Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘eugenics’

Why Are Gates and Pentagon Releasing GMO Mosquitoes in Florida Keys?

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2021

By F. William Engdahl

Despite strong resident protests, the US Environmental Protection Agency and Florida agencies have approved controversial release of millions of genetically-modified or “gene edited” killer mosquitoes into the Florida Keyes. At the same time the controversial Presidential Science Adviser nominee of Biden is involved in development of the CRISPR technology being used to genetically modify everything from the mosquitoes to the Pfizer and Moderna coronavirus mRNA “vaccines” to gene-edited salmon. How Bill Gates, the Pentagon and the eugenics lobby come together now is alarming to put it mildly .

On April 30 the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District and the Oxitec biotechnology company announced they will begin release of what will ultimately be some 750 million genetically manipulated or gene-edited Aedes Aegypti mosquitos using CRSPR gene editing technology. The Aedes Aegypti makes up only about 4% of the mosquito population in the Keys. The release is bitterly opposed by residents and environmental groups who demanded a referendum in last year’s election ballot, but which the Mosquito Control Board refused, curiously. Oxitec and the Board claim the release is to kill off the presence of the Aedes Aegypti mosquito which is believed to carry dengue fever, Zika and other diseases.

The project, which sounds positive in the press statements, is alarming in many respects. First, the refusal to allow a citizen vote on the controversial GMO release. Second, there exists no cost-benefit analysis of the risks versus benefits of releasing millions of mosquitoes whose genetic traits are mutating in often unpredictable ways. Is it worth the risk that an ever more robust variety of mosquito will mutate from the project? No one can say. Traditional mosquito control techniques have worked well until now.

The CEO of Oxitec, Grey Frandsen, has a dark history with the US State Department in the Balkans, as an advisor to the US Navy, and as a Fellow of the George Soros’ International Crisis Group that played a key role in the destruction of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. With no previous experience in biotechnology, Frandsen appears as CEO of Oxitec in 2017. Oxitec, a UK company, is now owned by Third Security, a US venture capital firm in Radford, Virginia headed by Randal J. Kirk who also owns the gene-edited salmon producer, AquaBounty.

Brazil failure

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Disney Corp. has taken a deep dive into race-hatred – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on May 10, 2021

At Disney, employees are being bullied into believing that race, an immutable part of every person, is the ultimate determining factor about that person.  At the same time, they’re being taught that a person’s sex, which is another immutable factor, is infinitely malleable based on feelings.

By Andrea Widburg

Going back to the late 1920s, every single child raised in America has intersected in some way with products from Walt Disney: we’ve watched the movies and TV shows, sung the songs, worn the clothes, and visited the theme parks.  Through it all, Disney stood for wholesome family entertainment.  That is no longer the case.  Disney is a hardcore leftists corporation that is pushing its politics on children and training its employees to be white-hating racists or self-loathing white people.  It’s time to give up Disney.

During Walt Disney’s tenure, his company also generated propaganda.  Behind all the wonderful entertainment, the company was pushing several themes: heterosexual love is real, the nuclear family matters, American patriotism is important, and God is a beneficent presence in our lives.

Many parents and grandparents buying Disney videos for their children or taking family trips to the theme parks operate under the mistaken impression that this is still the case.  They’re half right.  Disney is still generating propaganda, but it’s about race and sex in ways many parents may not support.

Just the other day, we learned that Disney’s Pixar is planning to introduce a so-called “transgender” girl character for its next Toy Story movie.  That means it is going to have a boy who thinks he’s a girl as a character in a movie aimed at little children.  Disney’s also focused on gay characters in Onward and Out.

It turns out that these forays into pushing the cultural window farther and farther left are bagatelles compared to what’s going on behind the scenes.  Journalist Christopher Rufo has become the go-to person for whistleblowers who want to expose their employers’ deep dives into Critical Race Theory.  He received a doozy of a blown whistle about what’s happening in the Disney corporate offices, which are forcing employees to embrace CRT and gender madness.

There is no real difference between CRT and old-time eugenics.  While the latter came up with stupid, scientific-sounding, race-hating palaver about Blacks being racially inferior, CRT does the same, only it claims that Whites are racially inferior.  Both are evil doctrines.  Eugenics paved the way for Hitler, who was inspired by the racial laws Democrats passed in the South.  It’s worrisome to contemplate what CRT will inspire.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Tyranny of the “Enlightened” Experts | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on April 6, 2021

Furthermore, the government itself contains mechanisms that lead to poor choices of experts and officials. For one thing, the politician and the government expert receive their revenues, not from service voluntarily purchased on the market, but from a compulsory levy on the populace. These officials, therefore, wholly lack the pecuniary incentive to care about serving the public properly and competently. And, what is more, the vital criterion of “fitness” is very different in the government and on the market. In the market, the fittest are those most able to serve the consumers; in government, the fittest are those most adept at wielding coercion and/or those most adroit at making demagogic appeals to the voting public.

Gregory Gordon

If you were to stroll through any typical upper-middle-income American neighborhood in 2021, the odds are very high that you’d observe at least one yard sign exuberantly proclaiming something like this: “In this house, we believe that science is real, love is love, no human is illegal … ” and other banal tautologies. There are usually six or seven examples in this litany, but really, one of the main goals of the yard sign—aside from signaling virtue—can be accomplished with just this: the curtsy to Science.

In a country where the traditional definition of virtue has “evolved” and the search for metaphysical truth has largely been sidelined, millions of Americans seem to believe that there is no higher truth than the Science and that there are no more virtuous citizens than those who deferentially submit to the experts, the societal planners, and the proclaimers of the Science. We can thank the Enlightenment for this spirit of scientism, as Science has now been fully separated from teleology (i.e., “goal directedness”) and final causality, which many elites consider to be backward Medieval thinking.

This separation—and the general idea that human beings and their interactions can be boiled down to and predicted by physical phenomena and scientific methods—has led to numerous destructive movements such as scientific socialism, historical materialism, and even progressive racialism. While Science has indeed provided wonderful breakthroughs that enhanced human flourishing, it does not engender all knowledge that is necessary for human societies.

As John Gray has documented in Seven Types of Atheism, several of the leading Enlightenment figures—including David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Voltaire—infused some of their writings with a pseudoanthropological racism. This is particularly evident in Kant’s Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Hume’s notes accompanying his “National Characters” essay. Gray states that: “Though twenty-first century missionaries for ‘Enlightenment values’ resist the fact, modern racism emerged from the work of Enlightenment philosophes.”

Out of the Enlightenment’s penumbra of positivism, proponents of eugenics and scientific racism achieved some prominence in the late 1800’s and the Progressive Era of the early 1900’s. Eugenics notoriously sought to use Science to “purify” the human race through selective breeding practices and even forced sterilization. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term “eugenics” and began to apply Darwin’s work in evolution to human societies. Margaret Sanger, the well-known founder of the American Birth Control League and the first president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, infamously—and with a disturbing enthusiasm—worked to reduce the birth rate in African American communities as part of the “Negro Project.” Sanger also advocated for the sterilization of disabled people.

None of this is meant to imply that all Enlightenment thinkers were racists (they weren’t), or that all progressives support eugenics (they don’t). Going beyond merely calling attention to the dark underbelly of one of the West’s sacred cows, though, it’s a relatively safe assertion that the Enlightenment’s intellectual offspring—including technocrats, government science advisors, and the elite expert class of academics and commentators—have been responsible for disastrous public policy measures over the past several decades.

Thankfully, not all of their recommendations and prognostications have come to fruition. Paul Ehrlich (a professor of biology at Stanford, fellow at the National Academy of Sciences, and evangelist for population control measures) outlandishly predicted a number of neo-Malthusian horrors, including the mass starvation of hundreds of millions of humans, increases in global poverty, and an exploding world population in the 1970s and 1980s. The spread of free market ideas, advances in medicine, and other latent factors have ensured that his “Population Bomb” never went off, but impacts of his work still haunt us, in the modern Green and Build Back Better movements.

