Sir Keith Joseph inspired Margaret Thatcher to convert to Monetarism, an economic and political theory he had read about and adapted his mind to during the mid-through-late 1970s. His influence in creating the economic system we now thrive in - the private-dominated mixed-economy as opposed to the public-dominated mixex-economy inspired of Clement Attlee's and Roosevelt's administrations - is unquestionable. Thatcher with Reagan by her side during the 1980s created the benchmark that would transform economies worldwide, a transformation that has persisted for over 25 years.
In a speech at the Grand Hotel, Birmingham on Saturday 19 October 1974 he said, and I quote:
Quote:
"The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened. A recent article in Poverty, published by the Child Poverty Action Group, showed that a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up. They are born to mother who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5. Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness which are more important than riches. They are producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters. Yet these mothers, the under-twenties in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births. A high proportion of these births are a tragedy for the mother, the child and for us.
Yet what shall we do? If we do nothing, the nation moves towards degeneration, however much resources we pour into preventative work and the over-burdened educational system. It is all the more serious when we think of the loss of people with talent and initiative through emigration as our semi-socialism deprives them of adequate opportunities, rewards and satisfactions.
Yet proposals to extend birth-control facilities to these classes of people, particularly the young unmarried girls, the potential young unmarried mothers, evokes entirely understandable moral opposition. Is it not condoning immorality? I suppose it is. But which is the lesser evil, until we are able to remoralise whole groups and classes of people, undoing the harm done when already weak restraints on strong instincts are further weakened by permissiveness in television, in films, on bookstalls?"
Sir Keith Joseph was undoubtedly the most important man of the 20th Century and a paragon of moral virtue. He ensured the future wealth, opportunity and freedom of billions worldwide with his vision and determination.
It's sad that his idea to incorporate birth control for poor women never saw the light of day. That it hasn't is proving to be the one remaining problem we have. So many immoral poor people are bringing more problem children in the world, and the virus spreads.
Does anyone agree poor women of questionable character, of inadequate education, of little value to society should be sterilized? Or is that not enough? Perhaps also, it's necessary to neuter poor men who lack the moral virtues our societies need? I truly think so.
What are your thoughts? I'd be most delighted to engage in a debate on this matter.
20 Feb 2006, 2:34 am
