Should We Stop Them From Breeding?

The mindless murder of young Rhys Jones in Liverpool this week has given us a very disturbing insight into gang culture among the young. The stories told by members of The Noggzy’eds and the Crocky’eds, their nihilistic view of life and their perverted loyalties. Evidence presented in so many news reports suggesting this behaviour is not confined to one city but spread over the whole country.

It makes the assurances of middle class bleeding hearts that “there have always been gangs and things are no worse than they ever were except in the eyes of the hysterical media,” seem rather hollow. Things seem to have run completely out of control in the past few weeks, perhaps it is because the school holidays have freed more young people to roam free, looking for “laffs.” That could explain the recent violence. But the problems are not confined to violence. Irresponsibility is at the root of problems relating to drugs, drinking and sexual behaviour.

Not long ago on a daytime TV show I saw two young men, both in their teens, swaggering around bragging about their sexual prowess. Both were still in their teens, one had fathered eight children, the other claimed nine. Neither had kept in touch with the mothers, probably the kindest thing they had done for those girls. Worse though, neither young man saw any reason to change their behaviour, both said they would refuse to use condoms as it was “unmanly” and both felt that fathering a lot of unwanted children “proved they were men.” The attitudes are primitive.

It does not matter how many A-levels pupils can be coached to pass, if the system is not teaching young people how to behave it has failed abysmally. Real education does not begin until after we leave school. Schools should give us the basics, literacy and numeracy and it should at best teach people to think rationally and instil curiosity and hunger for knowledge.

What is going on may seem like The End Of Civilisation As We Know It but we can get things back on track quite easily. Firstly, the world has TOO MANY ARSEHOLES. These people, mostly members of the nationwide ubergang, The Needaspikethroughtheir’eads must be controlled.

Most important, we need to stop them breeding. In the 1960s or 70s Indira Gandhi’s government in India offered men transistor radios in return for having a vasectomy. Only they did not explain what a vasectomy was. We could try something like that to stop the arseholes from breeding. Offer them an X-box or a few rocks of meth perhaps? The cost benefit to society is enormous when we consider the cost of providing care for a few dozen abandoned children for eighteen years.

Second, young people who have never been subjected to proper discipline but only punished for disturbing parents who were sleeping off a booze or drugs binge should be taught that actions have consequences. Kill somebody and you spend the rest of your life doing hard labour in unpleasant conditions. Terrorise someone and we send you to work as a street cleaner in Baghdad or somewhere. It does not take much imagination to make the punishment fit the crime.

Thirdly, and more controversially, there has to be a concerted effort to rebuild communities. Reverse every law Margaret Thatcher’s government ever passed. Build social housing, invest in railways and bus systems, deprivatise everything that was stolen from public ownership and sold for pennies to Thatcher’s and Blair’s cronies.

In Britain our biggest problem has always been the division of society on lines of class. No human being is of less worth than another because of where they were born or how they speak, or what educational qualifications they have. Personal wealth does not make somebody more worthy of respect or bestow privilege on them.

If we attack the problem at both ends, show people who wish to be anti – social that society can be nastier on a bigger scale that individuals ever can and start to repair the damaged caused by the warped political thinking of people whose ambitions outweighed their abilities, we can change course.

We have to become a society again.

And I’m not the only liberal intellectual that thinks so

17 thoughts on “Should We Stop Them From Breeding?

  1. I’m glad I got to the bottom of that.

    You missed out the bit were Thatcher decided that, as a working mother, all others should do the same.

    Hence family breakdown, ridiculous mortgages, and a socieity built on greed.

    Like

    1. Yeah but…. I haven’t been well.

      Good point though, I had completely forgotten that one.
      What was it? “How does a housewife and mother find time to hold down a career Mrs. Thatcher?”

      “Its easy, you just hire a nanny, a cook and a maid.”

