All Episodes
July 30, 2022 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:33:24
Mark Halliday Sutherland
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I've got Mark Sutherland from Australia.
Hello, Mark.
G'day.
G'day.
Hello, James.
I've got Mark Sutherland from Australia.
Hello, Mark.
G'day.
G'day.
Hello, James.
Good to see you and thanks for having me.
No, it's absolute pleasure, Mark.
I I know that you've got some really interesting to say about something I haven't really covered before about the eugenics movement and about the involvement of some of these people who've been presented to us by our sort of teachers and by our culture as goodies.
And they're not goodies.
Like so much of the history we've been taught, it's a lie.
It's propaganda.
And we can talk about that, but I wanted you to tell me first this very important story that you were telling me before we started recording this, which is about how I nearly killed you on Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Is that right?
That's correct.
I was driving northbound to deliver an evening class and I was catching the Deling pod and it was you talking to Dick.
And in my car, it's got 12 speakers and it's dark and it's wet and I'm on the head-on lane because they changed the traffic flow direction in the center lanes and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, depending on what time of day it is.
And so there's no barrier in the middle.
So if you're in the head-on lane, you're in the head-on lane.
You drive very, very carefully.
Anyway, so the sound quality, I don't want to get kicked off, but it was a bit iffy.
I think you gave your sound engineer the day off that day.
Every day is my sound engineer's day off.
By the way, look, can I just say, but just for people, I'm going to try and get my sound and visuals sorted out.
It's quite possible that the screen is freezing, you know, or will be at moments.
Yeah, it's because I keep trying to tell people it's not because I'm a cheapskate and I haven't tried to throw money at the problem it's that simply that I live in the country and Not only is my local, you know my wire Well, you know the stuff that comes through wires It not only is that shit, but also my satellite dish is really really shit just doesn't work It's just not good enough.
I I'm I'm And there's only one room in the house where I can record this podcast and unfortunately it's the room which I share with my wife in an office and I refuse point-blank to record a podcast on days when she is at home because it just cramps my style.
You can't do a podcast with somebody else in the room listening and sort of tutting.
It's very distracting, yeah.
It's very distracting.
But meanwhile on the other side of the world...
Yes, sorry.
Meanwhile on the other side of the world I was driving along and I wasn't quite catching what you were saying and I turned up the gain, turned it up the volume more and more and more and then suddenly the bark happened and the visceral sort of violence of the dog's bark scared the hell out of me.
It really did.
I managed to keep control of the car and I'm alive today so...
Anyway, I'm very happy that I didn't kill you because you wouldn't be here to tell me the interesting stuff you're going to tell me.
But listen, Mark, before, I know this is another before, but just tell me briefly, how are things in Australia?
I mean, you're living in, it's not as bad as Jacinda Ardern's tyranny and not as bad as President Bieber's tyranny, but it must be pretty close.
It's calmed down a lot in certain ways.
Like about 2020, 2021, there was every single day, if you read any of the mainstream media or took the television, there'd be the premier of the state looking mournful and everybody's terribly serious and, you know, you've got to do this, you've got to do that, and restrictions.
Like everybody else, we thought it was going to be two weeks to flatten the curve and then it turned into something a lot more.
By the end of it, it became, the end of last year, it became very, very tedious.
Um, because we were locked in our houses and, um, as a part of the control group, um, when they ended the lockdowns, um, if you were part of the control group and unvaccinated, then they said you had to stay in for an extra sort of two weeks, three weeks.
And by that stage, I thought that was just spiteful and I missed the part of a family holiday and stuff.
So I wasn't very impressed with that.
Um, I think one consolation is that we weren't in Victoria, and seeing what was happening in Victoria was just really, really appalling, actually.
Really, very, very worrying, what the police were doing to people, shooting them with rubber bullets, which actually have a higher fatality rate than COVID.
So it really, really wasn't good.
And also, they were using directed energy weapons, weren't they, on the crowds?
They were using heat devices to burn them.
I understand they were in the Canberra demonstrations which took place at the beginning of this year, I think.
I find actually with the whole lockdown thing I've lost sense of time because the things that click over like Easter and Christmas, you know, take place online or the last two Christmases I haven't spent with my extended family, my wife's family, this year because She went to have her hair done, and then somebody in the hairdresser had COVID, and so we had to stay home.
And so I've lost complete track of time, so I might say, ah, 2021, but it might be, you know, 2022, the beginning of.
And do you have any theories?
Okay, so first of all, is there a reason why Victoria had, well, Victoria and Northern Territories, why they seem to have the worst, the most fascistic, let's say, lockdown, jab, jab-tastic response?
Was it just random?
Or was it, are those notoriously?
I don't really know.
I really don't know.
But it did seem very, very peculiar.
And certainly, as far as the New South Wales police were concerned, they weren't as full on, though I understand they were giving some people a rough time.
Though I don't know if that's true, if you know what I mean.
But in Victoria, I think there was... Victoria is very much more of a labour, sort of trade union, left-wing state.
And I understand that, well, they've certainly got a lot of building going on down there.
And there was a dispute between the tradies, and then the union people.
And I got the impression that the unions and the labor government under Dan Andrews had done a deal, you hold your side, you hold your workers back, and we'll do our side.
And then the tradies rebelled against that.
And that's when they came down really, really hard.
But it wasn't just them.
I mean, you know, you may have seen the scenes on the television where there's some fellow sitting in a doorway drinking a coffee.
And so they decide to flavor his coffee and his face with a pepper spray, which rather spoiled his day.
And it was just horrible to see.
Particularly as that sort of stuff doesn't go on in Australia, or at least in our minds, it doesn't.
It's not that sort of country, we believed.
And so hopefully it was an aberration.
You make a good point, Mark, but you and I are of a generation.
And I mean, I've always thought, well, you know, 20 years ago, I would have thought that Australia was one of those places that I would flee to if it all kicked off.
That if you wanted a life of freedom and, you know, big skies and the outdoors, We're better to go than Australia or New Zealand.
And because in my imagination, I'd seen Crocodile Dundee.
And I thought, well, these are no nonsense people.
They drink, they drink 4X and they don't give a...
They like the outdoors.
They don't believe in big government.
I mean, how wrong I was, because it seems that the Commonwealth countries, or rather the Five Eyes nations, I think, are being used as an experiment, a sort of testing ground for policies that they intend to roll out to the UK and the US later.
But you're like the guinea pigs, aren't you?
Yeah, I found it very peculiar and it got to the stage where I was actually, I don't normally read the Sydney Morning Herald or if I do, I do it in the browser and then clear the cookies and then read it for free again and then clear the cookies because I'm not paying for that paper ever again.
But yeah, the thing is you'd read the articles, say for example, there's an article by a science writer and He wrote an article, this fellow, he wrote an article and it was like...
Are the vaccines safe?
You know, I'm the science writer.
I'm going to give you the explanation for it.
And I was quite appalled when I read the article, you know, saying, well, maybe I'm not getting it.
Maybe I'm not listening to the right people.
And I read the article and it starts off saying, are the vaccines safe?
I mean, how do we know they're not going to harm us?
How do we know we're not going to turn into lizard people in 10 years time?
And so the implication from a science writer is that if you don't agree with this fellow, you're basically a sort of follower of David Icke and you must be some sort of crazy conspiracy nut.
And I thought, that's not science at all.
That's just sort of pushing a barrow.
There was another one where there was a state premier of New South Wales, like our prime minister of the state.
And he was rolled out of retirement and they just had to interview him during the course of which he was asked about a tweet he had sent in which he had said that we should do what Singapore did.
And if people haven't been vaccinated and they get sick, then they should pay for their own health care.
