Saturday, 25 May 2013

Shaw, Laski and the left-wing intellectual

George Bernard Shaw (26 July 1856 – 2 November 1950) was an Irish playwright, an outspoken socialist, a leading member of the Fabian Society and the co-founder, with fellow Fabians, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, of the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1895.

Wikipedia tells us this:
"He was most angered by what he perceived as the exploitation of the working class.
An ardent socialist, Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class."

Which is interesting. Because Shaw, along with a good few other elite Socialists of the time, was a keen eugenicist. Indeed, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the LSE would set up the Department of Social Biology, which was devoted to the study of eugenics, soon after its inception. Here are some of the things Shaw said in favour of the termination of those he imagined less fit than himself.
“The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man.” (Preface to Man and Superman: 1903)
In a 1910 lecture before the Eugenics Education Society, quoted in the 4 March 1910 edition of The Daily Express, Shaw said:
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living…  
A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Over twenty years later he was still at it. In a newsreel interview of 5 March 1931, Shaw said:
“There are an extraordinary number of people I want to kill.  
I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board. Just put him there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?  
If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organisations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
In the 7 February 1934 edition of The Listener, Shaw is quoted thus:
"I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane not cruel."
Do you think the Fabians of today are would dare say the same thing about brutish black gang members? How about Muslim paedophiles? Oh no, they may say such things in private about the working-class Brit, just as they did back then, but the immigrant, no matter what he does, is sacrosanct in the see-further, know-better universe of the liberal intelligentsia.

At the invitation of Stalin, Shaw visited the Soviet Union in 1931. From that time on, he became an enthusiastic apologist for Stalinism and, the day before he returned to England, he said:
"Tomorrow I leave this land of hope and return to our Western countries of despair."
In 1933, Shaw informed us thus, in the monumental preface to his play, 'On the Rocks:'
"In this play a reference is made ... to the political necessity for killing people... Every Government is obliged to practice it on a scale varying from execution of a single murderer to the slaughter of millions of quite innocent persons...  
What we are confronted with now is a growing perception that if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it... You can exterminate any human class not only by summary violence but by bringing up its children to be different...  
The extermination of the peasant is in active progress in Russia, where the extermination of the class of ladies and gentlemen of so-called independent means has already been accomplished; and an attempt to exterminate the old Conservative professional class and the kulak or prosperous farmer class has been checked only by the discovery that they cannot as yet be done without...  
The extermination of what the exterminators call inferior races is as old as history... What we are confronted with now is a growing perception that if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it."
Do you get this? This much-lauded creature, (he is still the only person to have been awarded a Nobel Prize and an Oscar) is advocating mass genocide and applauding those who have begun to carry it out!

Why do we not know about this? Why do what know what manner of psychopath George Bernard Shaw actually was? For that matter, why, in age where we are reminded of the so-called 'Holocaust' every other day, do we not know of the much more murderous Ukrainian 'Holodomor' that preceded it?

We don't know, ladies and gentlemen, because the propagandists who rule our modern world are the direct moral, philosphical and intellectual descendants of the Shaws. And such as these were never going to warn us of their real intentions.

Shaw continues:
"The most elaborate code... would still have left unspecified a hundred ways in which wreckers of Communism could have sidetracked it without ever having to face the essential questions: are you pulling your weight in the social boat? Are you giving more trouble than you are worth? Have you earned the privilege of living in a civilized community?  
That is why the Russians were forced to set up an Inquisition or Star Chamber, called at first the Cheka... to go into these questions and 'liquidate' persons who could not answer them satisfactorily...  
So then, it is very simple: 'the essential justification for extermination... is always incorrigible social incompatibility'. This extermination program is simply an 'extension of social responsibility."
It was the fear of this kind of insanely anti-human mentality, as practically evidenced in Russia from 1917 onwards and Germany, itself, and Hungary, in 1919 and 1920, that brought Adolf Hitler and his fellow Nazis to power in 1933.

That, and the promise that the starving population would be fed ( 700,000 Germans starved to death during the Weimar years) and jobs would be forthcoming.

Both of these promises were kept.

