Impunity and Carefree Violence: Australia’s Special Forces in…

In 2016, Australian Major General Jeff Sengelman approached the then chief of…

How do we restore democracy?

Democracy has been destroyed by globalisation!The massive growth in size and power…

Poor Cocky

My mother worked as a servant girl at the station on the…

Poor Timing: Cartier meets Australia Post

Watch brands do not tend to circulate as discussion topics in the…

Worrying Aspects of Climate Change

By Keith Antonysen  There is one thing that those sceptical of human caused…

Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 5)

Continued from: Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 4)By Outsider  After the second…

Federal Integrity Commission: Yes, no, maybe, too busy

The Prime Minister is never short on confidence, but mostly it borders…

Integrity, transparency, honesty - and ethics

In addition to studying ethics as part of my law degree, I…


Worrying Aspects of Climate Change

By Keith Antonysen  

There is one thing that those sceptical of human caused climate change get right, they say the climate has always changed. Except, that is not the end of the matter; the irony being for sceptics that greenhouse gases have been the reason for climate changing in the past. Please view the hyperlinks.

Climate Scientist Scott Denning provides some very worrying comments about the wild fires in Colorado. In relation to the last Ice Age he wrote: “… 18,000 years ago, the world warmed about 5 degrees Celsius (10 F) over 10,000 years. That’s a rate of 0.1 degree per century.”

An increase in temperature to 1.5C above the pre-Industrial period may occur by 2030. Scientists from Exxon postulated from the data they had nearly four decades ago that global warming could increase by 1.5C. As displayed by the Complaint, the amount of CO2 and temperature increase were quite accurately posited by the Exxon scientists as displayed by the Figure 3 graph.

Apart from setting temperature records in September 2020, other very profound costs have been incurred for the month and also the year. Some extreme events have cost billions of dollars’ worth of damage each, destroyed homes and businesses, infra-structure destroyed, bio-diversity destroyed and human lives lost.

Yet, our Australian politicians in the main take no notice and prescribe more policies which amplify climate change.

Keith Antonysen has been researching climate change for decades. Apart from reading about climate science, Keith also views pseudo-science presented by contrarians. It seems that the material referenced by contrarians is continually recycled.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 5)

Continued from: Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 4)

By Outsider  

After the second world war, the practice of “imposing measures intended to prevent births within [a national, ethnical, racial or religious] group” fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims “the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons.” (Article 3, Section 2).

In spite of the decline in discriminatory eugenics laws, some government mandated sterilisations continued into the twenty first century. Examples: during the ten years President Alberto Fujimori led Peru from 1990 to 2000, 2,000 persons were allegedly involuntarily sterilised. (P. Meilhan and B. Brumfield, Peru will not prosecute former President over sterilization campaign,, 25.01.2014).

China maintained its ‘one-child policy’ until 2015 as well as a suite of other eugenics based legislation to reduce population size and manage fertility rates of different populations. (F. Dikötter, Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China, Columbia University Press, New York 1987; G. Miller, What should we be worried about? Chinese eugenics, Edge Foundation, Seattle, WA, 2013); F. Dikötter, (1999) The legislation imposes decisions: Laws about eugenics in China, UNESCO Courier. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)

In 2007 the United Nations reported coercive sterilisations and hysterectomies in Uzbekistan. (N. Antelava, Uzbekistan’s policy of secretly sterilizing women, BBC News (12 April 2012).

During the years 2005 to 2013, nearly one-third of the 144 California prison inmates who were sterilised did not give lawful consent to the operation. (C. G. Johnson, Calif. female inmates sterilized illegally, USA Today, 20.06.2014).

Developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the twentieth century were raising numerous questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject. Some, such as University of California, Berkeley sociologist professor Troy Duster, claim that modern genetics is a ‘back door’ to eugenics. (C.J. Epstein, Is modern genetics the new eugenics?, Genetics in Medicine, 5 (6): 469–475, 01.11.2003). This view is shared by White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis are moving society to a “new era of eugenics”, and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, “where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products.” T. Simoncelli, Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis and Selection: From disease prevention to customised conception (2003).

In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins, ethologist and evolutionary biologist, said that discussion regarding eugenics was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for certain abilities is at all possible. He believes that it is not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. Dawkins felt that enough time had elapsed at least to ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction. (R. Dawkins, From the afterward, The (Glasgow) Herald, 19.11.2006).