And then he said, You are just you have been warned.
You're too stupid to take the advice.
And now you're going to take the consequences of it.
And a little memory switch went off in my head.
And I thought, hang on, isn't this the guy who back in the 80s, his younger brother, who was a schoolteacher, took a heroin overdose.
And he died.
And I thought, well, if you're going to treat people who are not vaccinated like that, how come it doesn't apply to your brother?
Because certainly I would not have scorned his brother.
I would have thought it was a tragic mistake that he didn't listen to the warnings.
He had been warned and now he can.
No.
The fact is, his brother was in a coma for about the following nine months before he died.
And it was all very, very sad.
And so to see a man with that background, who as a result of that opened up safe injecting rooms in King's Cross in Sydney, which is a, you know, perhaps where people go to take their drugs.
I don't know if that's the case.
I haven't been there for a long time.
For that man to come out with such a nasty, vituperative, you know, I'm really cracking the whip, really began to worry me.
And then when you saw it taken up by, you know, President of the United States, the President of France, and various other people, I just thought, this is very, very strange.
And I was pinching myself to say, you know, what the hell is going on?
Yeah, yeah.
Did anyone make that point in the, I bet they didn't, in the media about his hypocrisy?
Well, I did on the comments page.
Yeah, right.
Because somebody, and again, it was getting really nasty.
Well, if you don't want to, you know, people are saying these people disgust me.
And so this sort of absolute classic of othering people, labelling them Um, and bucketing them, all of that was going on.
And without being melodramatic, uh, when I saying I'm pinching myself, I'm saying, hang on, I read about this in thirties Germany.
At what stage do I go, look, uh, relax, you know, sorry, you're taking it too seriously.
And at what stage do I go, Oh, okay.
Crikey.
And then when you see the, there's the sort of, um, quarantine camps that were building in, um, In Queensland and in the Northern Territory, you think, oh, well, this can't be really happening.
And then it got to, you know, discussions with my wife, who, you know, it got to the stage and I said, well, what if they did take me off to a camp because I'm not vaccinated?
And the thing is, she is a very sensible person and would have said, Oh, don't be ridiculous.
That's not going to happen.
And it was very notable and she agreed, but she wasn't actually saying that.
So it's very strange.
You don't know how serious it got.
When I was under lockdown, because I went to Victoria and then I came back, the police came by the house to check that I was actually in the house under sort of quarantine.
And they were friendly enough about it.
And so they weren't sort of, you know, sort of Rattling the bars of your cage or anything or being nasty.
It was very, very friendly.
And so that again made it slightly surreal in that they were friendly Australian policemen.
And, you know, so am I really taking this too seriously or not?
It was very, very strange time and may still be.
I think we are still living in very, very strange times.
And I think that this lull in hostilities is purely to fool the populace into imagining that it's all over and that somehow there's no need to resist because things are going to get back to normal anytime soon.
On those quarantine camps, Do you share my suspicion that they weren't really being built for Covid but actually they're a longer term project designed to lock people up when inevitably the balloon goes up and people wake up to what's really been done against them and at that point dissenters like you and me will be put away in these in these camps that's what they're for they weren't they were
they were never about quarantining people that was just the handy excuse look i'd like to say that's completely ridiculous and out of the question but and particularly because australia um traditionally sees itself as that island fortress So during the 1918 Spanish flu, they sealed the place off.
There's a quarantine station, which is now a museum and maybe I think you can go and stay there, which is on the north head of Sydney Harbour.
And certainly it was very effective at sort of stopping infectious diseases from coming into Australia.
So, there is that tradition.
Having said that, though, these things can emerge, you know, situations can happen and then, ah, look, the opportunity's taken.
And so, I don't know which way.
Certainly, the other thing that's in the back of my mind is that In Victoria, they passed a health act, which was very, very strange.
Very, very draconian.
Enables the Premier to shut down the state without any health advice, just based on, you know, what he thinks.
And people were saying, well, look, you know, the worst is over.
Why are we passing this bill?
And it just, sorry, not why we passed this bill.
It's now an act and it sits on the books.
And so, you know, whether that is the plan or whether it emerges that way, certainly some of the people at least have the powers to do that.
And that's very, very worrying because, well, you know, you're on the call with Toby in Iceland and in the 2008 crash, Um, the British authorities, as I understand it, the reason they got hold of the Icelandic assets, um, to repay their debts during the 2008 crash was through terrorism laws.
And so the terrorism laws weren't sort of saying, Oh, let's get these dastardly Icelanders or, uh, you know, and make them pay.
Um, but when there was the problem, there it is on the books, let's use this.
And so whether it's a plan, whether it's opportunistic, I don't know.
I have been very disturbed by what I have seen.
It isn't the country that I emigrated to in 88.
I hope it will revert to being that, but I was very, very shocked.
Yeah, I shouldn't hold your breath, Mark, but then where can one go?
I suspect, by the way, that like me, you are an ex-Normie who's been mugged by reality and one of the journeys that we've taken, and I'm sure so many people listening to this podcast would have taken is where you suddenly start to reassess everything you know about the world, everything you've been taught in school, everything that you read on the news and so on.
And we're going to talk today about one of those historical rabbit holes.
I mean, if you'd mentioned to me two years ago, the name Marie Stokes, I would instantly have thought, well, she had something to do with liberating women, birth control clinics.
She was a good thing because, well, she was a good thing because we were told she was a good thing.
And obviously she had something to do with the pill.
There is no stigma, I don't think, attached to the name of Marie Stopes.
And yet, what your research has shown is that she was a Roman, and that she was part of a movement which I think explains a lot of what is going on today among the The the predator class as I call them.
So tell me tell me.
Okay.
Tell me first of all about the eugenics movement because it's sort of far to favor didn't it after after Hitler after the Second World War, but it was quite a big thing in the when when did eugenics become a thing?
Well, I would debate whether it did fall out of favor.
I think it just changed its clothes because Hitler gave it a big, big PR problem.
But we can we can talk about that in a moment.
But effectively, eugenics was, if people had told you, James, look, you pull yourself together, man, you got to follow the science 100 years ago, they wouldn't have been talking about climate change, they would have been talking about eugenics, because that was the science.
And it was, GK Chesterton called it one of the oldest follies of mankind.
And in its modern form, it was drawn up by Francis Galton, Sir Francis Galton, who was the cousin of Charles Darwin.
And he effectively looked, you know, at humans and humans stopped.
And he looked at The poor in British cities who basically lived in very toxic, very poor working conditions and living conditions, a lot of pollution.
And so they actually were smaller.
They had bow legs.
They actually looked different to the more prosperous people.
Golton looked and he said, well, you know, with horses and pigs and cows, we can breed these to have the best specimens.
I wonder if we could do the same with mankind.
And so he came up with eugenics in its modern form, which he defined, and I'm not quoting directly, but it's the agencies under our control, which we can use to improve future generations.
Yeah.
Yeah, which which sounds look, when you put it like that, and I was I was reading your book last night, and I was thinking, if I'd been a sort of reasonably intelligent person, in the early 20th century, late 19th century, when these ideas are floating around,
I would have maybe looked at the slum populations in the big cities, and I would have listened to Francis Galter.
I mean, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but not totally.
I would have listened to his arguments about how I mean, the opposite of eugenics is dysgenics, right?
So yeah, and I've read, I've read interesting books about this about declining IQs that that, for example, the welfare system encourages Poor people, poor ill-educated people to breed, while the educated people can't afford to have children because they're too busy trying to hold jobs down.
And we know that the intelligentsia or whatever you want to call them, the professional classes don't have many children because they're too busy working.