      Maggie sold the American Dream by not mentioning that the American Dream says “anybody can be rich,” not “everybody will be rich.” Its not even a subtle difference.

      A couple of moths ago someone told me I can’t blame Maggie for everything. Since then I have been proving I can :>

      Like

  2. we are all to blame for the state this country is in. nobody does enough, its just all talk. we need to tool up,go to the local shop were these little wankers hang about and smash the chav bastards all over the place. and if they come back they should be smashed about again.

    Like

  3. Is this whole blog just a troll? in this post you seem to be gunning from both sides of the political spectrum.

    You start off by suggesting a eugenics program along the lines of a far right government then finish off with a bit of left-wing Thatcher bashing.

    A socialist remedy to the ‘gang’ problem is surely remedial (education and meaningful jobs etc.) as opposed to passively punitive (stealth sterilisation).

    Ultimately I think that you are arguing for education and gainful employment, but, true to your principles you seek the simplest method of accomplishing your ideal of a functional society.
    In this case the simplest route is violence.

    Perhaps sometimes the simplest explanantion is not necessarily the best?

    Like

    1. Yes William, we are gunning from both sides of the spectrum. This may be a bit too complex for you after nearly thirty years of Blatcherism has conditioned everybody to see every problem in black and white, but in fact both a hardline approach to immediate problems and a liberal rebuilding of social values is needed.

      You may think it could not work, but it has before.

      Also a note on satire. Those who remember satire will understand that proposing an outrageous solution is a very good way to make a point. The late Bernard Levin, a liberal voice, once contributed to a debate on the need to resume capital punishment as a “deterrent” by agreeing with the proposition but adding that we must make sure it is a deterrent by introducing public executions, drawing and quartering the hanged convicts and leaving the bodies to brot at crossroads.

      I approach these topics having looked at the big picture (and having worked in Sweden where there is no debate with “Christians” about their little darlings being excused sex education classes because it offends the paretn’s principles. Boys learn there is nothing clever about spawning bastards and girls know that a teenage pregnancy is a life sentence unless they are really really serious. Consequences for persistent misbehaviour (drugs etc.) are dire and so the liberal, nurturing society works well for them.

      How does enforced sterilisation of boys who father numerous children and take no responsibility for them equate to eugenics. If I suggested sterilising africans, asians, gypsies and Jews THAT would be eugenics but sterilising people who refuse to take responsibility for their offspring is just common sense.

      Can you propose a “more difficult” way of achieving an your ideal of a society in which nobody ever addresses any promblems that would actually work.

      My suggested solution BTW is not the simplest, it would require great political courage. The kind that enabled Indira Gandhi to pick up where her Dad left off and transform Indian society. The results are far from perfect but they are a hell of a big improvement.

      As with most people who come to this blog with smart arse criticisms William, I suggest that next time you read and make sure you have understood before commenting. Oh, and lighten up too, you take yourself far too seriously.

      Like

  4. Hmm
    It sounds like a good idea until you start to question cause and effect. Ignorant street hoodie thugs are a product of generations of conditioning and programming by the state, media and marketeers.

    I suggest that if we all agreed a Eugenic cull of the “unfit”, we should start with the lusting control freals at the top. The only problem i see with all this would be … where do we stop? Do we also gas the parents of these hoodlums, and then their parents, and then their friends? Then ones with green eyes, then ones with birthmarks, then ……

    Like

    1. Ignatius Loyola (founder of the Jesuits) said “Give me the child to age seven and I will show you the man.”

      So the fifteen year old hoodies are a lost cause, but if we start with education in communities on culture, heritage and social responsibility (all things which Thatcherism removed from the agenda) we can turn things round and build a functioning society.

      As for killing the lost kids, I would not agree with that, stopping them breeding is a quite different proposition.