In October 2015 the United Nations’ International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical problems of ‘human genetic engineering’ should not be confused with the ethical problems of the twentieth century eugenics movements. However, it is still problematic because it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new forms of discrimination and stigmatisation for those who do not want, or cannot afford, the technology. (Report of the I.B.C. on updating its reflection on the human genome and human rights, (PDF). International Bioethics Committee, 02.10. 2015 at 27).

Transhumanism is often associated with eugenics, although most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term ‘eugenics’, preferring ‘germinal choice’ or ‘reprogenetics’ case  to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements. (L. M. Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and beyond in a brave new world, Harper Perennial, New York 1988).

Prenatal screening can be considered a form of contemporary eugenics because it may lead to preventing the birth of a child with undesirable traits. (G. M. Thomas, B. Katz Rothman, Keeping the backdoor to eugenics ajar?: Disability and the future of prenatal screening, AMA Journal of Ethics, 18 (4): 406–415 (2016). Their view is that prenatal screening for Down Syndrome, for instance, can be considered a form of contemporary eugenics, in that it effaces, devalues, and possibly prevents the births of people with the condition.

In the decades after the second world war, the term ‘eugenics’ had taken on a negative connotation and had become increasingly unpopular within academic science. Many organisations and journals which had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from the philosophy, as when Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969.

A common criticism of eugenics is that “it inevitably leads to measures that are unethical.” (R. Lynn, Eugenics: a reassessment, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 2001 at 241).

Some fear future ‘eugenics wars’ as the consequence: the return of coercive state-sponsored genetic discrimination and human rights violations such as compulsory sterilisation of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalised and, specifically, segregation and genocide of ‘races’ perceived as inferior.

George J. Annas, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Center for Health Law, Ethics and Human Rights at the Boston University School of Public Health, School of Medicine, and School of Law and law professor Lori B. Andrews, Director of the Illinois Institute for Science, Law and Technology at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, ILL., are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to such human-posthuman caste warfare. (G. Annas, L. Andrews and R. Isasi, Protecting the endangered human: Toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations, (2002) American Journal of Law & Medicine, 28: 151).

William Ernest ‘Bill’ McKibben, an American environmentalist, argued at length against germinal choice technology and other advanced biotechnological strategies for human enhancement in his work Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age (St. Martin’s Griffin, New York, 2003). He writes that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves – or their children – in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to ‘improve’ themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations which provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome with technology. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, such as was the case during the Ming China, Tokugawa Japan and still is the contemporary Amish.

Others, for example Nathaniel Charles Comfort, an American professor at the Institute of the History of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making from the state to the patient and their family. Comfort suggests that “the eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic bio-medicine are too great for us to do otherwise.” (N. C. Comfort, The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014).

Others still, such as Stephen Wilkinson, professor of Bioethics at Lancaster University and Eve Garrard, a moral philosopher at the Centre for Professional Ethics at Keele University, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but that this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral. In a co-authored publication by Keele University, they stated that “[e]ugenics doesn’t seem always to be immoral, and so the fact that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and other forms of selective reproduction, might sometimes technically be eugenic, isn’t sufficient to show that they’re wrong.” (S. Wilkinson, and E. Garrard, ‘Eugenics and the Ethics of Selective Reproduction’ (PDF), Keele University, U.K., 2013).

Bioethicists Allen Edward Buchanan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel I. Wikler argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible – so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals’ reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies – in order to maximise public health and minimise the inequalities which may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements. (Allen Edward Buchanan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel I. Wikler, From chance to choice: genetics and justice (Cambridge University Press 2000).

* * * * *

During the years leading up to the second world war, ‘eugenics laws’ were passed in 27 American states which allowed for the forcible sterilisation of tens of thousands of Americans, and account for the influence of a powerful elite of then-millionaires who pressed for such laws.

