Posted by: CS | November 27, 2013

Why Western Elites Turned Against Their Own People and How

Western states are committed to a range of policies that have the practical consequence of destroying their own people as racial, cultural and religious communities.

These policies concern trade, migration, the family, education, and the right of free speech. Their consequences include: massive widening of income inequality with most if not all real gains going to the rich; the transformation of public education into a program of indoctrination; a collapse in the birthrate among the common people; and the progressive displacement of European peoples by Third-World immigrants of high fertility, thus making the indigenous inhabitants of an increasing number of great Western cities — in England for example, London, Leicester, and Birmingham — minorities in their own land.

Why has this happened?

The answer lies in the genetic relationships among the classes within a nation. These exact relations vary from place to place according to custom, history and geography. Here, therefore, to avoid complexity, I will consider only the case of England.

Before the industrial revolution, the population of England was small — about four million in the age of Elizabeth I — and relatively stable.

Stability of population was evidence of a static economy in which poverty checked population growth. For great mortality, wrote Adam Smith,

… will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station.
Adam Smith: An Inquiry Into the Causes and Nature of the Wealth of Nations, 1776.

But if, in a stable population, those “of better station,” have lower child mortality than the poor, it follows that, relative to their numbers, those “of better station” must contribute more than the poor to the perpetuation of the race. Further, because of their excess reproduction, the children of those “of better station” must have a tendency to downward social migration as they make up the numbers of the reproductively less successful poor.

Downward social migration is easy to understand in a society where property was mainly inherited by the eldest son. Younger sons, whether of landed aristocrats, country gentlemen, or members of the small urban bourgeoisie, had to make their way without the inherited material advantages that their fathers enjoyed, obtaining a commission in the army, perhaps, farming as a smallholder or tenant, or acquiring a church living.

The consequence of such social translation was to drive conservative moral and political values downward through the social ranks, while maintaining among the elite a sympathetic regard for the lower ranks of society among whom their present or future descendants might well be represented.

At the same time, in a relatively open society such as England’s, those of lower rank might rise by virtue of beauty or brains, with many a peasant maid improving her station by marrying a country gentleman or even a Lord. It is the acute observation of such social dynamics that accounts for the fascination that the novels of Jane Austin have for so many.

Thus in pre-industrial times, the classes comprising the English nation had a unity based on heredity with some feelings of sympathy and mutual respect among classes.

The industrial revolution transformed the relationship among classes. Rising demand for urban workers raised incomes of the lower classes, and thereby lowered mortality. But progress was uneven. Industries rose and fell. The urban workforce, without a plot of land on which to cultivate a subsistence, faced dreadful privation during times of unemployment. And when employed, their working conditions were often appalling and the terms of service brutal. The result was increasing alienation between a rapidly expanding urban proletariat and the middle and upper classes who reaped the greatest share of England’s growing wealth.

During the 19th Century numerous private efforts were made to alleviate the harsh conditions of the English poor, but the magnitude of the task vastly exceeded the scale of philanthropic endeavour.

Then, in the Twentieth century, came universal suffrage and the rise of the Labour Party as a power in the land. The result, inevitably, was that the provision of the means of subsistence to the blind, the sick, the lame, the unemployed, and those too old to work became a state function, while the cost, inevitably, became an obligation of those “of better station.”

Now classes were in direct conflict. The well-to-do were taxed to support the unproductive members of the rapidly proliferating lower orders. To the upper and middle classes, the working class came to seem not as long-suffering members of the same nation, kith an kin condemned to hard lives. Rather, they came to be seen as a separate nation, a degenerate, rapidly multiplying, and potentially revolutionary mob, and an ever increasing burden to those “of better station.”

Richard Overy’s The Twilight Years, the Paradox of Britain Between the Wars relates upper class views of both left and right during the first four decades of the last century:

What are we going to do? Every defective man, woman and child is a burden… [and] their numbers continue to increase, the burden … will gradually drag us down. Julian Huxley

It is not possible to run an empire with a C3 population. (Former Liberal Prime Minister) David Lloyd George

While the virility of the nation was carrying out the war (World War 1), the derelicts were carrying on the race. Sir James Barr (former President of the British Medical Association, in an introduction to Marie Stopes’ “Contraception”)

A few well-bred children are worth to the nation more than the hordes of rickety, under-fed ill-cared-for little ones. Bertram Talbot (in “Points for Propagandists” (1925))

To let nature take its course is not the way to rear an imperial race. Marie Stopes

The real factors which determine the rise and fall of nations and civilization are the racial qualities and innate capacities of the citizens themselves. Charles Bond (Galton Lecture, University College, London, 1928)

To the the economist, John Maynard Keynes, who between 1937 and 1944 served as President of the Eugenics Society, there was no doubt as to the necessity of bringing the process of human reproduction under scientific management. Eugenics, Keynes asserted is:

the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists. (John Maynard Keynes Source).