      As in the previous comment, you use the word “eugenic”. Stopping people berreding because they are not fit to raise children is not eugenics. Eugenics would be a concerted attempt to ensure racial purity. My suggestion (echoed by many other controversialists BTW) is that we only prevent those who display an inability to function as members of a society from breeding. They have a choice then, grow up or get knotted.
      Its not rocket science.

      Like

      1. Ian
        I have to disagree. Eugenics is precisly about preventing the “unfit” from procreating. This is the central policy in the effort to create the supreme man using natural selection, coupled with mans innovation and scientific advances.

        To quote
        Phrases such as “survival of the fittest” and “struggle for existence” came into use at the end of the 19th century when eugenics societies were created throughout the world to popularize genetic science. `Negative eugenics’ utilized marriage restriction, sterilization, or custodial commitment of those thought to have unwanted characteristics. `Positive eugenics’ tried to encourage the population perceived as the “best and brightest” to have more offspring (V, Ludmerer, 1978, p. 459).

        or
        In the United States, after World War I, new ideas like the importance of environmental influences and the more complex concept of multi-gene effects in inheritance had slowed scientific justification for eugenics, but this knowledge did not slow pressure for legislation, judicial action, or immigration controls. The U.S. Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 favored immigration from northern Europe and greatly restricted the entry of persons from other areas referred to as “biologically inferior.” Between 1907 and 1937 thirty-two states required sterilization of various citizens viewed as undesirable: the mentally ill or handicapped, those convicted of sexual, drug, or alcohol crimes and others viewed as “degenerate” (V, Larson 1991).

        Modern Eugenics covers not just the racial, but also political and social spheres. Preventing the scumbags from procreating because they contaminate the tribe with their inferior genes is a common theme.

        Comments Ian??

        Antireptilian

        Like

      2. You want a comment?

        Well that’s all good stuff but absolutelyu nothing to do with anything I wrote.

        EUGENICS (From Websters Dictionary)
        Dictionary:
        Eugenics: the movement devoted to improving the human species through the control of hereditary factors in mating

        Did I say anything about controlling hereditary factors through selective mating? I only suggested we in the Western democracies should prevent from breeding those who are not willing to take responsibility for their offspring. In a world with 2 billion more people than it can support this is not unreasonable.

        Compton’s Encyclopedia:
        EUGENICS. Can people control their own evolution in order to achieve a population free of physical and mental defects? For more than 100 years, individuals who support eugenics, the study of human change by genetic means, have answered “yes.”
        The word eugenics comes from a Greek word that means “wellborn.” Supporters of eugenics seek to change the human race through artificial selection, the controlled breeding of people who have certain physical characteristics or mental abilities.

        Again you see, rather different from the very political (and very wrong) information given in your response.

        The Political Correctness Police have a way of arbitrarily adjusting the meanings of words to suit their purpose but just because they are PC does not make them right though they think it does.

        Anyway, in no way is my suggestion related to selective breeding. I am being PC in a different way by proposing that we stop irresponsible males ruining the lives of gullible females. Are you a misogynist? Are you saying that fuckwits should be allowed to run round impregnating any female who stands still long enough? It does not take much intelligence to use a condom.

        Not preventing the scumbags from breeding to stop them polluting the gene pool is obviously an idea that you are quite obsessed with as you keep banging on about it. I am simply concerned with winding up people like you who comment without thinking things through.

        Like

      3. Its a pity you feel the need to attack my post as mis informed, and me as a misogynist. I didnt have to quote the definitions from the dictionary about what Eugenics means. My point is not about selective breeding, but about extermination. The fact that some feel that they are superior and should decide what is best for others. You have obviously distanced yourself from the assholes and regard yourself as one of the elite. Perhaps You should do some research on your attitude and its connection to like minded persons in the Eugenic field. As for the fuckwits and gullible females, Thatcher had nix to do with their education and deliberate dimming down. They are the result of a Eugenics program to seperate the elite from the worker (Rhodes, Rokkefeller, Carnegie) and it looks like its working with both them and you. BTW i am no liberal or PC. If you did less winding up and more working on the problem, we might not have these scumbags in our society in the first place

        Like

      4. I gave you dictionary definitions because I thought you needed some help here, and when you say,

        “My point is not about selective breeding, but about extermination,”

        I see I was right. Extermination of a particular group is genocide. Pre – Thatcher, under the social democratic consensus that had existed since David Lloyd – George’s post WW1 Government there had been increasing social mobility thanks mainly to the widening of eduction opportunities.