And they and they make the calculation that they can only afford a certain number of children, whereas the welfare state enables, you know, the less intelligent people, whatever, to have as many children as they like.
And inevitably that that creates a situation where proportionately the less educated are breeding more.
So so it sort of makes intuitive sense that you might want to create a situation where you encourage the intelligent people to breed so that like, you know, like racehorses or whatever, you get sort of a better.
So, you know, a sort of better quality population.
So I can I can sort of understand the theory behind it.
But it's it's sort of the practical application of the theory that it starts getting pretty evil, doesn't it?
Yeah.
And it's the idea of, you know, seeing the nation state and sort of going, well, this is our team and.
Bloody hell, how come you're the fat kid?
I don't want to pick you on my team, or whatever.
and um i want to kill that can be um i'm having traumatic flashbacks but being picked last when i was in sort of eight years old - The bootings.
I was the same.
I was the same, Mark.
We'd have been for the chop, at least on football or being chosen for the team grounds.
And it's like, yeah, well, better put you in goal, you know, because you can stand still.
So there's all that.
But, you know, the thing is that then you've got to say, well, OK, maybe there are incentives being, you know, with the government interfering too much and making too many incentives for this and too few incentives for that.
But it's also based on a lot of assumptions on what life is like for the people who are poor.
So, for example, you know, the people like Stokes or Galton would look at the urban poor in Britain 100 years ago.
And they would think they were terrible, but if you speak to people whose families were in those circumstances, look, it was grim and they were very, very poor, but there was also a sort of binding together and looking out for each other and a solidarity and a sort of wealth that, you know, that wasn't a monetary wealth, but a society wealth.
And the thing is, as you say, it's very difficult where you draw that line, and what is the nature of work, and why does everybody have to have an IQ above something, you know, to meet our modern economy.
That's certainly true, yeah.
It's very hard to know where to draw the line.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, look, just just on that point.
I think it is absolutely wrong that the government through welfare system should incentivize people to have more children when when working people can't have them.
But that's that's I would not go any further than that.
The I mean, and any further than that, you enter sort of a vulnerable territory where you're starting stuff and choose who can live and who can die.
Yes.
And yet this was a fashionable thing.
The names who supported this movement, it's like a roll call of the scientists and the intelligentsia and the artistic classes.
George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells. - That's right, Shaw, yeah.
And Shaw, sorry. - Now you carry on, tell me about Shaw and I'll ask you about Galton.
Shaw used to correspond and be friends with Marie Stopes, but he didn't actually join her society.
He sort of stayed outside that.
HG Wells did join her society.
of the Society of Constructive, sorry, Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress.
So she also had John Maynard Keynes.
At one stage she had Bertrand Russell, but they had a falling out because there were There were some other Malthusian people selling a Malthusian leaflet called Rose Witkop and Guy Aldred, and their books were seized and everything like that.
And Bertrand Russell said, let's go and help these people and I'll pass the hat to Stokes.
And she said, certainly not, because she wanted to be the sort of top dog in the field and didn't support them at all.
Right, so apart from factional debates like that, basically the entirety of what we would call the chattering classes or the clerisy would have been eugenicists in the same way that now they are all massive jab pushers and they're totally on board with the New World Order etc.
These are the same kind of people who crop up again and again.
That's correct, yeah.
Tell us about Francis Galton.
Well, he was Darwin's cousin and he defined the science of eugenics.
Now, he was quite brilliant in some ways, like if you can ever look up a Galton machine for explaining the distribution curve for statistics, it's fascinating.
As a matter of fact, I've got one at the next room and I bought it because it's Quite brilliant for explaining how set processes can happen in random ways and how you can look at the standard deviations from the mean.
And it'll always turn out different, but if you know the calculations you can always see whether it's happening the same or not.
So it's a quite brilliant way of depicting statistics in a real device.
He was also Formed fingerprints and sort of set up that whole thing of fingerprinting stuff.
So he was a polymath.
He, some things he was quite brilliant at, and he was also a brilliant statistician.
And so his idea was he would look at, he wanted to know if you had somebody, what was the influence of nature and what was the influence of nurture?
And he figured out that the way you could measure that was through statistics.
And so that was his insight that you could use statistics to see the relative importance of each.
How would that work?
Well, I'll just tell you in a sec that he had a protégé.
His protégé was a chap called Karl Pearson.
Karl Pearson was the biographer and protégé of Galton and he carried on his statistical work.
As it related, for instance, to tuberculosis, and I'm jumping around a lot because the thing is, is with tuberculosis, we know today that it's an infectious disease.
It's caused by the tubercle bacillus and Koch's postulates were formed on the basis of this disease.
Now, if you get to a eugenist like Carl Pearson, he'd say, okay, how much is nature?
How much is nurture?
And what he would do is he would look at a family.
So if you imagine a family with father and mother, son and daughter organized like a four on a dice, on a set of dice, okay?
The parents can't be related to each other by law.
They cannot be closer than first cousins.
And I think they needed permission to marry if they're close cousins.
So the thing is, is they couldn't pass genes to each other.
They could only pass infection to each other.
On the other hand, the parents pass genes to the children.
And so the statistician would say, well, that's great.
This four person family is a control group.
Because if I measure the correlation of The, whether the children have tuberculosis or whether the spouses pass it to each other, that will reveal something.
So I'm getting a bit tied up here, but let me explain.
Husband and wife sleeping in the same bed.
If the wife has tuberculosis, you would expect the husband to get it if it's an infectious disease.
Yes.
Not so much.
The children, on the other hand, get it.
So people like Pearson at this stage with his studies on tuberculosis, and he did at least three, he goes, aha, this shows that it's not infectious.
Otherwise, the husband would have got it.
But the children have got it.
Therefore, it's genetic.
Now, yes, we know that there are, we know that there are infection and germs involved, but you know what?
It's genetic.
It's their inferior heredity that's given them this disease.
Does that make a bit of sense?
Yes.
No, that does make total sense.
So the logical consequence of that would be that you would allow these or even encourage these unhealthy, these sort of untermenschen, you might call them, to succumb to tuberculosis because it's a kind of almost a sort of cleansing process that helps, a beneficial disease that helps rid society of these
These people with their immune systems ill-equipped to survive in this golden future.
I can see why they'd have, either through sins of omission or commission, they'd have gone for that.
And absolutely.
And the thing is, that's literally what they did.
So you had Carl Pearson in 1911, he gave a talk called Tuberculosis, Heredity and Environment.
And it effectively said, look, The doctors who specialize in tuberculosis, one of whom was my grandfather, which is the reason I got involved and researched this area, was the tuberculosis doctors.
They're wasting their time.
Look what we've done.
We've cleared a few slums.
We've improved living conditions.
We've stopped young children working in factories in the mid 1880s.
And have we produced another James Watt, another Sir Francis Drake?
You know, it goes on.
No, we haven't.
And what we're doing is we are denigrating British racial stocks, as he would have called them.
What he said was, it's quite obvious to anybody that the tuberculous are amongst a certain class of people.
And so you nearly need to let nature take its course.
And that will save us a lot of money.
And that is the best thing to do.
And letting nature take its course is actually letting people die out.
A chap before him was a chap called Dr. Haywood, can't remember his full name, but he gave, I think the Milroy Lectures in the late 1800s.
And you can read these today and you'll see him saying, look, it's a tough thing to say, but tuberculosis is a friend of the race because it kills only the feeble.
Then if you go to, sorry, No.
Then if you go to a chap called Sir James Barr, who in 1912 was the President of the British Medical Association, he starts talking about the medical profession And he's at the 80th conference in 1912, July 1912.
I think it was in Liverpool.
And he's actually talking to the medical profession and says, look, we're at a crossroads.