‘Grand capital’ supported the formation of nationalist groups and the advent of totalitarian regimes during the interwar period. Huge financing was behind the ‘squadre d’azione’ – action teams that Mussolini brought triumphantly to a pusillanimous king in 1922, opening a long period during which the future ‘Duce of Italy’ would move from an anarchist and republican position to a catholic and monarchist servitude. Italian and foreign capital had paid for his murderous squadre and final victory. And representatives of the ‘haute bourgeoisie’ competed on praising Mussolini, from Churchill in London to distant premiers in Australian capitals – to mention just a few of such admirers. Menzies preferred to praise Nazi Germany. Mussolini had invented the non-existent “razza Italiana”, assisted for the purpose by hired academicians. Contagion was to follow quickly and easily with Hitler – an Austrian born – exalting  the “German rasse” and Franco proclaiming, with the benediction of the Catholic Church, the triumph of the “raza.” In that name, Ethiopians tasted ‘western civilisation’ from the combination of Church-Monarchy-Fascism, the Germans  acquired Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG – IG Farben, and the English could secure the much needed pyrite from the Francoist occupied Euskal Herria – Basque Country.

In the United States, behind the triumphant fascism stood the Pioneer Fund.

Established in 1937 by textile machinery millionaire, Wickcliffe Draper, an ardent eugenicist and lifelong advocate of strict racial segregation. the Pioneer Fund had a long connection with Nazi and neo-Nazi ‘race theories’, and for many years had been funding a small, tightly knit group of people who cited each other’s work, reviewed each other’s books and acknowledged each other in their writings. When scandal emerged these people invariably denied knowing anything of the Pioneer Fund’s nefarious history, even though many scandals had broken into national prominence and articles about the Fund had appeared for over three decades.

The Pioneer Fund was incorporated in 1937 by two American scientists: Harry Hamilton Laughlin, an American educator, eugenicist and sociologist who received an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936 in honour of his contribution to Nazi eugenics and  served as the Superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in 1910 to its closing in 1939, and Major General Frederick Henry Osborn, who wrote in 1937 that the Nazi sterilisation law was “the most exciting experiment that had ever been tried.”

The Fund had two purposes. The first, modelled on the Nazi breeding programme, was aimed at encouraging the propagation of those “descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children, the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended.” Its second purpose was to support academic research and the “dissemination of information, into the ‘problem of heredity and eugenics’ and the problems of race betterment.”

Among the first projects discussed for 1937 was the distribution of two Nazi eugenic propaganda films to ‘high schools, colleges, clubs [and] churches.’ (See H. Laughlin to C. Schneider, 11 August 1936, Harry Laughlin Papers, Northeast Missouri State University; Frederick Osborn, ‘Summary of the proceedings’ of the Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing, 24 February 1937, American Eugenics Society Archives; see also: Laughlin to Draper. 15 March 1937 and 9 December 1938).

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Pioneer Fund aligned itself with the American right fighting Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954) That was a landmark decision of the  Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that American state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality.

Draper also worked with the House Un-American Activities Committee to prove “that the Negro race is genetically inferior and that American Negroes ought to be ‘repatriated’ to Africa”, and was regarded by several academics as “a racist of the usual type.” (R. W. May, Genetics and subversion, The Nation, 14 May 1960; D. A. Blackmon, Silent partner: How the South’s fight to uphold segregation was funded up North, The Wall Street Journal, 11 June 1999).

Major General Frederick Henry Osborn, Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Northern Iowa, received over $40,000 from the Pioneer Fund in the mid-1970s. This included a $6,000 grant to test ‘Anglo-Saxon’ schoolchildren in a study directed by Donald A. Swan, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Southern Mississippi. When Swan was arrested in 1966 for mail-fraud, the police found Nazi paraphernalia, swastika flags, weapons, pictures of Swan with members of George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party and hundreds of anti-Semitic, anti-black and anti-Catholic pamphlets in his apartment in Queens, New York.

Frederick Henry Osborn was not a geneticist, but he used Pioneer funds to study ‘forced bussing and its relationship to genetic aspects of educability’ (G. Lichtenstein, The New York Times, 11 December 1977), and to organise anti-bussing conferences, out of which grew the National Association for Neighbourhood Schools. (J. A. Raffel, The Politics of School Desegregation: The Metropolitan Remedy in Delaware, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Penn. 1980, at 156-7) There was no objection to his acceptance of Pioneer funds, even when the organisation was exposed as racist.(The  St Louis Post Dispatch, 11 December 1977)