        For the record, eugenics was a Swedish idea (yes, the liberal Swedes began it) its aim, originally was to eliminate physical defects and hereditary illness from the population. The German National Socialists adapted the idea with the aim of creating a master race of physically perfect beings. It is wrong to confuse the extermination of German Jews (genocide) with the eugenics program which is slightly less distateful.

        None of this has anything to do with my suggestion that we must stop certain people from breeding which actually is a tongue in cheek attack on those who oppose sex education in schools. In Germany where sex education is comrehensive, the rate for unwanted pregnancy in teenage girls is barely measurable. In Britain where sex education is limited due to the sensibilities of certain groups, the rate is between forty and fifty per thousand. In the U.S.A. where for reasons I do not need to describe there is no sex education in schools in most states and a nationwide opt out clause, the rate is over eighty per thousand. Irresponsibility is not confined to the working class or those of low intelligence.

        Like

  5. The world can support 6bn. Perhaps what you mean is that only 4bn of them are participants in commerce? In ppor countries I see markets full of food, food that gets thrown into drains if it doesn’t sell. I hear stories of Texans turning their air con’s on full so that they may enjoy the warmth of their ‘traditional’ log fires. I know most energy is used for commercial activities that favour an economic elite. I know 1bn people earn less that $1 a day, and that its many of these people, and those of other low wages that make the rich even richer. whole the next 4.5bn+ enter serious debt for 20+ years of their life, and that period is lengthening.

    Like

    1. The world is supporting 6bn. But half of them do not have adequate supplies of clean water to drink, and water not food is the resource running out most quickly.

      So do the very approximate maths and you find the world can support 4 billion – unless some people’s lifestyle becomes up for negotiation.

      I have argued the arguments about the wealthy nations consuming less many times. But how can we sell our environmentalist message to the third world unless we are prepared to take draconian actions in our own societies?

      Readers are probably bored with my saying what a great place Sweden is, but what is noticable is the awareness of the majority that they are part of a society and have a responsibility to that society.

      Like

  6. The elite and those “educated” merely want to cull humans so that they can maintain their privilidged life longer. IMO, its the poor that should be encouraged to propagate while culling the elite.
    Every 1 elitist probably used up thousands of ‘poor mans quota’

    Like

  7. The stopping them breeding is the most interestingly practical proposal. Let’s face it, the remnants of Britain’s white working class now constitute a true underclass – undereducated, underemployed, undercultured, ignorant, xenophobic and, in these now thankfully “streetcred” free days, almost universally derided – are a lost cause and need to be eliminated by fair means or foul.

    You can’t really breed them out, as only their own could possibly show any interest in mating with them, so a voluntary sterilization programme with considerable cash incentives should be seen as a good starting point. Not very PC, perhaps. But, really, what other alternatives are there?

    We should remember – from the mid-sixties until recent years, the working classes were able to achieve upward mobility and the traditional class system was, if not overturned, then at very least modified by a large number of the hitherto have nots gaining access to money, property and power. It became relatively easy for all but the utter dingbats to progress. And there you have it. It is no longer necessary for anybody with even half a brain to remain working class. Those that do are the flotsam and jetsom of society. Lazy, ignorant, genetically compromised, possessed of compulsive/addictive personalities or just plain thick. And as they become more and nore marginalised due to their own failings, they will become an ever gtreater pain in society’s collective arse. Sterilize the fuckers! Its the only way!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s