You know, we've been treating individuals and that's all very well, but a lot of diseases have gone now because of sanitation improvements and so on.
And so he was suggesting that they look at a larger organism.
So they wouldn't just treat you, James.
What they do is look at you in society.
And so the larger organism they were treating was, you know, whether you should have children and whether you should sort of live, not quite live or die, but going along in that direction.
And then he compared Britain to a, you know, he said, if we keep these people alive and prove their living conditions, we're effectively providing hothouse conditions.
So we're providing this hothouse for these rather feeble plants to thrive where they wouldn't previously.
And then he, in a later on the speech, he talks about Britain being like a garden, and now we're cultivating the weeds.
And it's just quite chilling to read it.
If you go forward to 1918, he gives a speech on the future of the medical profession.
And he's quite blunt.
He's quoting somebody else, but he's quoting them approvingly.
And he says, look, if you're not blinded like a lot of doctors, you will realize that the tuberculosis consumption does a rough but effective job of killing off the unfit, killing off the feeble.
If Tomorrow the tubercle bacillus were to disappear.
It would be nothing short of a national calamity Now when I read that I was just chilled to the bone because that is just a horrible Horrible thing to say you might say it is well You need to toughen your heart and all of this sort of stuff that they sometimes come out with but for the people who are dying and you know Who had tuberculosis.
Well, thanks a lot, mate.
That's really good of you.
Head of the British Medical Association.
10,000 children are dying every year through tuberculous milk.
And I don't think this guy would have been on the phone every single day to the Ministry of Health or whatever, complaining about that.
It's extraordinary how open people were back then, public figures, in saying this stuff, which now we would rightly find abhorrent.
I mean, they're basically saying the same things that the Nazis did, weren't they?
The Nazis just had a chance to try out all these eugenics practices.
But it's clear that the chattering classes were itching for a similar program in countries like the UK.
Yes, and the thing is the Nazis were late to the party.
They got the ideas from Britain and America.
And at Nuremberg they were sort of scratching their heads looking at the Americans saying, hey, why are we on trial?
We're just following, you know, like for instance, as I understand it, their sterilization laws were quite close to what were passed in California at the time.
Right, right.
I've seen a video of George Bernard Shaw talking just unabashedly about how in his view we should have these panels and everyone should go before one of these panels and be assessed As to whether they were living a useful life, whether they were making sufficient contributions to society to justify being kept alive.
And if they couldn't justify themselves, then they would be put to death.
And he wasn't embarrassed about this, was he?
No, no.
Yeah, that was very peculiar.
I wonder, As you know, he was friends with GK Chesterton, and they would have debated things.
And actually, he was acquainted with my grandfather.
In my book, I publish a postcard, which was from George Bernard Short, my grandfather, talking about a particular thing.
And I just wonder, if he was really, really that full on, rather than a fine debating point, then I just wonder, if somebody really was like that, would you have accepted them?
You know, where do you draw the line between that's your view, that's your debating point, and something else?
But yeah, look, it is absolutely appalling and chilling, and it's just not enough to turn around later on and say, oh, I never knew it would be taken that seriously.
I didn't realize somebody would listen and take me up on my ideas.
These people, okay, so obviously they were the darlings of society, almost national treasures.
I imagine that they would have been connected with the predator class.
I mean, we know, for example, that Charles Darwin was funded by the Rothschilds, wasn't he?
He very much wanted to promote Darwinian theory.
So it would hardly be a stretch to think that the wealthy, the super rich elites would also have been four square behind Galton.
Yes.
Yeah.
Look, that's very, very probable.
And that's the interesting thing, too, in the sense that Margaret Sanger, who is the Marie Stopes of the United States, she set up a birth control clinic in New York, which was shut down by the police.
And I think it was in 1916, she came to the United Kingdom and met Stopes in London.
Now, according to Sanger, Sanger told Stopes all about contraception.
But according to Stopes, that was complete nonsense.
And, you know, there is evidence, too, that Stopes knew about contraception way back in 1911.
And I say way back in 1911 because she was in a very unhappy marriage, which she couldn't get out of.
And it had to be annulled by basically her going to court and saying, my husband's impotent and he hasn't consummated the marriage, so we've got to annul the marriage.
And then what she does is she looks in a cupboard in the British Museum, according to the legend, and she discovers, oh, I never knew about sex.
I never knew about any of this.
And because she had suffered so much on behalf of women, she started to write about it and published her book, Married Love, in 1918 so that other women wouldn't suffer as much.
It was then discovered by one of her biographers that there was a letter from her to a clergyman
Sorry, there was a letter from a clergyman to her a few months after her marriage and said, you know, dear Marie Stoutsky, you know, I was so interested in what you said about these quinine pessaries on that cruise we were on and I was wondering if you could tell me how much this and how much that and one wonders how one could have a An idea of quinine pessaries as a contraceptive without actually knowing about sex.
And so it seems that that was a complete lie.
Anyway, I'm getting off track.
The point is, Margaret Sanger was pushing, agitating for this in the United States at the same time that Stokes was actually doing it in Britain.
And it's like coincidence that both of them are pushing this agenda at the same time.
In the United States, Sanger was effectively pushing eugenics on the basis of racial lines, effectively because she thinks there are too many Jews, too many Catholics, and too many African-Americans, and so it's being pushed on racial lines.
Stopes, on the other hand, in Britain, is pushing it on class lines.
Right, right.
So these women, as is often the case, these people, they have prominent positions, and it seems like they're leaders of a movement.
But in fact, they've got backers, haven't they?
They are serving the purposes of the higher ups.
Do we have any evidence of the funding they got?
I don't have any evidence of that, no.
She was certainly quite influential, but I think she would have been anyway.
She was a very successful academic.
She was known as a paleobotanist, who I understand her categorization of coal is still used today.
So she was quite prominent in that way.
She was quite well connected in the sense that she was friends with Alma Maud, who was the biographer and friend of Tolstoy.
And I understand he had a part in pushing her career in certain ways.
So I don't have any evidence that she was backed, she was funded.
So both Margaret Sanger for the Americans and Marie Stopes for British people have been hailed ever since as the women who liberated women, enabled them to have healthy sex lives divorced from the from the fear of unwanted pregnancy and so they were they were liberating figures but one thing I've noticed
is that there is always the official reason for why something happens, which is the one that persuades the norm is that this is a good thing and it's all above board and it's all innocent.
And then there's the ulterior motive.
So presumably what has been sold to us as, you know, two women just trying to give women better sex lives and make them more fulfilled and give them freedoms from the drudgery of having multiple children, It wasn't about that, was it?
I don't believe so.
And this was really my entrance.
This was the rabbit hole that I initially thought, oh, I wonder if, because I discussed a number of years ago with my brother and we were talking about Dr. Halliday Sutherland, my grandfather, after whom I was named.
And we were talking about his big battle against Marie Stopes.
They had a big court case in 1923.
And he accused her, he wrote in a book, and he accused her of exposing the poor to experiment.
And he wrote some words which were, she sued him for libel about.
Now, I went in the rabbit hole because, yeah, of that generation, sort of being in my teenage in the 1970s, it was really, really uncool to be named after this doctor.
And the biographers and disciples of Stokes would always remind you this Roman Catholic doctor.
And it was really, really uncool to be named after and related this uncool Roman Catholic doctor who, you know, when she opened a birth control clinic in a poor part of London.
He accused her of exposing the poor to experiment.
And it was very much presented as him as a Catholic convert from 1919 trying to please his new religious masters and sort of chucking a bit of mud at her.
And then this poor defenseless woman who's trying to help her poorer sisters.