Harmful, impractical, and costly ideas of the expert class, as well as the experts themselves, often infiltrate the government’s regulatory machine, at which time they are inflicted upon the general populace. Murray Rothbard discussed this in Power and Market:

Furthermore, the government itself contains mechanisms that lead to poor choices of experts and officials. For one thing, the politician and the government expert receive their revenues, not from service voluntarily purchased on the market, but from a compulsory levy on the populace. These officials, therefore, wholly lack the pecuniary incentive to care about serving the public properly and competently. And, what is more, the vital criterion of “fitness” is very different in the government and on the market. In the market, the fittest are those most able to serve the consumers; in government, the fittest are those most adept at wielding coercion and/or those most adroit at making demagogic appeals to the voting public.

Despite all of their misaligned incentives, which often lead to detrimental outcomes for individuals and small communities, the technocratic expert class is still intimately involved in practically every aspect of our lives. Nothing in recent times illustrates this more poignantly than the arrival of SARS-CoV-2.

In early 2020, Americans were besieged by a tidal wave of sloppy, reckless, and malevolently pessimistic news stories and information about the burgeoning coronavirus pandemic. Medical scientists and bureaucrats at the World Health Organization overestimated covid’s mortality rate at an alarming 3–4 percent. (The infection fatality rate is now estimated at ~0.15 percent.) Public health officials took the worst-case-scenario fatality estimates of epidemiological modelers such as the now disgraced Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London, promulgated them throughout the corporate media, and began implementing draconian measures that would radically alter civil society.

In the first months of the pandemic, the government monopolized and bungled the distribution of covid tests and the Food and Drug Administration delayed approvals for new test alternatives. Then US surgeon general Jerome Adams and Dr. Anthony Fauci admonished the public that they should not be wearing masks in public, before completely reversing themselves months later. Fauci would go on to mislead Americans about threshold numbers for herd immunity, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would end up changing the scientifically conjured social distance spacing from precisely six feet to precisely three feet, coinciding with growing political pressure to reopen schools. In March of 2020, the federal government and most states coordinated a de facto national lockdown of the economy.

Millions of people were ordered to “stay home, stay safe” for the disastrous two-week “flatten the curve” crusade that would last for more than a year in some states. Government scientists and public health experts decided that the livelihoods of tens of millions were expendable, and the educational and social needs of a generation of young Americans could be sacrificed for the common good. Thousands of cancer screenings and other medical tests were postponed for several months, under the Lockdown regime. Many small businesses and restaurants will never open again. The pain caused by government experts will be felt for many years.

Of course, scientists qua scientists were never supposed to run our society. Scientific technocrats and the expert class cannot possibly possess all of the knowledge that they would need to effectively run the lives of 330 million Americans, but that will not stop them from trying. They might be Enlightened, but perhaps there is still an incorrigible, ornery remnant in the United States who will resist efforts to be managed, regulated, and perfected by the experts. Author:

Gregory Gordon

Gregory Gordon (Twitter: @gregorysgordon) earned his Ph.D. from the Colorado School of Mines. He currently works as a geoscientist in the energy industry, and he is a lecturer in the California State University system. He resides in California with his wife and four children.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Great Nonsense of ‘The Great Reset’ – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 27, 2021

It is basically a plea to turn the entire world economy into a version of Chinese fascism. In the past several decades the Chinese communist government allowed more and more private enterprises to exist, but they are all still very heavily regulated, regimented, and controlled by the state. Of course, the same can be said of the U.S. economy; it’s all a matter of degree. As Robert Higgs has said, the American economic system is a system of “participatory fascism,” by which he meant a combination of economic fascism and democracy instead of dictatorship.

By Thomas DiLorenzo

“The Great Reset” is the latest deceptive euphemism for totalitarian socialism that is being promoted by yet another group of wealthy corporate elitists who think they can centrally plan the entire world economy.  They are essentially the ideological heirs of Frederick Engels and his intellectual puppet Karl Marx.  “The Great Reset” follows in the rhetorical footsteps of such euphemisms for socialism as “economic democracy,” “social justice,” “liberation theology,” “progressivism,” “market socialism” (an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp” or “military intelligence”), “environmentalism,” “fighting climate change,” “sustainable development,” and “green new deal,” to mention just a few.

The main figure of this movement is wealthy German engineer Klaus Schwab, founder of the “World Economic Forum,” who champions what he calls “transhumanism,” the integration of nanotechnology into the human body so that humans can be controlled remotely by the state.[1] As Ron Paul has noted, “Included in Schwab’s proposal for surveillance [of every citizen] is his idea to use brain scans and nanotechnology to predict, and if necessary, prevent, individuals’ future behavior .  This means that anyone whose brain is ‘scanned’ could have his . . . [constitutional] rights violated because a government bureaucrat determines the individual is going to commit a crime.”[2]

Placed in the hands of politicians, this would create a level of totalitarianism the Soviets could only have dreamed of.  In other words, Schwab is reminiscent of that famous twentieth-century German who also fantasized about creating a master race and ruling the world.

This is nothing new, Antony Mueller points out, as eugenics, which was all the rage among so many ruling class elitists of the early twentieth century “is now called transhumanism.”[3]  Among the most prominent late nineteenth-and twentieth-century eugenicists were H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Charles Darwin’s son Leonard, John Maynard Keynes, Irving Fisher, Winston Churchill, and Bill Gates, Sr.  Bill Gates, Jr. is an enthusiastic funding source for “transhumanism” research and, like his father, is fond of eugenics.

During a recent “Ted” talk Gates, Jr. complained that “The world today has 6.8 billion people . .. that’s headed up to about 9 billion.”  Have no fear, he said, because if “we” do “a really great job on vaccines [with anti-fertility drugs? Poisons?] health care, reproductive health services [including abortion?], we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.”[4]  That in turn will lower carbon dioxide levels on the planet and address “climate change” as well, said Gates.

Keynes was treasurer of the Cambridge University Eugenics Society and director of the Eugenics Society of London.  He called eugenics “the most important and significant branch of sociology” [Eugenics Archive].  Irving Fisher, icon of the Chicago School of Economics, literally wrote the book on the subject, entitled Eugenics.

When he was the British Home Secretary (1910-1911) Winston Churchill advocated “the confinement, segregation, and sterilization of a class of persons contemporarily described as the ‘feeble minded’” [International Churchill Society].  His stated goal was “the improvement of the British breed”.  Accordingly, he supported “compulsory detention of the mentally inadequate”; the “sterilization of the unfit”; and “proper labor colonies” for “tramps and wastrels.”

World Government, Anyone?

How the West Grew Rich… Birdzell Jr., LE Best Price: $1.58 Buy New $11.21 (as of 04:39 EDT – Details) Antony Mueller also wrote of how the first attempt to create some kind of global governing institution to centrally plan the world was the League of Nations (1920), followed by the United Nations in 1945 under the leadership of Stalin, FDR, and Churchill.[5]  Although Churchill was fond of citing F.A. Hayek, especially The Road to Serfdom, FDR was essentially a fascist whose domestic policies differed very little from fascist Italy and Germany, and of course Stalin was a mass-murdering communist.

See the rest here

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo [send him mail] is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His latest book is The Problem with Lincoln.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Farmer Bill and the Great Reset – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 13, 2021

Gate’s, eugenics and population control.

Unbeknown to most, Bill Gates has been buying up farmland across the U.S. through various subsidiary companies. At present, he owns about 242,000 acres of farmland, plus another 27,000 acres of nonagricultural land.

While many media outlets claim this makes Gates the biggest farmland owner in the U.S.,1 that may be an exaggeration, seeing how there are at least 50 other families that own far greater landmasses, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.2 According to a USA Today investigation3 published in November 2019, Bezos owns a respectable 420,000 acres, most of it located in Texas…

Every conceivable aspect of life and society is scheduled to be “reset” according to their plan, including global food policies. Leading that charge is an organization called the EAT Forum, which describes itself as the “Davos for food.” EAT Forum is co-founded by the Wellcome Trust, an organization funded by and strategically linked to GlaxoSmithKline, a vaccine maker in which Gates himself is financially invested.