In 1936, Shaw defended Stalin's purge of high-ranking Communists, saying:
“Even in the opinion of the bitterest enemies of the Soviet Union and of her government, the trials have clearly demonstrated the existence of active conspiracies against the regime." ('Death of the Butcher,' by Arnold Beichman, Hoover Digest: 2003)”
"We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbor… humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators.” ('Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society' by Paul Hollander: 1998)
Nice guy, huh? The Fabians would have you think so. The liberal intelligentsia would have you think so. Even the Labour elite would have you think so.

But it's not true, is it?

The man was a monster.

Harold Laski (1893-1950) was Professor of political science at the London School of Economics from 1926 until his death.

He was an executive member of the Fabian Society from 1922–1936 and, in 1936, co-founded the Left Book Club along with Victor Gollancz and John Strachey.

Wikipedia tells us this:
"Laski developed a connection with scholars from the Institute for Social Research, more commonly known today as the Frankfurt School. (The leading lights of the Frankfurt School, almost all of whom were Jewish, were responsible for introducing Cultural Marxism to the western world. This malign philosophy has, in our age, come to be known as politcial correctness)  
In 1933, with almost all the Institute's members now in exile, Laski was among a number of British socialists, including Sidney Webb and R.H. Tawney, to arrange for the establishment of a London office for the Institute's use... Laski was a proponent of Marxism and believed in a planned economy based on the public ownership of the means of production...

Initially he believed that the League of Nations would bring about a 'international democratic system.' However from the late 1920s his political beliefs became radicalized and he believed that it was necessary to go beyond capitalism to 'transcend the existing system of sovereign states'...

Laski was involved in Labour party politics from the early 1920s. In 1923, he turned down the offer of a parliament seat and cabinet position by Ramsay MacDonald... In 1931 he left the Labour party after becoming disillusioned with party politics...

1937, he was involved in the failed attempt by the Independent Labour Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain to form a Popular Front to bring down the Conservative government of Neville Chamberlain.

In 1937, he rejoined the Labour party and became a member of its National Executive Committee... In 1944, he chaired the Labour party conference and served as the party's chair during 1945–46."
Laski’s essay, The Scope of Eugenics, was published in the July 1910 edition of Westminster Review.

This said, in part:
“The science of eugenics has been ably defined as the study of those social agencies that may improve or impair the mental and physical characteristics of the race…

Bad stock produce bad stock; the able produce the able; the strong produce the strong… It is useless to breed from a wilted stock in the hope that a fit mutation may arise. That nation alone can survive in the struggle for existence, the members of which are sound and strong…

The decline of every great nation is probably to be traced to the fostering of the unfit at the expense of the fit, and their consequent over-propagation… Unless our statesmen carefully consider the biological problem by which we are confronted, it will be the primary cause of our decay… Extreme emphasis must be laid on the danger of breeding from the unfit at the expense of the fit…

It is surely of importance that marriages should be selective… The fitter classes of the community produce families that are… much smaller, on the average, than the families of the degenerates… The different rates of fertility in the sound and pathological stocks point to a future swamping of the better by the worse. We are faced by racial suicide…

It is to this problem that eugenics applies the solution… Natural selection must be supplemented by reproductive selection. The parentage of the fit must be encouraged, the propagation of the unfit must be prevented. Such people… assert that marriage is a purely private affair, and that the state has no right of interference. Eugenicists maintain that such a view is anti-social, and productive of infinite harm…

The time is surely coming in our history when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself…

We must hold the eugenic idea of parenthood with the fervour of a new religion.”
Laski and Shaw were not alone in their desire to control the 'propagation of the unfit.'
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, John Maynard Keynes, Marie Stopes and H.G. Wells, along with many other Socialist luminaries of the time, were eugenicists.

On 30 August 1997, The Guardian‘s Jonathan Freedland told us this:
“Eugenics is the dirty little secret of the British left. The names of the first champions read like a rollcall of British socialism’s best and brightest… Nearly every one of the left’s most cherished, iconic figures espoused views which today’s progressives would find repulsive.