You sort of, you know, I thought, oh, why is this guy, you know, like what actually happened with my grandfather?
Why was he so vehemently against her birth control clinic, the first in the British Empire in 1921?
Now, when I looked into it, Sorry, should I go on?
Yeah, carry on.
When I looked into it, it didn't make a lot of sense.
He got married, I think, in 1920 or 1921.
So by the time of the trial came up, which its centenary is actually next February.
So the trial occurred in February 1923.
He had three children under five years old.
My aunt Jane, who was the oldest, and my uncles Peter and John.
And you'd sort of say, well, if you've got Your new family, three children under five, you're not going to go around chucking mud at people and getting sued for libel.
He didn't have any money to fund a trial.
And so that didn't make sense.
And then I looked into it and, you know, I, well, I wrote about it and actually I'll show you the cover of the book.
This thing that you think is a bowler hat, He's actually a cervical cap.
And what's the brand name?
Can you see the brand name?
Because no, no, because my shit internet is not okay.
Sorry.
So the, the, the brand name is racial brand.
So you go, that's odd.
And then the other brand she had was pro race.
And then the logo has a lantern and there's a lantern with the mesh and it's birth control.
And she says, um, Sure, and the logo of the clinic, the slogan for it is joyful and deliberate motherhood, a sure light in our racial darkness.
And, you know, like in these days, when you say racial darkness, saying, oh, that's racist, skin color racism.
And it's not.
It's actually class racism.
It's it's as nasty.
You know, it's it's.
Yeah.
Marie Stope's middle class being nasty against working class people or English people being nasty or Marie Stope's being nasty against Irish people.
And a really sort of Nasty, like a really nasty way, and maybe jumping off the track, but in 1873, Galton wrote an article in which he was saying, well, you know, I've noticed after the Irish famine that, you know, if you looked around, you'd see That they're becoming more ape-like.
I can't pronounce the word.
It was prognathus or something.
I can't pronounce that word, but it basically means more ape-like.
And I thought, well, hang on.
If somebody's actually starving, it's likely that all of their teeth will have fallen out.
And so wrap up their face that way.
And they're not going to be smiling and happy, so wrapping up that face that way.
So to sort of assume, are they becoming more like the apes because of this?
It's like nuts.
But I'm just alluding to that because it's just so visceral and nasty to regard people in this way.
Well, sure.
Can I just ask you, what was the contraception situation before Murray Stopes or Margaret Sanger rolled out their clinics?
Was it available at all or was it purely an elite thing?
It was available and in fact in my book I quote a historian who says actually in that era contraceptives were available in more variety and in greater numbers than they are today with the exception of the oral contraceptive pill.
Now, generally speaking, the women who would get these contraceptives would be prostitutes or they would be upper class or middle class women who would buy them discreetly through catalogs.
They were also available through what were known as the rubber shops.
You'd pop into a rubber shop to buy rubber products.
And so they were available, but they were not... the class most unlikely to use them were the working classes.
Right.
And the urban poor.
So again, if one wanted to put an innocent complexion on all this, you could go along with the narrative and say that Sanger and Stokes helped the working classes.
I mean, whatever the eugenic consequences, they were providing them a service that they didn't have before and that they might have enjoyed and benefited from, you know, to be able to have sex without consequences, just like the upper orders.
Yes, that the sex without consequences.
But there were, for instance, there are a number of assumptions in that, like the concept of an unwanted child.
Back then, as I understand it, from talking to a social historian, Anne Farmer, she and she comes from a working class background.
Her father spent a lot of his life or some of his life in the early 20th century in the poorhouse.
And he had a sister who died of diphtheria in the poorhouse.
So he very much knew that and she sort of found out about it from him.
But this concept of an unwanted child wasn't as prominent or as clear to them as it would be today.
It's easy to say, oh, the compulsory pregnancy lobby and the unwanted child and stuff, but that's very much a middle-class view of somebody like Stokes who says, well, to hell with these people, they're mouth breeders and I'm going to be paying the income taxes for them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can see that.
Well, yes, I think another another of the consequences of what we've seen in the last couple of years and and the the the predator class making it very clear that they are Malthusian psychopaths who genuinely believe that the world is massively overpopulation and something needs to be done right now and that we need to be culled.
It changes one's understanding, doesn't it, of all the things that one believed in the past.
So I used to think, well hey, the pill was one of those great liberators, because I bought into the propaganda.
The pill was a liberating thing, that abortion is
sort of thing you do reluctantly but but it shouldn't be ruled out because what if you got somebody pregnant and you didn't want to get them pregnant and and all all the all the stuff which one thinks of as having come from inside one's head yes whereas actually one is one has been conditioned by the culture which is very much a culture particularly in the UK less so in America where there's more division of pro-abortion pro-conception pro-free love but the all these ideas
They're sort of post-Murray Stopes, aren't they?
I mean, they're post-1960s especially, but... Yes, and the thing is, too, is that from my grandfather's point of view, he was, in his book, he wrote a book in 1922 called Birth Control, a statement of Christian doctrine against the Neo-Malthusians, and that's where he wrote the libelous words, excuse me, about Stopes.
And in it, you know, he gives the Christian arguments against it, but he also gives, he sort of says, well, you don't really buy into this Christianity bit, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you the secular arguments against it.
And he's very much saying, well, the people who want this are men, because they want sex without consequences, not women.
Um, and so he pushed that point of view and he also, and the, the disciples and biographers and hagiographers of Stopes have always sort of spoken in this way and sort of presented the struggle, the legal struggle between Sutherland and Stopes as Catholics against contraceptives.
And it's very, very effective because, you know, if he says, well, he was a Roman Catholic doctor, he didn't like contraceptives.
Well, that's great.
No one's going to go, oh, I wonder what the Catholics think about contraception.
They know.
They know enough to not look at it again.
And so it then becomes a woman freeing other women and stuff like that.
But the fact is that, you know, it was more than that, because Back in 1911, back in 1912, when he was working with the tuberculous poor of St.
Marylebone, when he made Britain's first public health cinema film, which you can actually go on to the British Film Institute website today and look at it.
It's called The Story of John McNeill, and look up Halliday Sutherland, and you can view it today.
And when he opened a open-air school in Regent's Park in a bandstand there, Like, he was really, really wanting to cure tuberculosis, and then when you come up against the eugenicists, and they're saying, well, to hell with you, let's not fund you, let's not fund your sanatoria, you know, waste of time, that's when he started to get a bit angry about it.
Now, the thing is, this Catholics against contraceptives thing did not apply back then, because he started to speak out against eugenics in 1912, Which was when he was nominally a Presbyterian from baptism of birth, and he was an atheist, sorry, he was an agnostic by belief and an atheist in practice.
And so to sort of say, ah, he did it because of Catholics is complete nonsense.
And you see him speaking out.
And so there's a lull because of the First World War.
And you see him speaking out again in 1917.
He makes a speech called Consumption, Its Cause and Cure.
And he blames the eugenicists and he calls them race breeders with the souls of cattle breeders who say that the efficiency of state is everything.
And then he says, because it's 1917, he says, who thinks he's He says they talk about the survival of the fittest, but who thinks he's fit because he survives?
This war's made a nonsense of their assertions.
He said, the fact of the matter is, of the tuberculous poor, the weak are already dead.
The strong are the ones who are alive.
So you're not conserving the weak, you are helping the strong.
And let's help them.
So that was 1917.
That's two years before he becomes a Catholic, and it makes a complete nonsense against this Catholic against contraceptives schema that they give to the case, which serves them so, so, so well.
The other thing I'd say about Stokes liberating women is that It said, oh, she gave women reproductive choice.