Eugenicists did successfully legitimate and integrate themselves with the Reagan right. In 1985 Osborn was chosen as the chair of the Iowa Advisory Commission on Civil Rights by Clarence McClane Pendleton Jr., Reagan Administration appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The Pioneer Fund was also closely associated with Jesse Alexander Helms Jr., a politician and a leader in the conservative movement who served from 1973 until 2003 as a Republican senator from North Carolina. Helms was the operator of a multi-million dollar high-tech political machine. The Fund’s president from 1958 to 2002, Harry F. Weyher Jr., a lawyer, was lead-counsel for Fairness in Media – F.I.M., the group which attempted to take over the C.B.S. television network. Thomas F. Ellis, a lawyer and political activist involved in numerous conservative causes, whose network of interests was described as ‘a multimillion dollar political empire of corporations, foundations, political action committees and ad hoc groups’ active in the 1980s, was Helms’ political strategist and F.I.M. founder. He served as a director of the Pioneer Fund. (D. A. Wise and T. B. Edsall, Battle for CBS takes on air of mudslinging contest, The Washington Post, 31 March 1985).

Despite Roger Pearson’s connections through the World Anti-Communist League (a British anthropologist, he had been a soldier, businessman, eugenics advocate, political organiser for the extreme right, and publisher of political and academic journals) with people such as Earl Thomas, former American Nazi Party storm trooper, and the late Giorgio Almirante (the founder and leader of neo-fascist Italian Social Movement until his retirement in 1987. He had written extensively for the journal La difesa della razza – The defence of race, and had followed Mussolini in his final collaboration with the Nazi invaders) he also developed successful relationships with the conservative mainstream. In 1982 he distributed a letter from President Reagan praising Pearson’s substantial contribution to “promoting and upholding” those “ideals and principles that we value at home and abroad.” On 28 September 1984 The Wall Street Journal  embarrassed the White House into asking Pearson to stop sending the letter out but it refused to repudiate the letter.

The focus for many scientists was the I.Q. question. A survey of 661 scholars working on this issue had shown that the campaign to legitimate the work of the racist scholars connected to the Pioneer Fund was having a profound effect. The survey revealed that the single most compelling reason convincing scholars of the genetic component to I.Q. was the  “barrage of studies on identical twins reared apart.”

The source of this “barrage” was Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.’s Minnesota Twins Study Project. Bouchard is a psychologist and geneticist, professor emeritus of psychology and director of the Center for Twin and Adoption Research at the University of Minnesota. He is best known for his studies of twins reared apart. Only a few articles on personality and character traits have been published in refereed journals, but the Minnesota group announced ‘conclusions’ and generated massive publicity about the heritable nature of personality traits. It was that, in order for the scientific community to have an opportunity to evaluate the twin study a book-length monograph was needed. Such a monograph was promised by 1987. (R. Bazell, Sins and twins, The New Republic, 21 December 1987).

It is possible that Bouchard’s survey is methodologically rigorous, but few bodies save the Pioneer Fund would support a study which has not been published in a reputable academic journal. Until such time, it was thought that a decade of media coverage will have made its impression, and ideas generated by right wing eugenicists heralding all end to white civilisation might have become acceptable and commonplace. (B. Mehler, Foundation for Fascism: the New Eugenics Movement in the United States, (1989) Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 23, no. 4), Foundation for Fascism: the New Eugenics Movement in the United States, Patterns of Prejudice, Ferris State University).

Of course, following the second world war, eugenics was re-branded to cast off its associations with the Nazis, and emerged, as it were, in the form of such social policy topics as ‘population control,’ ‘family planning,’ abortion/Planned Parenthood, health care, various types of genetics, even laced in between such agendas as global warming/climate change – which leads to arguments about reducing the burden of over-population upon the earth.

Later projects funded by the Rockefeller Foundation included everything from Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, to an anti-fertility vaccine among others. These people spent millions back then and continued to do so throughout the decades.

And could one really believe that the motives behind the money have changed?

The ultimate goal – total control over society and depopulation – has never changed, regardless of what such privileged elite calls it now or how they try to paint it in a positive light today.

Even at a time when eugenics was en vogue, not everyone was on board with targeting the poorest and most vulnerable in society in a world run by Rockefeller wealth.