Thus George Bernard Shaw could write: ‘The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man’.”
'Reproductive selection' and 'selective breeding?' Many's the up-to-date Socialist who might be a little bewildered by the pathological philosophies preached by these supposed champions of the common man. Indeed, how could Socialism still revere such folk when, ever since India gained its independence (Muslim and Hindu began to slaughter each other as soon we left) and, in the same year, the Windrush arrived, the fast-breeding immigrant has been encouraged and nurtured by the political elite?

One might be forgiven for thinking that, from a 'select' point of view, the fast-breeder whose father was so often 'absent' and the fast-breeder who routinely married his cousin, would not be ideal candidates for the programme.

The eugenic ideals of the liberal intelligentsia back then and those of the 'rub-the-right's-nose in-diversity' crew right now really do seem to be mutually exclusive, don't they?

That our political and intellectual overlords should prefer Africans with AIDS, Jamaican Yardies, in-bred Pakistani Muslims and former Commie job-gobblers from eastern Europe only makes sense if you prepared to concede that they were, and still are, AT WAR WITH US!

The Shaws and the Laskis wished to be done with the descendants of the factory workers of Manchester who, in 1846, were dead by the time they reached the ripe, old age of twenty-six. They wanted the descendants of the little boys and girls who went up the chimneys and slaved in the mills, gone.

Nowadays, their descendants still are still voting for those who despise them most. They vote for whose intellectual forbears would have done to them what Stalin and Kaganovich did to the peasants of Ukraine.

You think I exaggerate? You really think that the Camerons, Cleggs and Milbands are on our side? Is that why Tony Blair lied us into Iraq and he and Gordon Brown cuddled up so self-righteously to the bankers who brought about the world-wide recession? Such politicians assure us that immigrants are needed to fill skill shortages. Well, who was it that created the shortages in the first place?

As of June 2009, of Australia’s total population of 22 million people, 1.2 million were born in the United Kingdom! Many will remember how they told us we could have a nice house and a good job in Australia for just 10 shillings. That’s all it cost to get there under the government-assisted scheme.

Some of those who left for the former colonies had little choice in the matter. In July 1998, the BBC informed us thus:
"Thousands of children were sent with government approval… to Commonwealth countries... The children were classed as orphans but most of them were not. They came mainly from poor families or were born to unmarried mothers. Once abroad, they were frequently used as cheap labour or became the victims of physical or sexual abuse…

In the period 1947-67, some 7-10,000 were sent to Australia alone... Some of the children were as young as three and many were sent without the knowledge or permission of their parents.

The migrants were frequently told that their parents were dead and were given new names and even birthdays… They were often placed in large, isolated institutions and could be subjected to harsh, ‘sometimes intentionally brutal’ regimes of work and discipline…

Victims of the policy... had been raped, beaten and given inadequate food and clothing."
So here we discover that, at a time when the British people were being told to ‘pity the poor immigrant,' those who were instructing us to pity him, were still piteously deporting the most vulnerable members of the indigenous population.
"MPs said they had no doubt that there was ‘widespread and systematic sexual and physical abuse'… Some of what was done was of a quite exceptional depravity, so that terms like ‘sexual abuse’ are too weak to convey it."
The expulsion of our most vulnerable citizens began as early as 1619 and I can assure you that the majority of those expelled in the next three hundred and fifty years did not go willingly. A great many were kidnapped and many ended up little more than slaves.

That is an aspect of slavery most of us know little of. One never hears about the little Britons, abducted and deported pseudo-judicially and then sold into servitude and degradation in foreign fields.

Proper records were not maintained in the early years but we know that, up to 1967, when the child migrant scheme officially ended, the British government and the do-gooders of the time had managed to rid themselves of more than 130,000 unwanted children during the course the previous century.

Anyway, at the same time as the powers-that-be were encouraging the skillful to depart for Australia and deporting the children of the poor to anywhere that required cheap labour, they were summoning the alien millions to take their place.

Who thinks that those who worked so hard, sacrificed so much and died the deaths in all the wars dreamt up for them to die in by the 'leading lights' of the time, worked, sacrificed and died for this?

If what they did to us then and do to us now isn't an act of war, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know what is.

In 1926, the Rockefeller foundation funded the founding of the American Eugenics Society. On 2 May of the following year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by an 8 to 1 majority that ‘unfit’ people, which included ‘lower-class women’, could be forcibly sterilised.