But when I looked into it, based on what she said, what she spoke, the words she actually said under oath in the court case in 1923, the fact of the matter is, is that while she was organizing, giving her pro-race and racial brand contraceptive devices to the poor women who wanted them,
She was advocating and lobbying politicians for the compulsory sterilization of the poor women who didn't want them.
And so she sent a questionnaire to, I think it was in the 1921 1921 general election.
I might be wrong on that date.
But she sent a questionnaire to 200 MPs saying, you know, what are you going to do about these terrible C3s, you know, who are dragging our country down?
She also wrote to Frances Stevenson, who was the secretary before she got promoted to mistress, before she got promoted to wife of Prime Minister Lloyd George.
And she sent her book Radiant Motherhood and she highlighted the parts that basically spoke of the poor as parasites sapping the good tree and undesirables.
Just really horrible language about poor people before suggesting that they be compulsorily sterilized with x-rays.
And so the thing is, is that, yeah, she gave women choice.
I don't think so.
She gave some women choice, but for the poor women who were gonna be compulsory sterilized if she had had her way, that choice would have been made by the state. - So your ancestor sounds a very splendid principle character I'll bet there were not many institutions named after him, unlike the Mary Stokes clinics.
I mean, was he?
Spoiler alert, how did the court case go?
Spoiler alert, Buckethead, he won.
In the end, so it ran for five and a half days in the High Court on 21st of February 1923, ended at the beginning of March, and he won that.
It was a bit like a cricket match actually, in the sense that it's all tense and it's going on for five days, and then the jury comes out with its verdict.
And no one's clear who's won and both the plaintiff and the defense say, oh, your honor, we've won the case.
OK, so he won that first iteration.
The second iteration was later that year in the Court of Appeal.
And Stopes won that one.
And one of the interesting details of the book was just all the skullduggery she did in the background.
So, you know, she was inquiring as to whether any of the Court of Appeal judges were Roman Catholics, because she was absolutely paranoid about Roman Catholics.
They were under her bed and plotting all sorts of nasty things for her.
So anyway, she won and so she was checking out if the Court of Appeal judges were Catholics, but fortunately they weren't.
She won that and then in 1924 he got leave to appeal to the House of Lords and he won in conclusively in November to 1924.
It must have been ruinously, ruinously expensive for him.
Yes, well, he, as I say in the book, he at one stage planned to defend himself.
He met two friends to discuss when he received the writ.
I think it was in May 19, 1922, he received the writ, I think.
And he discussed it with two friends and they said, it's liable.
What are you going to do?
And he said, well, I don't have any money.
I'm going to defend myself.
And so somebody said, well, let's approach the church.
And he said, well, no one knows me as a Catholic.
I've been Catholic since 1919.
I don't have any connections.
But look, if they offered to support me, then I would accept their help.
So his friend left the room, phoned up the Cardinal Bourne at Westminster, and then got the message back saying, yeah, we're going to support you to the end.
But even then it wasn't sorted out because they had to find a solicitor and there was problems too about a thing called maintenance, which is if you fund somebody else's court case, you can throw yourself open to liability.
So if you have a court case against Toby, and I go, go Team James, and I fund it, then Toby can actually say, well, hang on, Mark.
You've funded this guy.
It was nothing to do with you.
You just did it maliciously.
And I'm going to go after you because you did this thing called maintenance.
And so there was a lot of disputes.
And it took a long time before the money came in.
But by the time it did, the Catholic churches were having a second collection every Sunday.
For fighting the Stopes and Sutherland libel trial.
Right, but in a way the longer term victory was Stopes's because as we suggested at the beginning she has a good reputation doesn't she generally in the culture she's considered a yeah a good egg.
Yes, that's correct.
And the thing is, is when I started my research, which, as I said, you know, started because she won the historical argument, and then when I saw it was to do with eugenics, and then when I found his speech, Consumption is a Cause or Cure, and then when I read his book, Birth Control, And in birth control, they always, always quote the bit about where he says he's exposing the poor to experiment.
The bit I never saw quoted was he was saying, look, here's the situation in Britain.
You, during the agricultural revolution, drove a lot of people off their Peasant farms.
And they had nowhere to go but the cities.
And then they became the urban poor a couple of generations later.
And you've taken that from them.
You've taken them wealth.
Now what you're saying is, and he's referring to Stokes, now what you're saying is that the poor cannot have children as a privilege of the rich.
And he said if you do that, Then Britain will become a servile state.
In other words, a slave state in which the poor have no societal role other than as workers.
And when you frame it that way, which is the way it was framed when he went into that debate, you can see his point of view.
I'm not saying you have to necessarily agree with his view on contraceptives or abortion or anything like that.
You can just see his point of view and see that actually the history is a lot more interesting for a start.
And when I started the research, I started to reach out to some of the historians on the other side, and I wouldn't hear back.
So I thought this is strange and you know...
And I'd send them documents, he might be interested, you've written about this, wouldn't hear back.
And that's when I thought, well, hang on, this is not going to change.
And so that's when I set up my website, HallidaySutherland.com, to hone my writing skills and to store all of my research and to build up the case to say, you have left so many gaps in the history.
It's been misrepresentation by You know, what you've excluded and it needs to be told.
And I was very, very conscious at that stage that my family believed that.
You know, I thought granddad didn't like contraceptives and so he spat the dummy because he was a Catholic.
I didn't know he was doing it to protect people with tuberculosis or the urban poor or to stop Britain from becoming a slave state.
And I thought, this is really unfair, because what a lot of people do is when they do a biography of John Maynard Keynes, they go, crap, I don't want to mention his eugenics.
And so they don't.
Same with Stokes.
Oh, I don't want to mention her eugenics.
So they don't.
And even today, the people that do, they say, oh, well, she gave women choice, but she was also a eugenicist.
And I'm saying, well, actually, no, you can't have the one without the other.
They're sort of saying it was a hobby, and it just wasn't.
It was actually the raison d'etre for her work.
And I just thought it was just very unfair that my grandfather, Halliday Sutherland, took this brave and principled stand and just got bucketed in history.
And so much so, and so successfully so, that even his own family used to believe it.
And that's where I thought, well, no, I've got to change this and being ignored and stuff.
And that's when I started to, I had a section on the website called HGS Watch, Halliday Gibson Sutherland Watch.
And I would write off to the BBC and I would say, your page says that, you know, Stokes did this and Sutherland did this and Catholics were her worst enemies.
And he was a Roman Catholic doctor.
And so I'd write off the BBC and complain about their Stokes biography site.
And I'd say, look, you don't mention eugenics.
And I get some response.
So you're saying, in your opinion, there isn't a mention of eugenics.
So I go back and I say, actually, it's not my opinion.
Look, there's no mention of eugenics.
And this would go to and fro a few times.
And then the next thing is, the article is being archived.
Now, when something's archived, it's put in a box, it's buried in a basement, and if you want to look at it, you've got to get it out again.
When the BBC archived this article, which would be used by school children and university students as the record, the accepted truth of what happened, it just has a note at the top saying this article is being archived, i.e., it's not going to be updated.
And that's one of two sort of complaint processes I've been through with the BBC, and I'm not getting anywhere with them at all.
And so that's why I wrote the book, to sort of say, you can ignore me.
I'm putting out the message to HGS Watch.
Once you know it, you cannot unknow it.
Getting the message out to people like yourself and promoting it.
And so when the centenary of the case comes around in February next year, I'm not taking on academics.
What I've done is I've written a book that has almost 700 citations to original documents.
And so if the academics, the biographers of soap want to say, oh, who are you?
You're not a historian.
I'm saying I'm not.
Well, what right have you got to say it?