The EAT Forum’s largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system as a whole. Project partners in this venture include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and Google. According to The Defender, “The EAT Forum works with these companies to ‘add value to business and industry’ and ‘set the political agenda.’” If sustainability and food security is the goal — not to mention individual freedom and liberty — then we must dismantle the globalist machine and return to historically proven methods that are sustainable and productive.

EAT also collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia, and helps the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) create updated dietary guidelines.

“According to Frederic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels, EAT network is working closely with some of the biggest imitation meat companies, including Impossible Foods and other biotech companies, to replace wholesome nutritious foods with Gates’ genetically modified lab concoctions,” The Defender writes.13

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Nazi Healthcare Revived Across the Five Eyes: Killing Useless Eaters and Biden’s Covid Relief Bill – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 12, 2021

Another key behaviorist assigned to create Obamacare was MIT professor Jonathan Gruber who created a scandal when he admitted on camera to using obscurantist language and secrecy when he said “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass”.

That’s right: Emmanuel’s “cost-effective” curve asserts that the life of a 20-year-old is more worthy of life than that of a 3-year-old, or 75 year old. In the latter two cases, society has invested either too little to make that young life worth saving or has invested too much already (relative to the financial worth of the low QALY senior).

EUGENICS The 800 lb gorilla.

By Matthew J.L. Ehret

“The ill-conceived `love of thy neighbor’ has to disappear, especially in relation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a national state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the people in order to secure the maintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure folk for all eternity….”

-Dr. Arthur Guett, Nazi Director of Public Health, 1935

The words spoken by Dr. Guett 85 years ago should send shivers down the spine of anyone following the radical transformations of healthcare policy now underway within the Five Eyes zone of influence.

As many people are now aware, embedded within the $1.9 trillion COVID relief package is a $40 billion program to revive and expand the corpse of Obama Care’s enrollment protocols and the worst aspects of State directed medical resource allocation for the most vulnerable (and financially burdensome) of society. While few details have been unveiled beyond a mass expansion of enrollment into the plan on a revived, several red alarms have been raised which began with the appointment of Obama-care architect Ezekiel Emmanuel to Biden’s COVID task force last year and the re-ascendency of hives of cost-cutting behaviorists to positions of power.

Before I proceed, a small disclaimer is in order.

Just because I am about to viciously criticize Biden/Obama-care, and the accelerated expansion of euthanasia across Five Eyes nations, it does NOT mean that I support free-market “greed-is-good” HMOs that were brought online by Nixon in 1973.

As I wrote in my recent trilogy exposing the contrived debates between “statist” Malthusian John Maynard Keynes vs “individualist” Malthusian Friedrich von Hayek, the schism of top down vs bottom up economic thinking which has brainwashed several generations of Americans is a chimera with no bearing in reality. Real economics that befits human life and dignity has always defended the whole of society while also protecting the unalienable rights and liberty of each individual within society.

If you are a technocrat looking down upon the world from your ivory mathematical tower at the impending crises hitting civilization, you would not believe a word of what I just said. Rather you would be looking at a glaring “mathematical disequilibrium” rushing towards us like a tsunami: The western population concentrated in the Trans Atlantic nations is facing a demographic time bomb the likes of which has never been seen in history called by some “the babyboomer demographic time bomb”.

Even before COVID-19 annihilated much of the world economy, the baby boomer demographic time bomb was discussed by think tanks and policy makers far and wide. During the past 25 years, young people increasingly put off having children (with a 4.4% collapse in birthrates during the Dec. 2019-Dec 2020 year of COVID). Today western fertility levels have fallen to 1.7 children/woman which is far below the 2.1 levels needed to replace the population.

During this time, the baby boomer generation born between 1945-1960 increasingly found themselves beset with grey hair, and increased healthcare needs in their old age with the first wave having hit retirement years in 2010. While technological advances has extended average life expectancies from 61 years (in 1935) to 81 years today, the demographic imbalance of young : old means that society will essentially be incapable of supporting itself under current dynamics.

For example:

By 2030, it is currently estimated people over the age of 85 will triple while seniors between 65-85 will double. The financial costs of sustaining this demographic will skyrocket as healthcare services double from their currently massive $1.4 trillion/year to $3 trillion/year by 2050 (in the USA).

As cost-effectiveness experts look at this dismal trend, all they can see is a cold numbers game.

These experts don’t tend to see humans with cognitive powers and souls and they certainly don’t recognize the existence of such immaterial notions as the “sacred” which might prevent the culling of lives in order to satisfy monetary constraints.

They certainly don’t recognize the injustices of a system that allows trillions of dollars to be spent for Wall Street bailouts and Middle East wars but which fails to provide the medical resources to service its own population fairly. The experts I am talking about who once ruled America under Barack Obama and who have resurged into power under Biden only see the cold fact that 80% or more of the healthcare costs absorbed throughout one’s life occur after 65 years of age. These experts can only think in terms of adapting to scarcity and supposedly “fixed limits” but never eliminating scarcity through systemic changes that place human life and creative thought on a higher priority than mere money.

See the rest here

The author can be reached at

Be seing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Eugenics Is Alive and Well, and the ‘Covid-19’ Scam Is the Engine for Accomplishing Depopulation – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021

Those that deny the mass eugenics efforts that exist in the U.S. and globally today, are either pathological liars, are censorship driven manipulative propagandists, or are completely ignorant of any reality whatsoever.

By Gary D. Barnett

“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” ~ Prince Philip, in his Foreward to “If I Were an Animal” – United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.

“The world today has 6.8 billion people…that’s headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.” ~ Bill Gates

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries” ~ Henry A. Kissinger

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~ Ted Turner

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” ~ Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” (1920)

“That it is now far easier to manipulate with precision the human genome within viable embryos means that we are likely to see the advent of designer babies in the future who possess particular traits or who are resistant to a specific disease”.

~ Klaus Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World

“Eugenics is a social (and ‘scientific’) movement based on the belief that the genetic quality of the human race can be improved by the use of selective breeding, as well as other often morally criticized means to eliminate groups of people considered genetically inferior, while encouraging the growth of groups judged to be genetically superior.”

Those that deny the mass eugenics efforts that exist in the U.S. and globally today, are either pathological liars, are censorship driven manipulative propagandists, or are completely ignorant of any reality whatsoever. The entire transhuman, technological, and technocracy movements that consume the ruling class today are highly based on eugenics. The openly sought and planned “Great Reset” being pursued by those claimed ruling ‘elites’ that currently run this country and the world; those desirous of that murderous and human-altering ‘progressive’ agenda, are the epitome of the modern eugenics movement. Due to the heinous nature and distasteful concept of this crusade as described early in the twentieth century, the terms used in the past have been altered to fool the collective and dumbed-down herd, and so far, that deception has been successful.

This fake pandemic is the first step being used to achieve human death and genetic alteration in order to eliminate and control millions or billions of common people, but the ever-changing reasoning for pursuing these agendas will soon morph into the excuses of sustainable development and ‘climate change.’ And given the planned destruction of the food supply that is already underway, and the intentional control and scarcity of energy, purposely-created food and energy shortages will be used to cause not only concern among the public, but to create sheer panic as well. These staged events will be blamed for governmental controlled emergency rationing, and then certain segments of the public will be cursed for their excessive use of vital necessities during a ‘crisis.’ This is a double-edged sword, as without enough food and energy, the murder of large swaths of the population can be achieved under the guise of emergency efforts to protect the dependent population at the expense of those that have prepared for this type of critical situation. This is the ultimate use of divisive propaganda by injecting a psychotic survival instinct into the minds of an already frightened populace in order to stifle empathy for others. These tactics are simply psychological warfare against the proletariat class as a whole.