The legendary Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote the 8-1 majority opinion in Buck v. Bell. Shortly afterwards he said the following in a letter to Harold Laski:
“I wrote and delivered an opinion upholding the constitutionality of a state law for sterilizing imbeciles the other day and I felt I was getting near the first principle of reform… I have no respect for the passion of equality, which seems to me merely idealizing envy.”
A few months later, he told Laski about the flak he had been getting as a result of Buck v Bell:
“Cranks as usual do not fail,” he said. “One letter yesterday told me that I was a monster and might expect the judgment of God for a decision that a law allowing the sterilization of imbeciles was constitutional.”
Laski responded thus:
“Sterilise all the unfit, among whom I include all fundamentalists!"
Holmes’ fellow Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, who was, like Laski, Jewish, was also a signatory to the Buck v Bell ruling.

On 16 June 1945, in his role as Labour Party Chairman, Laski, was campaigning in Newark (Notts). During the meeting, he was confronted by a Tory heckler who asked him why, during the war, he had openly advocated ‘revolution by violence’.

A few days later, The Newark Advertiser described Laski’s response thus:
“Professor Laski replied that… if Labour did not obtain what it needed by general consent, ‘we shall have to use violence, even if it means revolution’. When people felt it was the moment for great experiment, for innovation, because when war is over people so easily forget - especially those who had power in their hands - that was the time for experiment.

Great changes were so urgent in this country and, if they were not made by consent they would be made by violence, and, judging by the temper his questioner had displayed, he would be, perfectly naturally, one of the objects of violence when the time came.”
Laski challenged the newspaper’s version of events and, subsequently, took it to court. The jury found for The Advertiser, judging the account to be a fair and accurate representation of Laski's speech.

The case cost Labour supporters, who bailed him out, £13,000, a very great deal of money in those days.

Laski's relationship with Clement Attlee wasn’t good. The American press once quoted him saying that Attlee was ‘uninteresting and uninspired’ and had demanded his resignation in an open letter. By the time Laski began dictating the new Labour government's foreign policy, Attlee had had enough.
“You have no right whatever to speak on behalf of the Government,” he said. “Foreign affairs are in the capable hands of Ernest Bevin. His task is quite sufficiently difficult without the irresponsible statements of the kind you are making...

I can assure you there is widespread resentment in the Party at your activities and a period of silence on your part would be welcome.”
Laski never recovered from this and his influence over the party’s policies and spirit quickly waned.

Hugh Dalton, Attlee’s Chancellor from 1945 to 1947 dismissed the party’s intelligentsia thus:
“We have too many and too talkative and too scribblerish of these semi-crocks, diabetics and undersized Semites.”
Laski was his ‘undersized Semite.’

George Orwell despised them similarly. Here’s how he described them:
“It is not easy to crash your way into the literary intelligentsia: if you happen to be a decent human being you 'get on' by kissing the bums of verminous little lions.”
I can’t be certain who the ‘verminous, little lions’ were but I can guess the identity of one of them.

In August 1041, Orwell said this in his essay, ‘Wells, Hitler and the World State’:
“What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners.

FOR THE LAST TWENTY YEARS THE MAIN OBJECT OF ENGLISH LEFT-WING INTELLECTUALS HAS BEEN TO BREAK THIS FEELING DOWN and, if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment…

The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions - racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war - which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.”
According to Orwell, then, the destroyers began doing what they do in about 1921. This, coincidentally, was the year the Council on Foreign Relations, just about the leading proponent of the globalist, elite-driven New World Order, was founded in the USA.

The destruction of the West has been under way for quite a bit longer than that, of course, and can be traced to the secret build up to the American and French Revolutions.

Just how far we have come down the ‘liberal intellectual’ road in the last 66 years can, to my mind, be summed up by something that Jens Orbach said.

Sweden's Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality, opined thus during a debate on Swedish radio in 2004.
“We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
If he'd said that in Orwell's 1941, he might well have been strung up. If not judicially, then by the mob.

However, if he’d said it when Shaw and Laski were preaching revolution, sterilisation and extermination, Socialism’s liberal elite may well have given him a medal.

No comments:

Post a Comment