Coronation Street: A vehicle to promote eugenics and societal change
What TV PROGRAMMING do you watch?
Isn’t it interesting that one of the longest running series on TV anywhere in the world, is a PROGRAMME entitled “Coronation Street”? Think of all the PROGRAMMES which have been broadcast on the BBC/ITV and other stations over the years. Many excellent dramas etc but only ONE remains and just keeps going. Yes it’s because it gets the audience. Of course. But there are others which got audiences just as big for the time they were broadcast. The establishment maintain Coronation Street because it does its job excellently. The writers for it keep churning out the stories and plot lines that keep so many watching and those watching will support the series as being “current” and full of plot lines which make you think. Yes indeed. That is precisely what they intend it to be. Through those story lines, they embed within your mind what subjects should be considered by you. They even make certain subjects taboo or not taboo just by the way they are presented. The sheer fact some ARE presented suggests to the mind of the observer that “this is acceptable”. Gay is acceptable, transsexualism is acceptable, SUICIDE is acceptable, wanting to die so as not to be a burden on your loved ones or society is acceptable and noble! Just keep feeding it all in and, eventually, that acceptance will be achieved.
But very few give any consideration to the agenda which is being promulgated in all of this. They just view it as “entertainment” while being a statement, at times, on present society. They cannot even fathom that it exists as a solid society changer within a far bigger picture. That’s just “crazy talk” and taking things too far.
No dearies, it’s not.
In the early 1900s Fabian Society members advocated the ideal of a scientifically planned society and supported eugenics by way of sterilization. This is said to have influenced the passage of the Half-Caste Act, and its subsequent implementation in Australia, where children were systematically and forcibly removed from their parents, so that the British colonial regime could “protect” the Aborigine children from their parents. In an article published in The Guardian on 14 February 2008 (following the apology offered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the “stolen generations“), Geoffrey Robertson criticised Fabian socialists for providing the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal. Such views on socialism, inequality and eugenics in early 20th century Fabians were not limited to one individual, but were widely shared in the Fabian Society and throughout a broad political spectrum.
While living and working in Singapore for over 5 years, the following has been of no surprise to me whatsoever considering that Singapore is, effectively (and very definitely) a “Labour camp” which does not even recognise itself as such. If you are an outsider looking in however (and I don’t mean a hop-over for a few days on the way to Australia when all you appreciate is what is on show on the surface while you do not have a clue about the undercurrent of sheer misery) it is as close to communism for the masses who then work for Singapore PLC while the elite sit in their ivory castles and decide at what age and under what circumstances people are allowed a home for themselves to live in – it is what is coming in the west, slowly and gradually……
Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, stated in his memoirs that his initial political philosophy was strongly influenced by the Fabian Society. However, he later altered his views, considering the Fabian ideal of socialism as impractical. In 1993, Lee said:
“They [Fabian Socialists] were going to create a just society for the British workers – the beginning of a welfare state, cheap council housing, free medicine and dental treatment, free spectacles, generous unemployment benefits. Of course, for students from the colonies, like Singapore and Malaya, it was a great attraction as the alternative to communism. We did not see until the 1970s that that was the beginning of big problems contributing to the inevitable decline of the British economy.”—Lee Kuan Yew interview with Lianhe Zaobao
Singapore not a country one would want to live
Ladies and Gentlemen,Singapore is just one big fraud. And underneath all that glitter, it is really not a place someone who had a choice would want to live.
On the outside Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew paints a picture of a modern first class city. You have TV newsreaders who try to speak good English imitating someone from any other city like London, but with one difference. Those in London are free of government censorship while the Singaporean specimen reads out prepared texts vetted by government agencies. You have newspapers published in glossy paper just like in London, except in Singapore they are state owned and controlled, where journalists report to government ministers on what they have plan to write. You see lawyers all dressed in black dragging modern briefcases with books overflowing with wisdom, but in actual fact they are more afraid of the government than their clients ever were.
If you fall into hard times you starve unless you go to some government minister’s office and beg on all fours for a handout. In the west there are established procedures for welfare for the unfortunate in society to live with their heads up.