‘Vaccination’ (injection of poisons), introduction of pathogens through testing, mind control, lockdowns, premeditated murder, sterilization, and fear mongering will be the tools used to turn the tide in favor of the state by artificially altering human biology, by invasive psychological manipulation, by ever increasing draconian restrictions and mandates, and by state-sponsored terror at the hands of the enforcement arm of government. If the people do not stand up en masse against this assault, the situation as described above will almost certainly be the result.

By now, the purposeful elimination of some humans, the gene and mind-altering of others, and grand sterilization campaigns, especially in developing countries, should be seen as an obvious plot that is desired and in some respects, is already underway. It is extremely difficult to consider that part of society that claims superiority over others to such an extent that they want to be able to decide who lives or dies, who is free or a slave, and who should be forcibly altered to be worthy of existence, as human beings. They are mere evil monsters.

The idea of eugenics never disappeared; it just faded into the shadows for a few decades. But today, it is once again being discussed more openly, although by another name.  The supporters of eugenics, those that profess intellectual superiority over others in one form or another, are normally leftists, progressives, Postmodernists, neo-Marxists, globalists, or powerful politicians that are no longer hiding many of their views. They include university professors, scientists, technocrats, ‘health’ organization and institution officials, and the alleged ‘elites’ and their tax-free foundations that are attempting to reset the world to their liking. Bill Gates for example, comes immediately to mind, but there are many, and these types hold powerful positions in the U.S. and all around the world.

The promotion and advancement of certain human extermination, of transhuman development, and mass sterilization can be accomplished in many ways, and I would argue that this to some extent is already happening now. Gene-altering ‘vaccinations,’ immune system destruction, nanoparticle insertion, chip implants, radio wave technologies, bio-weapon releases, isolation and dehumanizing psychological techniques, starvation, and GMO food circulation are just a few of the ways of altering human biology or killing the dissenters and undesirables.  This is not science fiction nor is it far-fetched. This is now a reality.

In my opinion, higher death counts will occur as time passes, especially for those that take this poisonous injection falsely called a ‘vaccine.’ Months from now will tell the tale, and it won’t be a pretty picture. The solution is total disobedience and dissent by the many. No one can make this happen except each individual, but the more that refuse to comply, the better chance we all have to survive this plotted war against humanity.

Source links: Here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The Best of Gary D. Barnett

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional that has been writing about freedom and liberty matters, politics, and history for two decades. He is against all war and aggression, and against the state. He recently finished a collaboration with former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, and was a contributor to her new book, “When China Sneezes” From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Political-Economic Crisis.” Currently, he lives in Montana with his wife and son. Visit his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Minimum Wage, Maximum Discrimination | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021

So does history. As Princeton’s Thomas Leonard has demonstrated in his book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, the early minimum wage advocates saw it as a prime tool to exercise “dominion and discrimination” over those they deemed ill-suited to reproduction. The minimum wage was well suited to perform the Progressives’ dirty work of discriminating against (what they considered) the least productive by making them unemployable.

It has been over a hundred years since the Progressive Era. But the laws of economics haven’t changed. The only question is: Have we? Author:

Caleb Fuller

Since the days of Adam Smith, economists have sought a set of social institutions which permit “neither dominion, nor discrimination,” to use Nobel Prize–winning economist James Buchanan’s phrase. In this, economists are joined by all people of goodwill—including those in the Biden administration, which has enshrined equity and inclusion as cornerstones of how they’ll govern.

What separates the economist from other social do-gooders, however, is an unflinching focus on the means used to achieve noble goals. It’s therefore with alarm that I consider the Biden administration’s dual focus on “diversity and equity” and its doubling down on the “fight for $15.” I’m alarmed because the minimum wage impedes our ability to foster a society genuinely built on “diversity and equity.”

Here’s the straight talk on the minimum wage that you probably didn’t learn in school: the minimum wage has been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of racists and bigots. Economists have illuminated the devastating effects of the minimum wage on minorities with empirical evidence and entire books on the subject, but to see one reason why the policy targets minorities, first consider a little basic economics.

Consider the demand side of the labor market. Firms will hire fewer workers if the government criminalizes voluntary agreements to work for less than $15 per hour. This is an uncontroversial point to make about virtually any other market. If the price of apples doubles, people buy fewer apples. They buy more oranges instead. Employers do the same thing. Under the minimum wage, they start buying more machinery, like the kiosks you see in Panera. The upshot: fewer jobs.

Now let’s consider the supply side of the labor market, where the higher minimum wage attracts new workers to the labor market—those, like college students, who might have sat on the sidelines otherwise. The upshot: more job seekers.

Fewer jobs plus more job seekers means that more people will be searching for jobs than there are jobs available—a labor surplus. In other words, the minimum wage creates a “buyer’s market” in labor, because it causes job seekers to line up in front of employers who have limited jobs to offer.

Suppose an employer receives a hundred applicants for a job opening. How does he choose whom to hire? Without the minimum wage, whoever wants the job most will outcompete other jobseekers by offering to work for less.

With a minimum wage, the employer can’t say: “Who will work for $14.95?” If he does, he’s a criminal; he literally violates the law. Since he can’t just pick the most eager job seekers, he needs some alternative way to select from his hundred applicants. When you have a surplus of labor in a market with a minimum wage, prices aren’t allowed to adjust, so the employer picks from that surplus based on personal preferences. These may include race, sex, gender, religion, or other personal characteristics that have little to do with productivity. In fact, in the past, it has included just that. Faced with more job seekers than there are jobs available, a bigoted employer bears little cost when he refuses to hire a member of a group he dislikes. He knows someone else in the applicant pool will be from his preferred group.

In a market without a minimum wage, when an employer turns down an applicant to satisfy his bigoted tastes, he doesn’t have ninety-nine other job seekers to choose from. There’s no labor surplus. If he chooses to indulge his bigoted tastes, the job remains unfilled for longer, which means less money for our racist employer. Consider that in the United States the African American teenage male unemployment rate was lower than the white teenage male unemployment rate through the late 1940s. The 1950s saw the single largest increase (in percentage terms) of the minimum wage. The reasoning I just gave explains why the African American teen joblessness rate then soared above that of whites. That gap remains to the present day. Like Adam Smith, James Buchanan, and the Biden administration, I too desire a society where the power of bad people to exercise “dominion or discrimination” is constrained, even eliminated. Presumably, my fellow Pennsylvanians do too. The fact that nearly two-thirds of them (and 89 percent of liberals) support a $15/hour minimum wage is therefore troubling. My fellow citizens should consider whether this policy facilitates or impedes the ability of bad men to do harm. Economics says it facilitates.

So does history. As Princeton’s Thomas Leonard has demonstrated in his book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, the early minimum wage advocates saw it as a prime tool to exercise “dominion and discrimination” over those they deemed ill-suited to reproduction. The minimum wage was well suited to perform the Progressives’ dirty work of discriminating against (what they considered) the least productive by making them unemployable.

It has been over a hundred years since the Progressive Era. But the laws of economics haven’t changed. The only question is: Have we? Author:

Caleb Fuller

Dr. Caleb Fuller is assistant professor of economics at Grove City College. He has published papers in Public Choice, the International Review of Law and Economics, the European Journal of Law and Economics, the Review of Austrian Economics, and others.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Gates and the Depopulation Agenda. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Calls for an Investigation

Posted by M. C. on February 15, 2021

Most of these vaccination campaigns were implemented without the informed-consent of the children, parents, guardians or teachers, nor with the informed-consent, or with forged consent, of the respective government authorities. In the aftermath, The Gates Foundation was sued by governments around the world, Kenya, India, the Philippines – and more.

Bill Gates has a strange image of himself. He sees himself as The Messiah who saves the world through vaccination – and through population reduction.

By Peter Koenig
Global Research

First published by GR on April 18, 2020


For over twenty years Bill Gates and his Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have been vaccinating foremost children by the millions in remote areas of poor countries, mostly Africa and Asia. Most of their vaccination program had disastrous results, causing the very illness (polio, for example in India) and sterilizing young women (Kenya, with modified tetanus vaccines). Many of the children died. Many of the programs were carried out with the backing of the WHO and – yes – the UN Agency responsible for the Protection of Children, UNICEF. 