All I'm going to say is, look, I am quoting your heroine, Marie Stobes.
Here's what she said.
This letter, this date, this way you'll find it in the files.
Likewise, here's what she said in the court transcript.
Now, if I'm wrong, tell me where I'm wrong.
But you argue against the person you're arguing about rather than ignore somebody who wants to contribute to that.
Make history more interesting and also give Dr. Halliday Sutherland a fair run because I think it's disgusting the way that he's just been bucketed because it's inconvenient.
They want to say, oh, everybody believed in eugenics.
Well, actually they didn't.
Chesterton didn't.
Leticia Fairfield, Rebecca West's sister, didn't.
Hilaire Bellock didn't.
Dr. Halliday Sutherland didn't.
And these people, I believe, should in a small way be celebrated.
And so, well actually, you guys were really brave standing up.
Because the fact of the matter is, no one else was.
Not the captains of industry, not the Fabians.
Because eugenics was part of their total control of society, of all the factors of production.
Not the trade unions.
No one was standing up apart from these people.
And I just think it's pretty nasty the way they get bucketed for it.
Yes, you actually anticipated my, possibly my final question, which was, were there any other sort of leading figures of the day who stood up for your grandfather?
And it's interesting, isn't it, that GK Chesterton and who was the other one you mentioned?
Belloc, Hilaire Belloc.
And how did they knew Belloc was those guys?
Yeah.
They were right, I think, on quite a few issues, weren't they?
They sensed the sort of the tentacles of evil, which were even then starting to constrict the world.
I mean, they were the equivalent of the people on our side today who recognize what's going on.
But it's good to know that there were people even then who sort of were calling it out and going against the grain.
And there still are, and they're marginalized, so you don't see.
And, you know, in one of my emails to you, you know, I said about when you have the discussions with Toby and Toby goes, well, you know, why do these people want to kill us and all of this sort of thing?
Well, the fact of the matter is, it's been going on for at least 100 years.
100 years so in 1912 you had sorry 1913 you can't remember the name of the act but you had an act which the eugenics society was lobbying for and lobbying mps and telling them what to put in the And when they passed it, they said, look, I think it was the Mental Defectives Act or something like that.
Forgive me if I get that wrong.
But they boasted and they said this is the first act in Parliament which has actually got a eugenic focus on it.
And so we go to 1921, Stokes opens her clinic with her pro-race and racial brand contraceptives.
Then we fast forward to 1926, I think it was, there was a population conference in Geneva and following that conference you have The secretary of the Eugenics Society, Carlos Blacker, C.P.
Blacker, I think his name was, who meets with Julian Huxley on the yacht of some oligarch, C.F.
Chance.
Now, you're on a weekend and you're on an oligarch's yacht.
And this is actually documented in the Eugenics Society Journal.
And what do you talk about?
And what they talk about on that, we were talking about how difficult it is to get the poor to sterilize themselves.
And it's like, you miserable, expletive deleters, you know, you're on this yacht, Lake Geneva, probably very nice.
And that's what you're talking about.
They then draw up legislation, which they draft, publish in the Eugenics Review.
And actually, what I'll do is I'll Give you citations on my website because I publish an article on the first of every month and I'll do the first of the next month.
It'll be citations for what I'm saying here.
But 19 they draft up the legislation published in the Eugenics Review in 1928.
In 1933, Archibald Church MP stands up and tries to introduce it as a private member's bill.
He explains that it's voluntary sterilization, but if it works out, then it's going to be compulsory sterilization.
I've missed out about Carrie Buck in the United States being sterilized.
And then The war happens, you have the Action T4 killing of all the disabled people, and of course you have the Holocaust which produces a real problem for the eugenicists.
So what happens?
Their numbers are dropping.
In 1960, and so C.P.
Blacker, the secretary of the, actually a couple of things happened.
First thing is Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley's elder brother, he goes off and becomes the head of UNESCO.
doesn't want to be a part of eugenics society anymore.
C.P. Blacker advises the council of the eugenics society and say, look, our membership's dropping, as you know.
Here's a solution.
And he called the solution, quote, crypto eugenics.
Now, you know, crypto is the word for secret.
And so basically what he was doing was saying, we're going to do eugenics.
We're just not going to tell people why they're doing it.
And when in February 1960, they adopt a resolution to do this crypto eugenics thing.
They immediately increased the funding of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation and also the Family Planning Association.
So the secrecy and funding those institutions is the same.
Now, I'm not saying there isn't a place in the world for family planning, etc.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying I've researched a book.
But what I am saying is that that effort was very much tied to it.
And then in 1975, you have the setting up of Marie Stokes International, which arose because when Stokes died in 1958, she gave her clinic to the Eugenics Society.
She wouldn't let it go to the Family Planning Association.
And so then they set up this international organization, which is helping women everywhere.
And if you read their annual report back in 2018, before the pandemic and all of that, they're sort of apologizing.
They've missed their target of 5 million abortions for that year.
And you're going, well, if you've got contraception, why do you need abortion?
You know, but they're helping people and now they're helping people all the way around the world.
And I just think, you know, why do they want to?
Because I don't know.
I don't know why Malthusians.
It always seems to me Malthusians are people saying we're running out of stuff.
And he goes, well, yeah, but you got four houses and two private jets and a yacht.
It's it's the same class and they seem to be obsessed with it.
And I think it would be better if they just live and let live, not except, you know, You know, Halliday said in 1922 books, and sorry, James, I'm going on, but he said in his 1922 book, he said, look, the Catholic Church Christians never advocated an avalanche of babies.
We never did that.
OK.
And so this thing about, oh, if we didn't have contraception, people, you know, he said, well, as societies get more wealthy, they have fewer children.
It's a natural process.
And it'd just be a nicer place to live in the world if you didn't have these people who thought, I should be in charge of this society.
What are you doing in my movie?
You shouldn't be here.
And going through history, what they learned from the war was that if you take a 30-year-old disabled person, there's been 30 years of the mother and the father becoming quite attached to them.
And what they learned is, oh, if we have to strap this bloke to a gurney and then give him a lethal injection, there might be some fuss about it.
What they do now is they just say, oh, it's a clump of cells.
OK?
One other thing.
In 1921, a book was published by two German doctors, a German doctor and a German lawyer, and it was called On the Destruction of Life, Unworthy of Life.
And the Nazis got hold of that, and they thought, this makes sense to us, and they did it.
After the war, these two doctors, these two people say, oh, it was just academic, okay?
More recently, in the 2000s, the British Medical Journal published an article called Post Birth Abortion.
Why should the baby live?
And it gives the ethical foundation for killing people who are alive, who have been born.
And the fact of the matter is, They're introducing full term abortion.
It's recently been introduced where I live in New South Wales.
It's been introduced euthanasia.
And the fact of the matter is, as the cost of keeping people alive increases, the aging population, if you think there's not going to be a bit of a tap on the shoulder, You won't be in so much pain if you take this injection or whatever like that.
The fact of the matter is, where does it stop?
It's just more cosmetically.
It's done more cosmetically than it was done in the days where they were saying, hey, let's use tuberculosis.
Let's use consumption to kill people.
Okay.
It'll be nicer.
It'll be more sanitized.
But the fact of the matter is, you've got to ask yourself, where does it stop?
Yes, yes, yes.
You'll be killed by the government, but you'll be happy.
You raised the question that Toby Young often asks me on London Calling, and I think you're right.
I think if we were going to look into the motivation of the predator elite, why they are in the business of, suppose they are killing us with these suppose vaccines um for example what would their motivation be and toby can't get his head around this and lots of normies can't i i would say it's it's twofold
some of these people are are genuinely satanic and and the blood sacrifice is is very much a part of of their debauched religion uh especially where children are concerned But partly it's because they genuinely think they are doing good.