Singapore has no place for people who want to better society towards a more humane and compassionate one. The political philosophy is that of Lee Kuan Yew which is not very different perhaps from how the Chinese peasants lived under the Ming or Tang Dynasty many centuries ago. Which goes something like this. You wake up in the morning, go to work, be respectful towards your rulers and superiors, don’t think you know any better than your masters and work your way up the ladder through the recognition of your superiors. Of course above all your superiors there is the great master or leader who is better and wiser than all. In the case of the Chinese Dynasty, it was the Ming or Tang emperor. In the case of Singapore, it is Lee Kuan Yew and in his absence, his son.
I am sorry but this is not the way I like to live. And neither do I think anyone who has an understanding of the way things are going on in the island and has the means to live somewhere else.
So what is left of native Singaporeans are those who simply cannot leave because of lack of skills or an understanding of their plight or those who are not concerned about living as free men an women as long as they earn sufficiently large amounts of money. In this group are the Lee Kuan Yew minions who stay behind.
You have of course the foreign Western businessmen and professionals who do business in the island. For them it is only a case of making money. They are naturally not concerned about how they live their lives since it is not their country and they are there for short periods, when they will go hone to France, Germany or the USA. Most of them leave their families at home in the West and even if they bring them here, they study at foreign schools with their German, Italian or American teachers. As far as they are concerned, they despise Singaporeans for a cowardly people, willing to live as slaves in Lee Kuan Yew’s island, which they would not in America, Germany or France.
Then there are the middle level professionals, some from England, Australia, India and other places. For a variety of reasons, they spend some time in Singapore working as engineers, bank officers, and executives. They too are totally unconcerned about how Singaporeans have to live their lives since they are here temporarily. In 6 months, if they got a better job in Rangoon Burma, they would spend some time there if possible.
In the end, all you have in Singapore at the upper levels is the revolving door phenomenon. People come in for a time, and then leave, only to be replaced by other people who come in and who themselves leave too.
If there are going to be anyone left behind to run the place, it is the handful of sycophants and crawlers who willingly take orders from above as to what to do, regardless of right or wrong. And their numbers are shrinking too, as Singapore students leave for a foreign education and opt to remain where they are. Singapore is reaching a point where it cannot find sufficiently capable people to run the show and this is entirely because of what Singapore is today, a life of submission and obedience, which people with an education find unacceptable.
Unless the native Singaporeans who have a stake in the country take drastic real earth shattering action to demand a democratic system of government, literally taking Lee Kuan Yew to task, I don’t see him doing anything to arrest the decline into which Singapore is sliding.
Attorney at Law
Disbarred from practicing law in Lee’s Singapore, imprisoned and refused entry to the island for criticizing Singapore’s judiciary in this blog (see blogpost May 29, 2008 Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang’s Kangaroo Court)
Actively practicing law in California and in good standing at the California Bar.
Member in good standing as a lawyer in England and Wales (Barrister).
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
This leaves us with a further problematic interpretation of the stakeholder concept – that related to the welfare state. No sooner had Mr Blair sat down in the Far East than maverick Labour MP Frank Field was claiming the speech heralded a root and branch reform of pensions and benefits. It is certainly true that the present welfare system does not protect workers from summary restriction of pension and unemployment insurance “rights” which they believed the state had bestowed. While it is unthinkable in a free society for the state to rescind individual property rights – indeed they are so deeply-rooted that they have often re-emerged in eastern Europe after 50 years of communism – the same is not true of the communal pension and benefit rights bestowed under a democratic welfare state.
One way of remedying this problem is to require individuals to build up their own “provident accounts” on the Singapore model of forced savings. These can be used for unemployment insurance, education, pensions and even housing. Since they are individually assigned accounts, and fully funded by supporting investments, they cannot be lightly cancelled by the state, and would certainly be compatible with a stakeholder economy. But would a generation which is already heavily taxed to pay for the unfunded pensions of its parents now vote for a second dose of forced savings to pay for their own pensions as well? It seems rather doubtful, to put it mildly. This may be another area where New Labour needs to proceed cautiously as it puts meat on the bones of the stakeholder idea.