Most of these vaccination campaigns were implemented without the informed-consent of the children, parents, guardians or teachers, nor with the informed-consent, or with forged consent, of the respective government authorities. In the aftermath, The Gates Foundation was sued by governments around the world, Kenya, India, the Philippines – and more.

Bill Gates has a strange image of himself. He sees himself as The Messiah who saves the world through vaccination – and through population reduction.

Around the time, when the 2010 Rockefeller Report was issued, with its even more infamous “Lock Step” Scenario, precisely the scenario of which we are living the beginning right now, Bill Gates talked on a TED show in California, “Innovating to Zero” about the use of energy.

He used this TED presentation to promote his vaccination programs, literally saying, “If we are doing a real good job vaccinating childen, we can reduce the world population by 10% to 15%”.

( .

This sounds very much like eugenics.

The video, the first 6’45”, “The Truth about Bill Gates and his Disastrous Vaccination Program”, will tell you all about it.

Read also Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: a Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination by Robert F Kennedy Jr

Robert F Kennedy Jr, an avid Defender of Children’s Rights and anti-vaccination activist, has launched a petition sent to the White House, calling for “Investigations into the ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ for Medical Malpractice & Crimes Against HumanityCoronavirus – No Vaccine Is Needed to Cure It


“At the forefront of this is Bill Gates, who has publicly stated his interest in “reducing population growth” by 10-15%, by means of vaccination. Gates, UNICEF & WHO have already been credibly accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines”. (Excerpt from text of Petition)

Link to the Petition.

If you wish to Sign the Petition click Here  

(At the time of writing, the petition had over 265,000. It requires 100,000 for an answer from the White House)

Video: Robert F. Kennedy Junior

See also brief video featuring Author Bill Still ( 6 min) entitled The Truth about Bill Gates and his disastrous Vaccination Programs around the World

Robert. F. Kennedy Exposes Bill Gates’ Vaccination Agenda

Now Mr. Gates and his allies, including Big-Pharma, WHO, UNICEF, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID / NIH, a close ally of Mr. Gates  – and of course, Agenda ID2020, are proposing to (force) vaccinate 7 billion people around the globe, with their concoction of a (so far) untested coronavirus vaccine. This is a multi-billion dollar bonanza for  Big Pharma and for all those who support the vaccine. Nobody will really know what the vaccine cocktail will contain. They intend to start with the Global South (Developing Countries) and then gradually move North (Developed Countries).

Mind you, there is no need for a vaccine to cure the corona virus. There are many cures:

French Professor Didier Raoult, who is one of the world’s top 5 scientists on communicable diseases, suggested the use of hydroxychloroquine (Chloroquine or Plaquenil), a well-known, simple, and inexpensive drug, also used to fight Malaria, and that has shown efficacy with previous coronaviruses such as SARS.  By mid-February 2020, clinical trials at his institute and in China already confirmed that the drug could reduce the viral load and bring spectacular improvement. Chinese scientists published their first trials on more than 100 patients and announced that the Chinese National Health Commission would recommend Chloroquine in their new guidelines to treat Covid-19. (Peter Koenig, April 1, 2020)

Be aware, awake, alert and warned.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Progressive Era and the Family | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on December 28, 2020

Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard

12/25/2020Murray N. Rothbard

[Originally from Joseph R. Peden and Fred R. Glahe, eds., The American Family and the State (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, 1986).]

While the “Progressive Era” used to be narrowly designated as the period 1900–1914, historians now realize that the period is really much broader, stretching from the latter decades of the nineteenth century into the early 1920s. The broader period marks an era in which the entire American polity—from economics to urban planning to medicine to social work to the licensing of professions to the ideology of intellectuals—was transformed from a roughly laissez-faire system based on individual rights to one of state planning and control. In the sphere of public policy issues closely related to the life of the family, most of the change took place, or at least began, in the latter decades of the nineteenth century. In this paper we shall use the analytic insights of the “new political history” to examine the ways in which the so-called progressives sought to shape and control selected aspects of American family life.


In the last two decades, the advent of the “new political history” has transformed our understanding of the political party system and the basis of political conflict in nineteenth century America. In contrast to the party systems of the twentieth century (the “fourth” party system, 1896–1932, of Republican supremacy; the “fifth” party system, 1932–? of Democratic supremacy), the nineteenth century political parties were not bland coalitions of interests with virtually the same amorphous ideology, with each party blurring what is left of its image during campaigns to appeal to the large independent center. In the nineteenth century, each party offered a fiercely contrasting ideology, and political parties performed the function of imposing a common ideology on diverse sectional and economic interests. During campaigns, the ideology and the partisanship became fiercer and even more clearly demarcated, since the object was not to appeal to independent moderates—there were virtually none—but to bring out the vote of one’s own partisans. Such partisanship and sharp alternatives marked the “second” American party system (Whig versus Democrat, approximately 1830 to the mid-1850s) and the “third” party system (closely fought Republican versus Democrat, mid-1850s to 1896).

Another important insight of the new political history is that the partisan passion devoted by rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans to national economic issues, stemmed from a similar passion devoted at the local and state level to what would now be called “social” issues. Furthermore, that political conflict, from the 1830s on, stemmed from a radical transformation that took place in American Protestantism as a result of the revival movement of the 1830s.

The new revival movement swept the Protestant churches, particularly in the North, like wildfire. In contrast to the old creedal Calvinist churches that stressed the importance of obeying God’s law as expressed in the church creed, the new “pietism” was very different. The pietist doctrine was essentially as follows: Specific creeds of various churches or sects do not matter. Neither does obedience to the rituals or liturgies of the particular church. What counts for salvation is only each individual being “born again”—a direct confrontation between the individual and God, a mystical and emotional conversion in which the individual achieves salvation. The rite of baptism, to the pietist, therefore becomes secondary; of primary importance is his or her personal moment of conversion.

But if the specific church or creed becomes submerged in a vague Christian interdenominationalism, then the individual Christian is left on his own to grapple with the problems of salvation. Pietism, as it swept American Protestantism in the 1830s, took two very different forms in North and South, with very different political implications. The Southerners, at least until the 1890s, became “salvationist pietists,” that is, they believed that the emotional experience of individual regeneration, of being born again, was enough to ensure salvation. Religion was a separate compartment of life, a vertical individual-God relation carrying no imperative to transform man-made culture and interhuman relations.

In contrast, the Northerners, particularly in the areas inhabited by “Yankees,” adopted a far different formof pietism, “evangelical pietism.” The evangelical pietists believed that man could achieve salvation by an act of free will. More particularly, they also believed that it was necessary to a person’s own salvation—andnot just a good idea—to try his best to ensure the salvation of everyone else in society:

“To spread holiness,” to create that Christian commonwealth by bringing all men to Christ, was the divinely ordered duty of the “saved.” Their mandate was “to transform the world into the image of Christ.”1

Since each individual is alone to wrestle with problems of sin and salvation, without creed or ritual of the church to sustain him, the evangelical duty must therefore be to use the state, the social arm of the integrated Christian community, to stamp out temptation and occasions for sin. Only in this way could one perform one’s divinely mandated duty to maximize the salvation of others.2 And to the evangelical pietist, sin took on an extremely broad definition, placing the requirements for holiness far beyond that of other Christian groups. As one antipietist Christian put it, “They saw sin where God did not.” In particular, sin was any and all forms of contact with liquor, and doing anything except praying and going to church on Sunday. Any forms of gambling, dancing, theater, reading of novels—in short, secular enjoyment of any kind—were considered sinful.

The forms of sin that particularly agitated the evangelicals were those they held to interfere with the theological free will of individuals, making them unable to achieve salvation. Liquor was sinful because, they alleged, it crippled the free will of the imbibers. Another particular source of sin was Roman Catholicism, in which priests and bishops, arms of the Pope (whom they identified as the Antichrist), ruled the minds and therefore crippled the theological freedom of will of members of the church.

