Posts Tagged ‘Jaypot’

Lobster’s Robin Ramsay: Scots and Welsh Nationalism Not Anti-English, Just Anti-City of London

March 27, 2014

Lobster Logo

I found this comment about the non-racist, non-Fascist nature of Scots and Welsh nationalism by Robin Ramsay, the editor of the parapolitical magazine, Lobster, in his piece ‘Contamination, the Labour Party, Nationalism and the Blairites’ (Lobster 33, Summer 1997: 2-9) expressing his opinion that Scots and Welsh Nationalists are racists or even anti-English, but simply against the dominance of the City of London that has damaged their countries, along with the rest of England outside the metropolis.

At any rate, the British Left does not assume that qua nationalists, the Scots and Welsh Nationalists are racists and fascists; and never has, as far as I am aware. But it is my experience that this Welsh and Scots nationalism is not even anti-English. Scots and Welsh Nationalists don’t see the people in the North (or Midlands, or East of West) of England as their oppressor. Their oppressor is in London and the Home Counties – the English establishment, which at its core is the City of London, and what might be best described as the overseas lobby in Britain – the financial, political, administrative and cultural remnants of the British Empire.

Where this essay 9is going may now be apparent. For the financial interests of that overseas lobby in London and the Home Counties against which the Welsh and the Scots Nats are struggling, have all too frequently taken precedence over the interests of industrial, non-metropolitan England, as well as Scotland and Wales – most recently and most nakedly in the 1980s.

The rest of the article is an examination of the way the Labour Party in the 1980s turned to take its economic direction for the City of London, with the result that the City’s interests, and those of the overseas lobby, superseded that of domestic manufacturing, with the consequent devastation of British industry that followed.

Although much has changed in the 17 years since the article was written, it remains substantially true. The Scots SF authors, China Mieville and Ian M. Banks, stated in an interview that they voted Scots Nationalist, not because they really wanted independence, but because the Scots Nats had better welfare policies than Labour. One of the Left-wing bloggers and commenters on this blog, Jaypot, has stated that she supports Scots Nationalism because of the effects of Tory rule on her homeland and certainly not because she hates the English. Indeed, she has said several times that she hopes an independent Scotland would galvanise us in the south to throw them out. Unemployed in Tyne and Wear put up a piece on their blog describing Alex Salmond’s promise to the people of North-East England that he would develop trade relations with their region, including placing valuable manufacturing contracts with local companies, if Scotland became independent. Furthermore, the authors of Socialist Enterprise: Reclaiming the Economy, Diana Gilhespy, Ken Jones, Tony Manwaring, Henry Neuburger and Adam Sharples, have also pointed out that British domestic manufacturing has suffered from a lack of investment due to the orientation of the financial sector towards investing overseas, especially in the former colonies.

And the reaction this weekend of the Tory press to Wales’ campaign for better welfare and NHS services, rather than the austerity campaign, privatisation and misgovernment of the metropolitican Tory elite was a piece in the Daily Heil vilifying Wales. Mike ran a piece over at Vox Political pointing out how inaccurate the story was, and how it bore no relation to the Wales in which he lives. And we can expect such attacks to increase as more people in Scotland, Wales and the English regions begin considering that they might be better off without a government, whose sole aim is the enrichment of a very narrow, metropolitan elite.

Keith Joseph and the Tories Eugenicist Hatred of the Working Class

March 17, 2014

Keith Joseph Pic

Keith Joseph: Maggie’s mentor, and the man who thought there were too many poor people with retarded children. And they were breeding.

Yesterday I put up a piece about how the Tories really did have a visceral hatred of the working class, a hatred and desire to preserve the privileges and position of the ruling elite that confirmed Marx’s view that the state was the instrument of class oppression. One of the most venomous expressions of this hatred came from Keith Joseph. Joseph was Thatcher’s mentor in the Tory party, and an enthusiastic supporter of Milton Friedman’s monetarism and the Chilean dictator General Pinochet. Although he guided Thatcher and served in her cabinet, he never actually became prime minister himself because of a speech he made about the poor in 1974.

Joseph’s view was that there were too many of them, who were too poorly educated, breeding too young. Too many of their children were mentally retarded, and they were thus a danger to solid, genetically and morally superior middle class folk. Owen Jones quotes him in Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class:

In a speech in October 1974, he expressed some of the attitudes towards ‘the lower orders’ that were once common among middle-class eugenicists. He argued that ‘a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and to bring them up. They are born to mothers who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5 … Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment.’ But the killer line was this: ‘The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened.’ Joseph’s message was clear. The poor were breeding too fast, and the danger was they were going to swamp everyone else. (pp. 45-6).