Whether it's eugenics or whether it's Malthusianism, They're either doing it to improve the quality of the human race, just like you would with breeding pedigree dogs for a dog show or whatever, or they're doing it to save the planet.
And what could be more important than saving our Our environment for future generations.
I mean they've got all these phrases out pat and Yes, that's the terrifying thing, isn't it?
When they think that when you think you are doing something for the greater good and they're always talking about the greater good these these these people these these planners and they never volunteer to They never volunteer.
We've got too many people.
So, um, you won't be seeing me next week.
I Well, indeed.
A lot of these people pushing this stuff have large families themselves.
I mean, look at Boris Johnson and his father, who is a massive Malthusian.
I don't know about eugenicists, but he certainly believes in culling the human race.
And yet he bred like a rabbit.
Boris Johnson is the same.
Ted Turner, another of them.
Ted Turner, the guy who... How many children has he got?
He's got he's got loads that they are they'll put in one rule for them another one for everyone else.
But this is this is elite thinking.
And it always seems to happen on yachts, doesn't it?
I was thinking who was the man whose yacht this this disgusting thing was set on?
C.F.
Chance, and he organized the 1926 Population Conference, which Dr. Sutherland did attend, by the way, and he disagreed with a number of people.
Who is C.F.
Chance?
Do you know anything about him?
I don't know.
I looked him up and I couldn't find out anything other than his mention in the Eugenics Review.
One thing, I mentioned a lady called Anne Farmer, she's a social historian and she wrote a book called Buy Their Fruits and it's an examination of the lead up to the 1967 or 1968 Abortion Reform Act in Britain.
And in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Eugenics, it says, look, it actually states in that, that a number of eugenicists, people connected with the eugenics movement, were actually the motivators behind the scenes of that act.
And in her book, By Their Fruits, and I mention that because that's what Toby should get a handle on, You're not going to know what somebody else is thinking, but you can recognize them by their fruits.
And then I was just tying it up on that progression of that abortion act, in part, was motivated by people who wanted to push that.
Sorry, I'm muddling up a couple of points here, but they always seem to want to ask you the impossible question.
You know, why are they doing this?
I don't know.
Are they doing it?
Well, it's.
Yes, well, it's it's it's it's it's it's what I call the what I call it the sort of the hit the tank fantasy that that hit that it's it's 1941 and Hitler's tanks are rolling across the steps into into the heart of Russia and And the Toby Youngs of this world are saying well this can't be happening because what would their motivation would be?
Why would they do this when they've got a pact with Stalin and it's not in their interest because they're going to get sucked into this?
Yeah, they're going to lose in the end.
And you go, well, hang on a second.
What are the tanks actually doing?
They're already doing it in a way that by their fruit shall you know them is a more succinct way of putting it.
It's exactly that.
Look at what they do.
Yeah.
Or ask the question, look, if you're trying to do the opposite, what would you do differently?
Yeah, yes.
Well, that's certainly true.
Yeah.
And funnily enough, I'm writing a piece about a riposte to one of Toby's articles, where he... I'll give you a sneak preview.
Spoiler alert, and hope he doesn't listen to this.
Well, no, I don't mind because I want to keep things on friendly terms with Toby.
And you do really, really well.
Both of you do really well at doing that, actually.
Oh, we're good.
Well, long may it remain so.
But I think that there was a phrase that Toby used the other day, which is...
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
In other words, it's not a conspiracy, it's cock up.
These are well-meaning people who just happen to be making a few mistakes like turning Canada and Australia and New Zealand into North Korea and killing lots of children and injuring lots of people for vaccine side effects.
They never intended that.
And This saying is known as Hanlon's Razor, a bit like Occam's Razor, it's one of those rules of thumb, this sort of circumvents argument because it's so self-evidently true that you don't need to argue it any further because it makes instinctive sense.
But actually it doesn't make any sense and who was Hanlon anyway?
And do you know who Hanlon was?
No.
Hanlon, get this, Hanlon was One, Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton, Pennsylvania, who submitted the statement, I got this from Wikipedia but I'm assuming it's accurate in this case, who submitted the statement to a 1980 joke book called Murphy's Law Book Two, More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong.
So in other words, he submitted this thing as a joke, or as a kind of, oh, I've just, I can't do it, you know, gee, I've just thought of something kind of amusing that I will put in this joke book.
And he came up with this phrase, and this phrase, which makes no, is not obvious to me, for reasons I'll explain in a moment.
Somehow, between 1980, when he submitted it to a joke book, and now, it has become this lapidary truth so powerful that merely to brandish it in a sentence is to prove your point.
And I'm thinking, that's not right.
There's something wrong here.
I'll tell you what's wrong with it.
If you reverse the phrase, it makes no less sense.
So I've reversed it.
I've changed the phrasing slightly to give it a more sort of epigrammatic feel.
But if I were to say, never dismiss as stupidity that which can conceivably be explained by malice, I mean, that makes as much sense as Hanlon's Razor.
Now, why would that phrase, Hanlon's Razor, this joke book phrase, have entered the language as a kind of, as a, you know, an axiom, effectively?
And I suspect that the kind of people who are pushing all these agendas that we deplore are certainly not above popularizing a phrase which becomes, sort of, enters common parlance.
And persuades the general people or, you know, journalists like Toby Young, for example, it persuades them, oh, yes, Hanlon's razor, you know, it's oh, it must be true, because it's Hanlon's razor.
And yeah, these people are very, very devious.
And and I'm sure that the notion of cock up rather than conspiracy was promulgated by the very people who are behind the conspiracy.
There's my view.
Yeah.
I don't think that's far.
I don't think that's far wrong.
Mark, I think you should go to bed.
It's way past your bedtime and I'm very sorry.
Thanks, Dad.
Tell us where we can get your, where we can read your book and where we could find your website and stuff.
Okay.
Well, if you want to read more about Dr. Halliday Sutherland, it is at HallidaySutherland.com.
And you'll read about the things we've discussed, but you'll also read his writings and what a talented, really, really talented and gifted writer he was.
And on that, he was endorsed by no less than GK Chesterton.
as a born storyteller, a born writer.
To learn more about the book, go to exterminatingpovertybook.com and there's a two and a half minute summary film which will give you the crux of the issues in the Stopes and Sutherland case.
And these events were happening 100 years ago today.
Halliday Sullivan's hair was falling out or is very stressed because he was right in the middle of the interlocutory court cases.
He was fighting for his not to be ruined a hundred years ago.
Next February is the centenary.
So this stuff's really, really topical.
And it is time that people recognize the past and realize the threat of eugenics, because it hasn't gone away.
It's just changed its clothes, but it's still with us.
Well, Mark, thank you for that.
You've come to the right place.
I would say the Deling pod is now so influential, and not just in the UK and the US, but in Australia too.
I suspect that after this podcast, people will be tearing down Mary Stope's clinics.
Her name will be marred, and Dr Halliday Sutherland, he will have statues put up in every square.
And if you want to help support The Dallying Pod, let me gently remind you, I really appreciate your support on Patreon, on Subscribestar, on Locals, and Sudak.
Thank you very much for listening.
I apologize, as always, for the terrible visuals.
I hope the sound was good, and I'm working on it.
Anyway, thank you very much.
Mark Halliday-Sutherland, it's been a pleasure talking to you, and I'm glad we finally got the podcast together.
And you too.
Thank you so much, James.
Great.
Good.
Well, bedtime for you.
I'll go have a cup of tea.
Thanks a lot.
OK.
Great to meet you.
Bye-bye.
Export Selection