Evangelical pietism particularly appealed to, and therefore took root among, the “Yankees,” i.e., that cultural group that originated in (especially rural) New England and emigrated widely to populate northern and western New York, northern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern Illinois. The Yankees were natural “cultural imperialists,” people who were wont to impose their values and morality on other groups; as such, they took quite naturally to imposing their form of pietism through whatever means were available, including the use of the coercive power of the state.

In contrast to evangelical pietists were, in addition to small groups of old-fashioned Calvinists, two great Christian groups, the Catholics and the Lutherans (or at least, the high-church variety of Lutheran), who were “liturgicals” (or “ritualists”) rather than pietists. The liturgicals saw the road to salvation in joining the particular church, obeying its rituals, and making use of its sacraments; the individual was not alone with only his emotions and the state to protect him. There was no particular need, then, for the state to take on the functions of the church. Furthermore, the liturgicals had a much more relaxed and rational view of what sin really was; for instance, excessive drinking might be sinful, but liquor per se surely was not.

The evangelical pietists, from the 1830s on, were the northern Protestants of British descent, as well as the Lutherans from Scandinavia and a minority of pietist German synods; the liturgicals were the Roman Catholics and the high-church Lutherans, largely German.

Very rapidly, the political parties reflected a virtually one-to-one correlation of this ethnoreligious division: the Whig, and later the Republican, party consisting chiefly of the pietists, and the Democratic party encompassing almost all the liturgicals. And for almost a century, on a state and local level, the Whig/Republican pietists tried desperately and determinedly to stamp out liquor and all Sunday activities except church (of course, drinking liquor on Sunday was a heinous double sin). As to the Catholic church, the pietists tried to restrict or abolish immigration, since people coming from Germany and Ireland, liturgicals, were outnumbering people from Britain and Scandinavia. Failing that and despairing of doing anything about adult Catholics poisoned by agents of the Vatican, the evangelical pietists decided to concentrate on saving Catholic and Lutheran youth by trying to eliminate the parochial schools, through which both religious groups transmitted their precious religious and social values to the young. The object, as many pietists put it, was to “Christianize the Catholics,” to force Catholic and Lutheran children into public schools, which could then be used as an instrument of pietist Protestantization. Since the Yankees had early taken to the idea of imposing communal civic virtue and obedience through the public schools, they were particularly receptive to this new reason for aggrandizing public education.

To all of these continuing aggressions by what they termed “those fanatics,” the liturgicals fought back with equal fervor. Particularly bewildered were the Germans who, Lutheran and Catholic alike, were accustomed to the entire family happily attending beer gardens together on Sundays after church and who now found the “fanatic” pietists trying desperately to outlaw this pleasurable and seemingly innocent activity. The pietist Protestant attacks on private and parochial schools fatally threatened the preservation and maintenance of the liturgicals’ cultural and religious values; and since large numbers of the Catholics and Lutherans were immigrants, parochial schools also served to maintain group affinities in a new and often hostile world—especially the world of Anglo-Saxon pietism. In the case of the Germans, it also meant, for several decades, preserving parochial teaching in the beloved German language, as against fierce pressures for Anglicization.

In the last three decades of the nineteenth century, as Catholic immigration grew and the Democratic party moved slowly but surely toward a majority status, the Republican, and—more broadly—pietist pressures became more intense. The purpose of the public school, to the pietists, was “to unify and make homogeneous the society.” There was no twentieth century concern for separating religion and the public school system. To the contrary, in most northern jurisdictions only pietist-Protestant church members were allowed to be teachers in the public schools. Daily reading of the Protestant Bible, daily Protestant prayers and Protestant hymns were common in the public schools, and school textbooks were rife with anti-Catholic propaganda. Thus, New York City school textbooks spoke broadly of “the deceitful Catholics,” and pounded into their children, Catholic and Protestant alike, the message that “Catholics are necessarily, morally, intellectually, infallibly, a stupid race.”3

Teachers delivered homilies on the evils of Popery, and also on deeply felt pietist theological values: the wickedness of alcohol (the “demon rum”) and the importance of keeping the Sabbath. In the 1880s and 1890s, zealous pietists began working ardently for antialcohol instruction as a required part of the public-school curriculum; by 1901, every state in the Union required instruction in temperance.

Since most Catholic children went to public rather than parochial schools, the Catholic authorities were understandably anxious to purge the schools of Protestant requirements and ceremonies, and of anti-Catholic textbooks. To the pietists, these attempts to de-Protestantize the public schools were intolerable “Romish aggression.” The whole point of the public schools was moral and religious homogenization, and here the Catholics were disrupting the attempt to make American society holy—to produce, through the public school and the Protestant gospel, “a morally and politically homogeneous people.” As Kleppner writes:

When they [the pietists] spoke of “moral education,” they had in mind principles of morality shared in common by the adherents of gospel religion, for in the public school all children, even those whose parents were enslaved by “Lutheran formalism or Romish supersitition,” would be exposed to the Bible. That alone was cause for righteous optimism, for they believed the Bible to be “the agent in converting the soul,” “the volume that makes human beings men.”4

In this way, “America [would] be Saved Through the Children.”5

The pietists were therefore incensed that the Catholics were attempting to block the salvation of America’s children—and eventually of America itself—all at the orders of a “foreign potentate.” Thus, the New Jersey Methodist Conference of 1870 lashed out with their deepest feelings against this Romish obstructionism:

Resolved, That we greatly deprecate the effort which is being made by “Haters of Light,” and especially by an arrogant priesthood, to exclude the Bible from the Public Schools of our land; and that we will do all in our power to defeat the well-defined and wicked design of this “Mother of Harlots.”6

Throughout the nineteenth century, “nativist” attacks on “foreigners” and the foreign-born were really attacks on liturgical immigrants. Immigrants from Britain or Scandinavia, pietists all, were “good Americans” as soon as they got off the boat. It was the diverse culture of the other immigrants that had to be homogenized and molded into that of pietist America. Thus, the New England Methodist Conference of 1889 declared:

We are a nation of remnants, ravellings from the Old World. . . . The public school is one of the remedial agencies which work in our society to diminish this . . . and to hasten the compacting of these heterogeneous materials into a solid nature.7

Or, as a leading citizen of Boston declared, “the only way to elevate the foreign population was to make Protestants of their children.”8

Since the cities of the North, in the late nineteenth century, were becoming increasingly filled with Catholic immigrants, pietist attacks on sinful cities and on immigrants both became aspects of the anti-liturgical struggle for a homogeneous Anglo-Saxon pietist culture. The Irish were particular butts of pietist scorn; a New York City textbook bitterly warned that continued immigration could make America “the common sewer of Ireland,” filled with drunken and depraved Irishmen.9

The growing influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe toward the end of the nineteenth century seemed to pose even greater problems for the pietist progressives, but they did not shrink from the task. As Elwood P. Cubberley of Stanford University, the nation’s outstanding progressive historian of education, declared, southern and eastern Europeans have served to dilute tremendously our national stock, and to corrupt our civil life. . . . Everywhere these people tend to settle in groups or settlements, and to set up here their national manners, customs, and observances. Our task is to break up these groups or settlements, to assimilate and amalgamate these people as a part of our American race and to implant in their children. . . the Anglo-Saxon conception of rightousness, law and order, and popular government. . . . 10


The molding of children was of course the key to homogenization and the key in general to the progressive vision of tight social control over the individual via the instrument of the state. The eminent University of Wisconsin sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross, a favorite of Theodore Roosevelt and the veritable epitome of a progressive social scientist, summed it up thus: The role of the public official, and in particular of the public school teacher, is “to collect little plastic lumps of human dough from private households and shape them on the social kneadingboard.”11

The view of Ross and the other progressives was that the state must take up the task of control and inculcation of moral values once performed by parents and church. The conflict between middle and upper-class urban progressive Anglo-Saxon Protestants and largely working-class Catholics was sharply delineated in the battle over control of the San Francisco public school system during the second decade of the twentieth century. The highly popular Alfred Roncovieri, a French-Italian Catholic, was the elected school superintendent from 1906 on. Roncovieri was a traditionalist who believed that the function of schools was to teach the basics, and that teaching children about sex and morality should be the function of home and church. Hence, when the drive for sex hygiene courses in the public schools got under way, Roncovieri consulted with mothers’ clubs and, in consequence, kept the program out of the schools.