Keith Joseph’s speech could indeed have come from a 19th century Victorian eugenicist. Eugenics was founded by Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton. It believed that there was a real danger of the human race degenerating through the unfit outbreeding the healthy. They thus advocated a series of harsh laws to prevent those they considered genetically unfit – the dysgenic – from breeding. The movement crossed ideological boundaries, and some of the most fervent supporters of the ideology were left-wingers, like George Bernard Shaw, who wished to improve society and humanity by making reproduction more rational, and so breed healthier children. Galton himself was a member of the upper classes, and so believed they were genetically superior to everyone else, and was afraid that their superior genetic material would be outbred by the lower orders. Eugenics and Social Darwinism was taken up by many members of these classes, as it seemed to argue against the need for passing any environmental or health and safety legislation to protect the working classes from the harmful effects of industry. If people were falling ill or being killed through exposure to harmful materials, such as lead, arsenic, mercury or phosphorous, or having deformed or mentally retarded children, or killed in industrial accidents, it wasn’t because these materials were unduly hazardous, but because their stock was defective. They weren’t as constitutionally healthy as everyone else, and it was therefore better if they weren’t allowed to breed. By the 1920s 45 American states had passed eugenics legislation designed to stop the congenitally ill from having children. It also led to the compulsory castration of mentally retarded children in American mental hospitals.

The Nazis boasted that they had invented nothing in their adoption of the eugenics programme, and pointed to America and other countries, which had passed similar legislation. Under the Nazis, however, not only did contribute to the vicious racialism of the regime, which saw Jews, Gypsies and Slavs as subhumans, who were to be destroyed, but it also led directly to the planned murder of the mentally retarded by the SS under the control of Hitler’s doctors.

131010benefitdenier

Ian Duncan Smith: Under him, as many as 38,000 people a year may have died through poverty. Does he share Joseph’s eugenicist hatred of the poor?

Joseph’s opinions are extremely worrying, because of the way they suggest a coherent political view that sees the poor and disabled as a positive threat to be removed. German eugenicists called the congenitally ill and retarded ‘lebensunwertigenleben’ or ‘life unworthy of life’. I’ve blogged about some of the similarities between the Nazi murder of the mentally retarded and the apparent complete disregard for the welfare of the disabled shown by Atos and the DWP under Ian Duncan Smith. Mike over at Vox Political, Johnny Void, Jaypot, Jayne Linney, the Angry Yorkshireman, myself and other blogs, like Diary of Benefit Scrounger and Benefit Tales, have reported the way the DWP and Atos have been concerned to have people thrown off benefit. As a result, tens of thousands are dying in poverty and starvation each year. Some have been so desperate, that they have taken their own lives. This has been reported on the above blogs. Stilloaks has a list on his blog of 45 victims of IDS’ policies, with a brief description of their circumstances when they died. It’s harrowing reading. A number of disabled people, both commenting on these blogs, and in everyday conversation, have said they feel there is a deliberate plot to kill off the disabled. Given Joseph’s 1974 rant about the genetic threat from the working class and their subnormal children, that idea begins to look all too horribly plausible.

atos-final

Does this attack on Atos really describe Tory attitudes to the poor and disabled after Keith Joseph’s rant?

I have to say, I don’t think there is a conscious plan to exterminate the working class or the disabled. It strikes me that what there is instead, is an attitude of culpable negligence arising from this attitude of class hatred and hostility to the working class disabled. There is no desire to kill them directly, in the way the Nazis did. However, they are seen as a threatening drain on resources, resources which could be better spent giving tax breaks to genetically sound multi-billionaire Tory donors. Rather than wishing to kill them actively. Rather it’s a case that their lives simply don’t matter. If they die of starvation, or kill themselves in despair or ‘while the balance of their minds’ is upset, it’s simply a case of natural wastage. They were obviously unfit to survive, as members of a feckless, profligate class. It’s simply nature’s way, and ultimately all for the best. And so rather than treat these poor souls with pity or humanity, there is simply a callous indifference to the fate of those, whose existence they regard as a real threat to society, the economy, and healthy human stock.