* * * * *

The Rockefeller Foundation was started by John D. Rockefeller Sr., along with his son John D. Rockefeller Jr., and the Senior’s principal oil and gas business and philanthropic advisor, Frederick Taylor Gates, in New York State on 14 May 1913, when its charter was formally accepted by the New York State Legislature.

Some people are still under the impression that the Rockefeller Foundation is all about philanthropy – helping people and saving lives. Those people have a personal position to defend; they are people such as William Henry ‘Bill’ Gates III, or the likes of Warren Edward Buffett.

In reality, the Rockefellers have been one of the largest financial supporters and drivers of the eugenics and the depopulation agenda for over a century.

Evidence is readily available, even from the humblest sources. On 4 November 1915 The Salem Daily Capital Journal printed an article headed: “Rockefeller, Jr., On Eugenic Problems.” The article is about a ‘new eugenics’ play “The Unborn” produced in New York by physicians and philanthropists. On the play this is what John Rockefeller Jr. says:

“For the first time in dramatic history the perplexing problem of the limitation of undesirable offspring which has been engaging the attention of thoughtful eugenists and sociologists the world over is dealt with on the stage in a play that we are to produce. The right of the child to be well-born and the right of the wife to decide about it are problems the solution of which society can no longer ignore.”

This is what propaganda looked like before television arrived. The Rockefellers were in fact funding a stage play pushing a eugenics depopulation agenda all the way back in 1915!

At first glance, it sounds like modern-day birth control and a woman’s right to choose, does it not? And it is well known that the Rockefellers have also been massive financial supporters of such programmes for a long time.

However, there are objectionable words in the passage – such as “undesirable”, which in this old context means something a lot different, and “well-born.” As used, the right of the child to be “well-born” seems to means something different, and rather sinister.

Just a few months earlier, the Rockefellers also appeared in multiple articles about a ‘new eugenics’ enterprise printed in papers across the country like the following in The Washington Herald on 3 September 1915.

Headline: “15,000,000 Americans defective, they say” Subhead: “Gigantic eugenic enterprise organized for Sterilization of unfit of Nation.”

This piece discusses the joint eugenics venture between Mrs. E.H. Harriman – mother of future statesman and Skull & Bones secret society member Averell Harriman; John D. Rockefeller; Andrew Carnegie, an industrialist and a leading philanthropist in the United States and in the British Empire; and scientist Alexander Graham Bell, who was said to have invented the telephone and who was apparently a huge eugenicist.

Apparently John D. Rockefeller and Co. were giving “liberal financial assistance,” i.e. millions to fund a “gigantic eugenic enterprise… to ascertain what is the matter with the human race” which had been going on for four years prior and which ended in the announcement in this article of a campaign being launched “for the sterilization of 15,000,000 Americans.”

Studies in eugenics had been “quietly conducted” for nearly half a decade not just at Cold Springs Harbor in the ‘imperial’ residence of the Harrimans, but “by field workers all over the world.”

The article concludes:

“The organization, after his (sic!) four years’ work in this country and Europe reached the conclusion that sterilization of defectives was the greatest work for them. Statistics gathered reveal the amazing fact that 10 per cent of the present population of the United States are defectives, who must be blotted out as reproducers of human life.”

“Undesirables” or “defectives” could mean anything from people who had committed crimes to people who drank alcohol too often, or people who were considered feeble-minded, physically handicapped or sick people and even the impoverished or people simply considered to be of poor breeding.

Children born to parents such as these were not considered to be “well-born.”

Under the guise of ‘fixing’ the ‘human race’, this elite got together and funded a massive campaign permanently to sterilise ten per cent of the American population.

The same elite robber barons who had consolidated and monopolised the oil, rail, steel and banking industries took it upon themselves also to promote laws to restrict which people might be allowed to have children, all while lauding themselves and their ‘blue blood’ friends as the types who should reproduce as much as possible.

In the 8 October 1915 edition of The Day Book, R.F. Paine made just such a case under the heading: “Where to begin.

The millions of Mrs. Harriman, relict of the great railroad ‘promoter,’ assisted by other millions of Rockefeller and Carnegie, are to be devoted to sterilization of several hundred thousands of American ‘defectives’ annually, as a matter of ‘eugenics’.