By 1908, upper-class progressives launched a decade-long movement to oust Roncovieri and transform the nature of the San Francisco public school system. Instead of an elected superintendent responding to a school board elected by districts, the progressives wanted an all-powerful school superintendent, appointed by a rubber-stamp board that in turn would be appointed by the mayor. In other words, in the name of “taking the schools out of politics,” they hoped to aggrandize the educational bureaucracy and maintain its power virtually unchecked by any popular or democratic control. The purpose was threefold: to push through the progressive program of social control, to impose upper-class control over a working-class population, and to impose pietist Protestant control over Catholic ethnics. 12

The ethnoreligious struggle over the public schools in San Francisco was nothing new; it had been going on tumultuously since the middle of the nineteenth century.13 In the last half of the nineteenth century, San Francisco was split into two parts. Ruling the city was a power elite of native-born old Americans, hailing from New England, including lawyers, businessmen, and pietist Protestant ministers. These comprised successively the Whig, Know-Nothing, Populist, and Republican parties in the city. On the other hand were the foreign-born, largely Catholic immigrants from Europe, Irish, Germans, French, and Italians, who comprised the Democratic party.

The Protestants early tried to use the public schools as a homogenizing and controlling force. The great theoretician and founder of the public school system in San Francisco, John Swett, “the Horace Mann of California,” was a lifelong Republican and a Yankee who had taught school in New Hampshire before moving West. Moreover, the Board of Education was originally an all-New England show; consisting of emigrants from Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. The mayor of San Francisco was a former mayor of Salem, Massachusetts, and every administrator and teacher in the public schools was a transplanted New Englander. The first superintendent of schools was not exactly a New Englander, but close: Thomas J. Nevins, a Yankee Whig lawyer from New York and an agent of the American Bible Society. And the first free public school in San Francisco was instituted in the basement of a small Baptist chapel.

Nevins, installed as superintendent of schools in 1851, promptly adopted the rule of the New York City schools: Every teacher was compelled to begin each day by a Protestant Bible reading and to conduct daily Protestant prayer sessions. And John Swett, elected as Republican state superintendent of public instruction during the 1860s, declared that California needed public schools because of its heterogeneous population: “Nothing can Americanize these chaotic elements, and breathe into them the spirit of our institutions,” he warned, “except the public schools.”14

Swett was keen enough to recognize that the pietist educational formula meant that the state takes over jurisdiction of the child from his parents, since “children arrived at the age of maturity belong, not to the parents, but to the State, to society, to the country.”15

A seesaw struggle between the Protestant Yankees and Catholic ethnics ensued in San Francisco during the 1850s. The state charter of San Francisco in 1855 made the schools far more responsive to the people, with school boards being elected from each of a dozen wards instead of at large, and the superintendent elected by the people instead of appointed by the board. The Democrats swept the Know-Nothings out of office in the city in 1856 and brought to power David Broderick, an Irish Catholic who controlled the San Francisco as well as the California Democratic party. But this gain was wiped out by the San Francisco Vigilance Movement, a private organization of merchants and New England-born Yankees, who, attacking the “Tammany” tactics of Broderick, installed themselves in power and illegally deported most of the Broderick organization, replacing it with a newly formed People’s party.

The People’s party ran San Francisco with an iron hand for ten years, from 1857 to 1867, making secret nominations for appointments and driving through huge slates of at-large nominees chosen at a single vote at a public meeting. No open nomination procedures, primaries, or ward divisions were allowed, in order to ensure election victories by “reputable” men. The People’s party promptly reinstalled an all-Yankee school board, and the administrators and teachers in schools were again firmly Protestant and militantly anti-Catholic. The People’s party itself continually attacked the Irish, denouncing them as “micks” and “rank Pats.” George Tait, the People’s party-installed superintendent of schools in the 1860s, lamented, however, that some teachers were failing to read the Protestant Bible in the schools, and were thus casting “a slur on the religion and character of the community.”

By the 1870s, however, the foreign-born residents outnumbered the native-born, and the Democratic party rose to power in San Francisco, the People’s party declining and joining the Republicans. The Board of Education ended the practice of Protestant devotions in the schools, and Irish and Germans began to pour into administrative and teaching posts in the public school system.

Another rollback began, however, in 1874, when the Republican state legislature abolished ward elections for the San Francisco school board, and insisted that all board members be elected at large. This meant that only the wealthy, which usually meant well-to-do Protestants, were likely to be able to run successfully for election. Accordingly, whereas in 1873, 58 percent of the San Francisco school board was foreign-born, the percentage was down to 8 percent in the following year. And while the Irish were approximately 25 percent of the electorate and the Germans about 13 percent, the Irish were not able to fill more than one or two of the twelve at-large seats, and the Germans virtually none.

The seesaw continued, however, as the Democrats came back in 1883, under the aegis of the master politician, the Irish Catholic Christopher “Blind Boss” Buckley. In the Buckley regime, the post-1874 school board dominated totally by wealthy native-born, Yankee businessmen and professionals, was replaced by an ethnically balanced ticket with a high proportion of working-class and foreign-born. Furthermore, a high proportion of Irish Catholic teachers, most of them single women, entered the San Francisco schools during the Buckley era, reaching 50 percent by the turn of the century.

In the late 1880s, however, the stridently anti-Catholic and anti-Irish American party became strong in San Francisco and the rest of the state, and Republican leaders were happy to join them in denouncing the “immigrant peril.” The American party managed to oust the Irish Catholic Joseph O’Connor, principal and deputy superintendent, from his high post as “religiously unacceptable.” This victory heralded a progressive Republican “reform” comeback in 1891, when none other than John Swett was installed as superintendent of schools in San Francisco. Swett battled for the full reform program: to make everything, even the mayoralty, an appointive rather than an elective office. Part of the goal was achieved by the state’s new San Francisco charter in 1900, which replaced the twelve-man elected Board of Education by a four-member board appointed by the mayor.

The full goal of total appointment was still blocked, however, by the existence of an elective superintendent of schools who, since 1907, was the popular Catholic Alfred Roncovieri. The pietist progressives were also thwarted for two decades by the fact that San Francisco was ruled, for most of the years between 1901 and 1911, by a new Union Labor party, which won on an ethnically and occupationally balanced ticket, and which elected the German-Irish Catholic Eugene Schmitz, a member of the musician’s union, as mayor. And for eighteen years after 1911, San Francisco was governed by its most popular mayor before or since, “Sunny Jim” Rolph, an Episcopalian friendly to Catholics and ethnics, who was pro-Roncovieri and who presided over an ethnically pluralistic regime.

It is instructive to examine the makeup of the progressive reform movement that eventually got its way and overthrew Roncovieri. It consisted of the standard progressive coalition of business and professional elites, and nativist and anti-Catholic organizations, who called for the purging of Catholics from the schools. Particular inspiration came from Stanford educationist Elwood P. Cubberley, who energized the California branch of the Association of Collegiate Alumnae (later the American Association of University Women), led by the wealthy Mrs. Jesse H. Steinhart, whose husband was later to be a leader in the Progressive party. Mrs. Steinhart got Mrs. Agnes De Lima, a New York City progressive educator, to make a survey of the San Francisco schools for the association. The report, presented in 1914, made the expected case for an “efficient,” business-like, school system run solely by appointed educators. Mrs. Steinhart also organized the Public Education Society of San Francisco to agitate for progressive school reform; in this she was aided by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

Also backing progressive reform, and anxious to oust Roncovieri, were other elite groups in the city, including the League of Women Voters, and the prestigious Commonwealth Club of California.