Then we have the following from the book: ” Autobiography and Decolonization- Modernity, Masculinity, and the Nation-state” By Philip Holden
Do you see it? I have been saying to people for some years now that the way the UK is going is precisely what I saw when I lived in Singapore. Gopalan Nair is precisely correct when he speaks about the expats having disdain for the slaves who make up the populace in Singapore. I did at the time but I was unaware and ignorant of what I know now about the world because I was just too busy making a living until what happened to Gopalan happened to me and the corruption, which lay underneath the squeaky clean pavements you thought you could eat your dinner off, hit you right between the eyes.
But then you also have this, from the CFR and Henry Kissinger re Lee Kuan Yew:
So why diverge into all of this stuff about Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew and fabianism when the post is meant to be about Coronation Street for god’s sakes?
Well, it’s simple really. To achieve what Lee Kuan Yew achieved takes decades and it will take decades here too. What needs to be done is create, over time, and entirely multi-cultural society (that said, Singapore isn’t quite as multi-cultural as it likes to portray itself. It’s still 80% chinese and the rest (Indian and Malay in the main) are second and third class citizens. The expats are a little “oasis” of their own and Singapore does its best to make them feel “at home” and comfortable BUT, you hit any issue (as I did) and the vultures come out to tear you apart because you’re “making money” and they see a way of getting it back while why would a Singaporean lawyer and judiciary give a damn about what they did to you and your family? It’s just business and you’re primed to be stripped of whatever they can get their hands on – with no jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter, they’ll fuck you over and over.
Anyhow, there’s the multiculturalism to cause even more division in the populace – therefore there is no one voice shouting at our corrupt government – plus there is the total change of the benefits and pensions structure. You see most people are squealing at the conservatives for the austerity measures and the benefits issue but, in fact, it all started a very long time ago and, to give the creep his due (David Icke that is) it has been a totalitarian tiptoe to where we are now. Again, it doesn’t matter who’s in power – Labour, Tory or Libdem – because they don’t create the policy, they just implement it. It’s the Crown which dictates from the shadows and the Crown like Lee Kuan Yew because they see he’s created that slave driven powerhouse on an island no larger than Greater London.
Now, you have a massive proportion of the UK who regularly and faithfully tune into Coronation Street (Coronation? Crown? Indeed!) and that one long time serial drama has fed (but, in many respects, created) the morality of this nation while they now have another vehicle, long standing, which doubles that effort called “Eastenders”. Both drip feeding into the collective consciousness almost night after night. Most thinking they are just reflecting society as they go along. Wrong! They are, in many respects, creating society by colouring stories the way the establishment want them coloured. Have you also noticed another thing about these series? They tend to be pro monarchy all in all. Coincidence? Not at all. And just like the Queen’s celebrations and the Queen’s speech, Lee Kuan Yew has his “Singapore Days” where he has his media create a celebratory atmosphere of pride in the country tied into “democracy” (a joke) and all thing wonderful and historic. Precisely what we do here. And it works and always will.
So back to the eugenics message Coronation Street has just fed you.
Here is George Bernard Shaw, a fabian just like Kuan Yew and Blair (and quietly our entire establishments):
Got that? Now please don’t think or consider this is just one very “mad” man from many decades ago. If you do so then you’re just allowing yourself to be wilfully ignorant of everything going on around you. Shaw’s words reflect Singaporean (and soon British) society to a T. Singapore is an economic slave camp where anything but democracy exists and yet the British government treat Singapore as an exemplary example of democracy and success at work yet families have to stay together in small HDB flats because there is no welfare state (all tax receipts are for the top echelons) and they must support each other through their entire “lifecycle” and I use the term “lifecycle” because singaporeans are nothing more than products/resources to keep the machine running. There is no quality of life in Singapore (but they have been taught/conditioned to believe there is and be intensely proud of their achievements – which are all economic but not for them personally rather than simply for the singaporean elite to tell them “how lucky they are” and they believe it. Some don’t however but their lives can become very difficult (just as Gopalan’s did). The same thing is happening with those of us who speak out too loudly in the UK now too.
“Done very gently”…. i.e. humanely not cruel while Hesmondhalgh herself is a member of the Humanist society. A society which pitches itself as being pro human but is as much pro human as the World Wildlife Fund is pro wildlife.
Then we have to remember Newsweek and Time magazines in the last couple of years presenting us with these articles:
So a little more on eugenics:
“Oh that’s about a century ago!” I hear you say. God! You just don’t get it do you?
What about this then….