It is true that we don’t yet know all that the millions of our plutocracy can do to the common folks. We see that our moneyed plutocrats can own the governments of whole states, override constitutions, maintain private armies to shoot down men, women and children and railroad innocent men to life imprisonment for murder, or lesser crimes. And if we submit to such things, we ought not to be surprised if they undertake to sterilize all those who are obnoxious to them.

Of course, the proposition demands much on who are the declared ‘defective.’

The old Spartans, with war always in view, used to destroy, at birth, boys born with decided physical weakness. Some of our present day eugenicists go farther and damn children before their birth because of parents criminally inclined. Then we have eugenic ‘defectives’ in the insane and incurably diseased…

But isn’t there another sort of ‘defective,’ who is quite as dangerous as any but whom discussion generally overlooks, especially discussion by senile, long-hailed pathologists, and long-eared college professors involved in the Harriman-Rockefeller scheme to sterilize?

A boy is born to millions. He either doesn’t work, isn’t useful, doesn’t contribute to human happiness, is altogether a parasite, or else he works to add to his millions, with the brutal, insane greed for more and more that caused the accumulation of the inherited millions. Why isn’t such the most dangerous ‘defective’ of all? Why isn’t the prevention of more such progeny the first duty of eugenics? Such ‘defectives’ directly attack the rights, liberties, happiness, lives of millions.

Talk about inheriting criminal tendencies ! If there a ranker case of such than the inheritance of Standard Oil criminality as evidenced in the slaughter of mothers and their babies at Ludlow?

Sterilization of hundreds of thousands of the masses, by the Harrimans and Rockefellers? Let’s first try out the ‘defectives’ of the sons of Harriman and Rockefeller!” (A. Dykes and M. Melton, A Century Ago: Rockefellers Funded Eugenics Initiative to Sterilize 15 million Americans, The Liberty Beacon, 14 December 2014).

To be continued …

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Murdoch and Morrison – partners in grime

By Grump Geezer  

If asked to nominate a politician with a penchant for titty bars I suspect most people could name the distended Member for Manila and ping-pong ball fieldsman Gorgeous George Christensen. Gorgeous G, a devout Christian, is somewhat sensitive about the curiosity aroused by his frequent perver points at iffy Filipino dives where the sticky carpets are not solely a consequence of spilled beer. Press reports of his 28 trips and almost 300 days spent hanging out in the Philippines were vile smears according to our travelling vagophile. To be fair there should be some sympathy reserved for a bloke who can’t see his own genitals without the use of a Blu Tacked mirror on a selfie stick – there’s the deprivation factor to consider. And we should stop fat shaming Jiggle-O George. He already has enough on his plate.

Then there’s Kevin Rudd, the heedless man in topless bar and another conspicuously pious Christian who famously detoured into a Manhattan “gentlemen’s’ club” that traded in overpriced booze and the display of ladies’ pink bits. Apparently Kev was taken by surprise when confronted by a pert pair of areolae and a freshly-shaved flange and legged it for the exit. (After surviving FBI raids and ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s crusade against smut, Scores nightclub is now closed.

Kev, a practicing, purse-lipped Miss Prissy was duly mortified after the local Murdoch mulch fortuitously published the story when, as Opposition leader the bible-toting Rudd was favoured to win the 2007 election. What Kev and News failed to anticipate was his popularity increasing as a consequence. What Kev also seemingly failed to realise at the time was that the bloke who’d steered him into the strip joint was not his pal.

Col Allan was Murdoch’s New York Post’s editor, the longest-serving editor at News Corp and a “Dubbo boy with a fondness for beer, women” and peeing into the office sink. Rudd was then Opposition foreign affairs spokesman. Whatever bonhomie that may have existed between the two at the time was not to last.

The scrotum squeezed through a shirt collar that is Rupert Murdoch lauded Allan as “one of the most outstanding editors of his generation.” Murdoch also stated, without irony or the hint of a piss-take that “Col has sought…to hold the powerful accountable, to assail corruption and to have a positive impact in New York and beyond.” Integrity, truth and decency earning Rupert’s respect? Apparently it’s revenue that does it. “I’ll get fired not because Rupert doesn’t like the stories I put in the paper. I’ll get fired because we don’t sell newspapers” Allan told Lloyd Grove in a 2007 New York magazine profile.

Allen is the Murdoch myrmidon responsible for the crude front page splashes and blatant propaganda in News Corp’s Daily Guano denigrating Rudd and the Labor government. You have to question the standards of sleazy New York nudie bars when this is the type of trough snorkeler they allow onto the premises.



