Eugenics – a new government policy?

There’s a fair amount of consternation, online, over that fact that the public aren’t up in arms about the government’s halving of benefits for disabled children. Personally, I’m not surprised at all.

The public, subjected to 18 months of lies and disinformation, demonising and criminalising the chronically sick and disabled, which emanated either directly from Cameron, whose hatred of us knows no bounds and is, arguably, not actually sane, from Osborne, who is simply an incompetent and mendacious shit, and from IDS, who would have problems with the truth even if you put a gun to his head, either directly or dribbled out to the press and the BBC, through a propaganda machine hat would have made Joseph Goebbels cream his jackboots in envy, and which was, and still is, published totally uncritically.

We – the chronically sick and disabled – are officially-sanctioned, government-sponsored, hate figures, and the parallels with the plight of the German Jews in the mid thirties are, as I’ve been saying for over a year, all too real, and with the rise in disability-related hate crime, getting closer all the time.

Is it any surprise, then, that the public, on the whole, don’t give a shit about disabled people, including children?

And, given Cameron’s all to obvious hatred of us as a class (and hell, IDS is giving him a run for his money, too), could the huge reduction in child benefits be seen as a sneaky method of reducing the number of future disabled adults?

Not only would it, to a degree as yet unknown, militate against the very survival of some kids, it would also quite likely generate an increase in foetal screening for disabilities, and subsequent terminations, given how much harder it will become to support a disabled child financially.

Eugenics by benefit reduction…?

11 thoughts on “Eugenics – a new government policy?

    • Quite likely – if not now then in 2013-14 when the cuts really bite – but I do seriously think it will have a detrimental effect on future births – disabled foetuses will be weeded out, as parents – many of them, anyway – just won’t be able to afford disabled kids.

      • Sadly, you are right – people will abort if there is a perceived risk of financial liability and the diminishing prospect of community support 😦

  1. If you thought your kid was going to be disabled would you abort I was nearly disabled many doctors thought I would be but I wasn’t I wonder if I was someone else child and they thought I would be disabled if they would have an abortion

      • Possibly – and the chance of revolution is pretty damn small. Not for nothing have successive governments gone to great lengths to remove weapons from honest citizens (while the huntin’ and shootin’ classes are, like the criminal classes, still armed to the teeth.

        I’ve got a compound bow (lethally accurate up to 100 yards), with which I’m excellent, a longbow with which I’m less good, and a couple of dozen arrows for each – not going to go far when the shit hits the fan . . . In fact, there are a lot of archers in the country, making up pretty much the only armed semi-organised group there is outside of the grouse-murderers, and I suspect someone, somewhere, is thinking of making archery illegal as I write.

        • As we type a computer somewhere is probably analysing this then printing the incitement to riot, conspiracy to put things right or whatever law will be drafted for the immediate arrest or shoot on sight order for you and all those who might have the temerity to read your words. 😦

          • Just one of the many reasons why pretty much the only thing on my Facebook account is my name.

            I think the revolution will come – one day it’ll dawn on even Daily Mail readers that, in their extended family, there’s a disabled cousin being persecuted by these pricks, or an elderly aunt quietly starving to death. What this government is doing affects everybody – the problem is that so many just can’t see that. Yet.

            And at this point it might be a good place to stop, and consider Pastor Niemoeller’s famous statement:-

            First they came for the communists,
            and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

            Then they came for the trade unionists,
            and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

            Then they came for the Jews,
            and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

            Then they came for me
            and there was no one left to speak out for me.

            • Pastor Niemoeller’s famous statement will be ever more quoted as the gloom descends and the thugs unrestrained. One chilling factoid I heard recently was that debts are being sold on at very low percentages to questionable companies whose payment by results collection staff fail even the requirements of pub or night club bouncer licensing.

              I made the conscious choice to be un-anonymous on the internet after I’d understood the full implications of the society that’s been developing over the last few decades although I imagine that if I was doing anything nefarious, I’d use my knowledge to create an untraceable persona 🙂

              • Hmm . . . Never occurred to me to be anonymous. I figured that if I was going to write stuff online, even if it was contentious, I should stand by it. To that end I take care to avoid libel – even Atos can be criticised without being libellous, if you use the right words. Some of those who got tagged by Atos’ lawyers a while back had been asking for it – not CarerWatch, but certainly others.

                Even today, what I wrote was just speculation – not a declaration of intent or incitement to others. Even Homeland Security, home of the deeply paranoid, would be hard pressed to spin it as anything else. Change the words slightly, though, and do something dumb like post it on FB, and it could easily be considered incitement to something, though I’m not entirely sure what. Still, for now, at least, “incitement” is not, of itself, a crime, without someone being incited to do something specific.

                That, of course, could so easily change . . .

                • me too, I have posted some very silly stuff over the last twenty years but never anything prosecutable. I do not worry about libel too much on the grounds that I have nothing to be sued for and I have the fallback defence of being officially mad.Have your internet wanderings taken you who nearly always provokes a laugh although occasionally he is so close to the truth that only a wry sardonic smile of agreement slips out here.

                  I suppose it might change if the discomfort raised is too much – remember the old conspiracy laws? and they will always have the backup of misuse of electricity or something like that but never mind, I met Czechs who maintained secure dry wry and very black communication even under the most Stalinist of times and kept their jobs, health and kids’ education 🙂

Comments are closed.