Tag Archives: eugenics

It does not matter….


that there is no “distributor” for this film, in the USA.

David Davis

Why do I say that? Because, with today’s internet-thingy attached to you, as you can do now, anyone with any mind so to do can view any prog, watch any film, see any page, find anything,  if he has a mind to and knows what to type.

The USA is what Tony Blair referred to (a-propos of us here in the UK) as a “YOUNG COUNTRY”. As with teenagers in all time and everywhere, opinions in this straneg place called a “young country” are often strongly-held. The disagreement about them if any engenders strong feelings, and the logical basis for the more emotional ones, in particlar, is potentially – although not always – unsound. The tragically-mistaken hypothesis of “creationism” is one such. In young nations and young civilisations, people who know what they believe will believe it with ferocity. Especially in places where there is a lot of space around you physically – coming across strangers who will disagree intellectually (and with evidence to support them which they have about their persons) will be rarer than, say, in London.

That said, I do not believe that the creationist error tendency, in the USA, is or would be as strong in opposing the screening of a movie, a mere movie, as is feared. I do not think that cinemas would be burned down, for example. Nor do I think that the great movie-making installations of Hollywood over there, or Pinewood over here, nor the actual location-sets as used, would be assaulted by enraged bands of creationist Christians, or even Moslems – they too have a creationist religious legend, insofar as they might be termed a religion. Furthermore, history has shown, in particular recently, that it is physically safe to insult and offend Christians. This also is an innately bad thing, but it is a fact.

To me as a scientist (who believes in a God who represents and probably did conceive the indescribable level of Order and Logic observable in all the Universe) the creationist diversion is a tragic travesty of science, and indeed even a perversion thereof. It tragically deflects Man’s mind and inquisitiveness away from things that badly need understanding and rationalisting. If God “was Order”, and “in the beginning there was Order” (Λογος) as it says in the least-bad translation of 1. John (i) that we possess, then there is no requirement whatsoever for Him to have voluntarily sat down to “create” anything at all. He just “was” (and is, and will be always) and what was in His Mind would simply come into being in the same way.

For a scientist, to associate poor devout and fairly-far-seeing Darwin with Eugenicists, Nazis, sterilisers, Stalinists, people like Houston Stuart Chamberlain, creators of Frankensteinian monsters and the like, is a travesty of real science. Darwin was a kind, gentle and humane man, who did not even want to hurt worms if he could help it, and who never used the phrase “survival of the fittest”. If that is the implication of what eugenic socialists said he said, it is unjust.

Libertarians no more want to harm people who are perhaps less able to compete in a civilisation than others, than darwin wanted to harm living creatures. Indeed, Sean Gabb and I often say that it will be necessary to continue a publicly-funded NHS for example, for some time which might be long, even if a libertarian government were to come to power in the UK.

Baby P: What’s this got to do with libertarianism? (Big-States, guns and children. Let’s smell some rats.)


I’ll tell you.

David Davis

When you beget (as you do, for one does) a child, and bring it into the world, then, whose property is it? Apart from the fundamental Human Rights aspect, which is that that (human) child belongs to itself, it is to all intents and purposes “yours”. While it is of an age when it can’t legally or informedly take certain kinds of decisions (all for obvious reasons) then you own it. It is yours. It is your child. I don’t think even the most absolutists Popes or Emperors, with the possible exception of sadly many failed civilisations and Papistic juntas authorities would have disagreed with this position.

This sad business of “Baby P” (the poor sad bugger MUST have had a _name_, for Christ’s sake, for he was Human!!!) is sadly illuminating. The “agencies” which were “involved”, and the “practitioners” who “lost opportunities” , are clearly not interested in the individual fates of individual children, at all. Firstly, we are never to know (officially) who this poor person was. Secondly, and worse, even, the organisational structure, which we have paid for (who else did?) will close ranks about itself and anodynely reassure us all that “lessons have been learned” (but I thought they said that earlier?)

This is part of what Theodore Dalrymple has just said:-

The first is that the work of child protection is very difficult, emotionally wearing and even dangerous. Staff turnover in the organisations that carry it out is often rapid. Most British paediatricians in training have experienced threats from parents or guardians, and 5 per cent have been assaulted sufficiently badly to need medical treatment. If this is true of doctors, who generally still retain a modicum of public respect, the situation of social workers is likely to be even worse. There is nothing like a constant fear of violence for undermining both the will to do anything and the judgment.

The second is that the fundamental purpose of the British public service is to provide a meal-and-mortgage-ticket for those who work in it, especially at management level. The ostensible purpose of an organisation is rarely its real purpose. I know this from my experience in the Health Service.

The State can’t assume ultimate control over the lives of all, until it can dictate not only the fate of children but also the begetting and ownership of them. People who will be designated as good “guardians” of children will be things such as “Lawyers”, “Administrators”, and the like. People who will not be so designated will be things like “Agricultural Workers”, “Retail Assistants”, ” Plaster  Ers “, “Brick Layers”, “Wait Trons”, and the like.

I am beginning to think that there is an agenda going on down here, regarding who will and who will not be “authorised” to have children.

Mechanisms that make it look like ordinary people (sometimes carefully-chosen like in this case) can’t or oughtn’t to be allowed to have little children near them, are good for the advancement of this kind of State control. Here’s what we said yesterday, in the beginnings of our rat-smelling-operation.

Baby P: Child Abuse, Social Services, and socialist boroughs. This is quite interesting in a macabre and sinister way. Guns and children. Let’s smell some rats.


David Davis

(Here’s what we are gong to say tomorrow, about Baby P.) This is what’s commonly and Stalinistically called: “a leak”.

I don’t quite know how far to come out in the open and risk enemy fire, here. But I am sort of intrigued in a Sherlock-Holmsian way, you know, sort of, by the seemingly endless trail of poor wretched children, mostly from inner cities and under the care of Stalinist New Labour Soviets boroughs, who seem to be left to die, by “Social Services” while “under their observation”. The news only gets out after the poor child’s terrible death at the hands of a violent male or some other feckless “carer”. there was the Victoria Climbié business some years ago, and now this, from Obnoxio, but also reported on Guido.

I decided not to pick it up as the issues are not strictly theoretical-Libertarian, but I do begin to smell a rat, and, er ….. and see it floating in the air.

Could it be that a regime of draconian State “Child Protection” (and State-child-databasing) is being engendered (and by whom?) through a series of “regulated and allowed” high-profile cases of the death of a small child, in which the “Social services” are instructed actually NOT TO intervene until it’s too late?

Are the “pretty children” who occur from time to time in these scenarios, (who of course will need to be saved immediately) being farmed off quickly somewhere (and by whom, and for whom?) which is why we never see any?

Or hear about them?

And why the poor dead ones have been those few who were really in the soup beforehand? And about whose deaths “lessons can be learned”?

Is this rather like the Dunblane business and guns?