How then did the early 20th Century proponents of eugenics see their ideas put into practice? Many were ready to accept Plato’s solution:

The offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, … [must be] dispose[d] of. Plato, The Republic

Arnold White, for example, in the book Efficiency and Empire, first published by Methuen in 1901, advocated the use of lethal chambers to rid the country of “deteriorated humanity.” Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, questioned the political feasibility of the approach but did not question its morality. And as late as the 1930’s Fabian socialist and playwright G.B.S. Shaw embraced the use of poisonous gas to rid the world of unproductive people, appealing to scientists to discover a gas that would kill painlessly.

Vertical Space
Others, thought contraception and, as necessary, forcible sterilization would do the trick, although Bertrand Russell rather skeptically noted, that perfection of the human race would require sterilization of at least 95% of the male population. Dr. Marie Stopes, Britain’s leading advocate of contraception, rather more moderately recommended compulsory sterilization for those with a mental age of less than 12.

By the end of the Second World War, the terms of debate had changed. Hitler had given gas chambers a bad name and the pre-war effort of Conservatives and Liberals to legalize compulsory sterilization of the unfit had been blocked by the Labour Party, which recognized the measure as a class-inspired attack on their voter base. Moreover, the post-WWII economic boom, which spread prosperity throughout the West, diminished temporarily, concern about the burden of the poor.

With globalization, however, which has exported large parts of Western economies to cheap-labour areas of the world for the greater profitability of global corporations, a mass of low-skilled, barely educated people of anti-social tendencies has reemerged as a major political problem.

Without toxic gases or sterilization, what then to do? Starvation would be ugly and cruel. Moreover, it would lead inevitably to disorder. Cats and dogs of respectable people would be hunted, killed and eaten. Children of the better classes might suffer the same fate. Farms would be pillaged by ragged and desperate mobs.

But as Thomas Malthus long ago noted, population may be checked by vice as well as hunger. This, the only remaining option, was thus adopted. The painless, silent, slow but certain extermination of the indigenous proletariat was set in motion: porn to be piped into every bedroom in the land; condoms available in every classroom; sex education to provide a manual on the arts of masturbation and oral sex; buggery to be recognized as a perfectly respectable, albeit potentially unsafe, activity; prostitution to be recognized as an entirely legitimate profession, prostitutes being redesignated sex-trade workers; the age of consent lowered; paedophilia surely soon to be recognized as beneficial to all concerned; the precepts of the Christian religion, with its blessing of the meek who Christ proclaimed were to inherit the earth, to be ridiculed by public intellectuals and university professors on the public payroll; blasphemy laws to be repealed; fertility across Europe as a result plunging, falling to barely half the replacement rate in Catholic Italy.

One problem though, some drones are still required, to fetch and carry, clean and serve, plus clever technicians too, to manage the apparatus of mob surveillance and control, thus raising the question of how to retain the loyalty of the servant class while destroying their kith and kin?

But a solution was at hand: seek out the best the Third World can breed, from China to Peru, from Nigeria to Sri Lanka, wherever habeas corpus is unknown, where the rights of man hold no sway, where the masses expect no better of government than outright tyranny.

Thus it is that the West has abandoned its tradition of freedom, Christian faith and decency for a pseudo-democracy controlled by the money power, whose function it is to make the interests of a global plutocracy palatable to a dumbed-down, gullible mass reduced to a condition of virtual slavery to be indoctrinated, bred, and culled as required: men no longer part of nature, but only a domesticated breed to serve a tiny global elite of the very rich.



  1. […] CanSpeccy « Why Western Elites Turned Against Their Own People and How […]

  2. […] Within a generation the English will be a minority in their own home, effectively exterminated by the British elite, something the elite has long wanted to to.] […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: