks to the euthanasia clinic.


James Higham said...

Has anyone ever done a brain scan on the Toynbee? I'd be intrigued but as a rule, don't read anything of hers.

Elby the Beserk said...

G. Tingey said...
The illiterate who rants against my comment on Down's victims (Elby) HASN'T READ WHAT I WOTE.


Illiterate Elby (BA Oxon., Eng. Lit. & Lang. 1972)