At the behest of Mrs. Steinhart and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, which contributed the funds, Philander Claxton of the U.S. Office of Education weighed in with his report in December 1917. The report, which endorsed the Association of Collegiate Alumnae study and was extremely critical of the San Francisco school system, called for all power over the system to go to an appointed superintendent of schools. Claxton also attacked the teaching of foreign languages in the schools, which San Francisco had been doing, and insisted on a comprehensive “Americanization” to break down ethnic settlements.

The Claxton Report was the signal for the Chamber of Commerce to swing into action, and it proceeded to draft a comprehensive progressive referendum for the November 1918 ballot, calling for an appointed superintendent and an appointed school board. This initiative, Amendment 37, was backed by most of the prominent business and professional groups in the city. In addition to the ones named above, there were the Real Estate Board, elite women’s organizations such as the Federation of Women’s Clubs, wealthy neighborhood improvement clubs, and the San Francisco Examiner. Amendment 37 lost, however, by two to one, since it had little support in working-class neighborhoods or among the teachers.

Two years later, however, Amendment 37 passed, aided by a resurgence of pietism and virulent anti-Catholicism in postwar America. Prohibition was now triumphant, and the Ku Klux Klan experienced a nationwide revival as a pietist, anti-Catholic organization. The KKK had as many as 3,500 members in the San Francisco Bay Area in the early 1920s. The anti-Catholic American Protective Association also enjoyed a revival, led in California by a British small businessman, the anti-Irish Grand Master Colonel J. Arthur Petersen.

In opposing Amendment 37 in the 1920 elections, Father Peter C. Yorke, a prominent priest and Irish immigrant, perceptively summed up the fundamental cleavage: “The modern school system,” he declared, “is not satisfied with teaching children the 3 Rs . . . it reaches out and takes possession of their whole lives.”

Amendment 37 passed in 1920 by the narrow margin of 69,200 to 66,700. It passed in every middle- and upper-class Assembly District, and lost in every working-class district. The higher the concentration of foreign-born voters in any district, the greater the vote against. In the Italian precincts 1 to 17 of the 33rd A.D., the Amendment was beaten by 3 to 1; in the Irish precincts, it was defeated by 3 to 1 as well. The more Protestant a working-class district, the more it supported the Amendment.

The bulk of the lobbying for the Amendment was performed by the ad hoc Educational Conference. After the victory, the conference happily presented a list of nominees to the school board, which now consisted of seven members appointed by the mayor, and which in turn appointed the superintendent. The proposed board consisted entirely of businessmen, of whom only one was a conservative Irish Catholic. The mayor surrendered to the pressure, and hence, after 1921, cultural pluralism in the San Francisco school system gave way to unitary progressive rule. The board began by threatening to dock any teacher who dared to be absent from school on St. Patrick’s Day (a San Francisco tradition since the 1870s), and proceeded to override the wishes of particular neighborhoods in the interest of a centralized city.

The superintendent of schools in the new regime, Dr. Joseph Marr Gwinn, fit the new dispensation to a tee. A professional “scientist” of public administration, his avowed aim was unitary control. The entire package of typical progressive educational nostrums was installed, including a department of education and various experimental programs. Traditional basic education was scorned, and the edict came down that children should not be “forced” to learn the 3 Rs if they didn’t feel the need. Traditional teachers, who were continually attacked for being old-fashioned and “unprofessional,” were not promoted.

Despite continued opposition by teachers, parents, neighborhoods, ethnic groups, and the ousted Roncovieri, all attempts to repeal Amendment 37 were unsuccessful. The modern dispensation of progressivism had conquered San Francisco. The removal of the Board of Education and school superintendent from direct and periodic control by the electorate had effectively deprived parents of any significant control over the educational policies of public schools. At last, as John Swett had asserted nearly sixty years earlier, schoolchildren belonged “not to the parents, but to the State, to society, to the country.”


Women’s Suffrage

By the 1890s, the liturgically oriented Democracy was slowly but surely winning the national battle of the political parties. Culminating the battle was the Democratic congressional victory in 1890 and the Grover Cleveland landslide in the presidential election of 1892, in which Cleveland carried both Houses of Congress along with him (an unusual feat for that era). The Democrats were in way of becoming the majority party of the country, and the root was demographic: the fact that most of the immigrants were Catholic and the Catholic birthrate was higher than that of the pietist Protestants. Even though British and Scandinavian immigration had reached new highs during the 1880s, their numbers were far exceeded by German and Irish immigration, the latter being the highest since the famous post-potato-famine influx that started in the late 1840s. Furthermore, the “new immigration” from southern and eastern Europe, almost all Catholic—and especially Italian—began to make its mark during the same decade.

The pietists became increasingly embittered, stepping up their attacks on foreigners in general and Catholics in particular. Thus, the Reverend T.W. Cuyler, President of the National Temperance Society, intemperately exclaimed in the summer of 1891: “How much longer [will] the Republic . . . consent to have her soil a dumping ground for all Hungarian ruffians, Bohemian bruisers, and Italian cutthroats of every description?”

The first concrete political response by the pietists to the rising Catholic tide was to try to restrict immigration. Republicans successfully managed to pass laws partially cutting immigration, but President Cleveland vetoed a bill to impose a literacy test on all immigrants. The Republicans also managed to curtail voting by immigrants, by getting most states to disallow voting by aliens, thereby reversing the traditional custom of allowing alien voting. They also urged the lengthening of the statutory waiting period for naturalization.

The successful restricting of immigration and of immigrant voting was still not enough to matter, and immigration would not really be foreclosed until the 1920s. But if voting could not be restricted sharply enough, perhaps it could be expanded—inthe proper pietist direction.

Specifically, it was clear to the pietists that the role of women in the liturgical “ethnic” family was very different from what it was in the pietist Protestant family. One of the reasons impelling pietists and Republicans toward prohibition was the fact that, culturally, the lives of urban male Catholics—nd the cities of the Northeast were becoming increasingly Catholic—evolved around the neighborhood saloon. The men would repair at night to the saloon for chitchat, discussions, and argument—nd they would generally take their political views from the saloonkeeper, who thus became the political powerhouse in his particular ward. Therefore, prohibition meant breaking the political power of the urban liturgical machines in the Democratic party.

But while the social lives of liturgical males revolved around the saloon, their wives stayed at home. While pietist women were increasingly independent and politically active, the lives of liturgical women revolved solely about home and hearth. Politics was strictly an avocation for husbands and sons. Perceiving this, the pietists began to push for women’s suffrage, realizing that far more pietist than liturgical women would take advantage of the power to vote.

As a result, the women’s suffrage movement was heavily pietist from the very beginning. Ultrapietist third parties like the Greenback and the Prohibition parties, which scorned the Republicans for being untrustworthy moderates on social issues, supported women’s suffrage throughout, and the Populists tended in that direction. The Progressive party of 1912 was strongly in favor of women’s suffrage; theirs was the first major national convention to permit women delegates. The first woman elector, Helen J. Scott of Wisconsin, was chosen by the Progressive party.

Perhaps the major single organization in the women’s suffrage movement was the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, founded in 1874 and reaching an enormous membership of 300,000 by 1900. That the WCTU was also involved in agitating for curfew, antigambling, antismoking, and antisex laws—ll actions lauded by the women’s suffrage movement—s clear from the official history of women’s suffrage in the nineteenth century:

[The WCTU] has been a chief factor in State campaigns for statutory prohibition, constitutional amendment, reform laws in general and those for the protection of women and children in particular, and in securing anti-gambling and anti-cigarette laws. It has been instrumental in raising the “age of protection” for girls in many States, and in obtaining curfew laws in 400 towns and cities. . . . The association [WCTU] protests against the legalization of all crimes, especially those of prostitution and liquor selling.16

See the rest here


Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory. He combined Austrian economics with a fervent commitment to individual liberty.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »