[rerevisionist]

Obvious enough, but many people are confused because of intensive media lies....

With apologies for opening yet another thread... This is prompted partly by a comment on a website:

Revisionist:---
With respect - or perhaps not - 'socialism' was a serious egalitarian movement in Britain, supported by a vast range of people - Ruskin, Wells, Keir Hardie, William Morris, F D Maurice, Russell, Oscar Wilde, and so on. It has NOTHING TO DO with the counterfeit movement fronted by Zionist Jews and bankers, who committed mass murder in the USSR. The anti-free speech mobs are NOT socialists; they are funded and backed by the same people that supported Trotsky and Lenin. ...

Reply from 'Powys'---
I neither have the time or inclination to discuss each of the individuals that you listed, but suffice it to state that each of them were philosophically aligned with the leading communists and differed only in methodology -- never as to ends. I do not see Fabianism or Labour Party socialism as ever being a "serious egalitarian movement", it was and is all about class warfare and "social justice" and possesses all of the bankrupt baggage associated with those notions. Incidentally, HG Wells and the fellow you left off your list, Bernard Shaw, were both Fabians and proponents of that delightful "science" euthenasia [sic], you know, that other delightful socialist idea pushed to its logical conclusion by Adolph Hitler and his socialist friends.

Notice that Powys dodges the issue of the Jewish connection to Communism. However, his argument such as it is then veers of into a comment on euthanasia, though I think he may have meant 'eugenics'. (eu + genes = neologism coined to mean ''good genes'. As compared with dys + genes = 'bad genes').

Greek 'thanatos' = death, So eu = good + thanatos = 'good death', as in mercy killings, or soldiers killing a friend who's been almost blown to bits. A lot of people seem to confuse those two words!

Eugenics was based on advances in biology - though there is nothing new in selective breeding; it's just that science was missing, and indeed still is, despite Mendel (who was largely ignored because people weren't interested in genes which just did one simple thing) and Darwin and others. The hypothesis here is that it's yet another 'Jewish intellectual movement'. They seem to all want, and to be almost genetically-driven, to damage their host communities, and all their policies - killing off Russian intellectuals, bombing German women and children, making American education debased, supporting genocide in the third world, supporting mass immigration of fecund and unskilled and uneducated people, and - important here - backing thugs against anyone discussing eugenics - seem directed to that end.

It occurs to me that blacks in particular would benefit from eugenics - if you accept that the top range of black talent is equal to white, which seems doubtful, if they got their act together they might get somewhere. Just a thought.

[rerevisionist]

Comment on BBC's 3-part 'Mixed Britannica'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b015qms8/Mixed_Britannia_19101939/
________________________________________________
Interesting encapsulation of current myths about immigration and eugenics.
________________________________________________
[1] Programme stuff: It's about an hour. The credits include: Consultants Dr Lucy Bland (London Metropolitan Museum) who appears in several shortish interviews; Peter Aspinall Univ of Kent/ Researchers Dipan Vadgama/ Adila Golam Rassoude. Series produced and directed by Fatima Salaria.
Various archives, mostly film, are credited. None of the sources are reported anywhere in the actual programme.
No scriptwriter is credited. (NB it's possible the script is online somewhere). It's not clear whether the presenter had any responsibility for the content, or simply read material out.
________________________________________________
[2] Propagandist notes, not eugenics related:
2.1 Note that start date in 1910. Jewish immigration, before passports were invented, its the east end of London started a couple of decades earlier. This is important, because quite few 'Jews', including Lenin, 'Trotsky', and 'Benny Green', David Ben-Gurion, went on to become mass killers, in the USSR and at Deir Yassin. There were also links with World War 1 and trading with the enemy, and other issues, such as Jack the Ripper, and later on, street violence on quite a large scale, which the BBC's moronic mongrel reporter is too stupid, or dishonest, to mention.
2.2 In accordance with BBC policy, presumably (judging by the USA) based on Jewish activity, every possible deception is used to pretend that Britain has a long tradition of immigration, and that all immigrants are beneficial. The programme is subtitled Britain's Mixed-Race Community as though there is only one. The figures are unclear, on the rare occasions they are given; 'The Yemeni enclave about 3,000 strong', 'something like 15,000 people were involved', Limehouse's Chinatown 'something like 700 people' are typical formulas, giving no clue as to whether males, females, children, permanency etc. The figures by the standards now are so tiny as to be almost negligible. A sad aspect is the prostitution angle, explicitly mentioned only by one Arab-descent person. There must by now be many powerless women unable to fend off uninvited intruders, but the absurd commentary talks of brave, free spirited and open minded women, heroic pioneers. Of course not just white women are treated with viciousness: the poor buggers in World War I came home often to non-jobs. The 'researchers' of this rubbish made no attempt to clarify this issue, but significantly Lucy Bland appears to be all in favour, imagining women who'd been bus drivers etc went on to some sort of expansive free life. She puts - another trademark - 'race' in quotes at one point as though she can't decide if it exists. She also says - yet another - that employment competition wasn't true, because immigrants were more likely to be unemployed. To this day women are expected to be arithmetic-free. There are comments on anti-miscegenation laws, 'similar to south Africa', but no evidence of the wonderful culture of mixed-race people in south Africa.
[3] Some of the material is unconsciously funny - for example the idea that upper class women led the way in interracial sex, and the condescension of showing children actually smiling and being in classrooms. Watch for it.
________________________________________________
[3] Eugenics as per the BBC
The relevant bits are mentioned at about 27 minutes; and then gets into its stride from about 51 minutes. The basic presentation is:
[1] Eugenics involves measuring heads, taking photographs, looking at skin etc
[2] 'Degeneracy' was believed to result from race mixing (they don't say so explicitly, but no doubt the meaning was degeneracy of whites
[3] Hitler advocated 'race hygiene'; the evidence given here is a bit slim - they claim 385 negro descent children in Germany were sterilised. That's it.
[4] The 'full horrors' of 'Nazi' Germany were made public and the British reacted - there's a bit of b/w film with an actor's voiceover, and a Cardiff police chief quoted, perhaps correctly.

Note the omissions-
[1] There is no discussion whatever of genetic defects and how or what causes them, and whether these are likely to be greater in mixed races. Some people claim there are, in fact.
[2] There is no discussion of attitudes of other races - Jewish racism, Muslim fanaticism, Arab slave trading of blacks. All this is completely omitted.
[3] There is no factual matter on for example crime statistics, violence, drug importation etc.
[4] There is in fact no link established between Nazi 'death camps' (which of course are now known to informed people - but not the hacks who made this BBC rubbish - to be a myth), and 'eugenics'. There is simply no link.
[5] All official British policies go unquestioned - the first and second world wars for example are simply assumed to be jolly good things.

________________________________________________
[4] Conclusions
The point of this piece really is not to mock the BBC lie factory; which is I hope starting to totter anyway. It's to encourage those people who are able to face facts, not to take the routine media propaganda stance on 'eugenics' seriously.

Incidentally there is a remote link with nuclear weapons and power here. All the frauds have a high Jewish influence. To people unfamiliar with this idea, I could recommend many online books on websites, but I think as regards ideas and their perversion in the 'west', Kevin MacDonald's book The Culture of Critique is a convincing one-volume guide, though it omits science and some other matters.