Murdoch is the price we pay for a free press. The dullards, bigots, RWNJs, offence seekers, non-registrants on the IQ bell curve, the perpetually confused, car crash spectators, the venal and the lazy have a right to have their opinions formed for them. The Murdoch manure machine’s usefulness is otherwise limited to teaching dogs to read or for prepatory hygiene in proctologists’ waiting rooms. Unless of course you’re an otherwise unemployable hack or a Tory politician.

The bile and merde produced by the monkey’s typing pool of Murdoch wazzocks, pizzle ninjas, racists, planks and coprophiliacs could be mostly ignored if it wasn’t for its ubiquity and dominance and it’s hands-down-each-others’-trousers relationship with an outrageously corrupt, punitive L/NP kakocracy.

This is taking liberties with the concept of a free press. It is not holding power to account – it’s a protection racket for gangsters and their cronies.

Criminals don’t like scrutiny. SchMo’s tactics for avoiding a federal integrity commission include everything short of calling in a bomb threat – it’s a guilty plea by default. After exposing Sports Rorts the national audit office had its budget cut at a time when unprecedented government largesse is being distributed. SchMo’s national cabinet is run in secret with fossil fuel mates being granted open slather to salt the earth and poison the atmosphere regardless of dodgy return on investment or a rooted planet. Tertiary education is being dumbed down and kept out of financial reach of enquiring minds. Various #gates bubble away. Promised millions in disaster relief goes undistributed while a bloated, smirking practitioner of POETS day cooks curries and assembles flat-pack cubbies and chook pens for the cameras.

The list is long, ignored or spun by the Goebbels and Riefenstahls of News Corp.

Prominant amongst Murdoch’s bilious minions we have:

Queen of confected outrage, Alan Jones, safely isolated in his Southern Highlands luxury estate from whence he broadcasts for Sky News and writes columns for News Corp, telling us now there is no pandemic despite earlier stating that “We are living in the world of coronavirus and the most repeated statement we hear is, we must listen to the experts”. When you’re an opinionated blow-hard consistency is entirely dispensable and hypocrisy a tool of trade.

Miranda Devine (aka Marge – I can’t believe she’s not better) piled on Quaden Bayles, the Indigenous kid with achondroplasia dwarfism who was being bullied at school, claiming it was a scam to make money. What sort of broken individual does that? Apparently it’s OK with the Rupester, as she’s now spewing her poison for his New York Post. If hacking a dead kid’s voicemail is OK then…meh!

The Cruella DeVile of politics, Peta Credlin, found herself at a loose end after steering feral friar Abbott’s government into the blackhole of public opprobrium. Apparently self-immolation sits well on a CV when submitted to News Corp, so long as you’ve acquired the requisite RWFW credentials where Pete scores an A+, offsetting the F she received at a road-side breath test. Pete’s now desperately trying to raise her miserable ratings on Sky News by grandstanding at Dan Andrews’ Covid press conferences where, much to her chagrin, she simply comes across as a tragic, look-at-me shrew.

Melbourne’s village idiot Andrew Bolt has the coherence of a drunk on a bus shaken awake by a pot hole. When Ivan Milat died Bolt’s position on the list of Australia’s worst people went up one place. In a battle of ideas he’s holding the beers.

Murdoch himself was deemed ‘not a fit person’ to run an international company by the UK’s Leveson enquiry. The stench goes all the way to the top and sets a standard for the bag carriers and apple polishers who work for the wizened old bastard.

Murdoch apologists suggest that his political influence is over-stated. It’s surely coincidence that three western democracies being pillaged by governments-by-brown-paper-bag are Murdoch’s markets.

King Conkers, the apricot nut in hi-viz makeup of orange spackle topped by mangy, yellowed road kill can retain office only because of the Fox News cheer squad of blonde barbies who’ve discovered that pneumatic boobs and good teeth can get them a better paying gig than blowing quarterbacks under the bleachers ever could.

The UK has a wardrobe malfunction as Prime Minister – who let the boob out? A bloke who sees a challenge in outdoing Trump in the I’m so incompetent I’ll kill thousands of my constituents stakes. Murdoch boosted Boris’s Brexit because, in his own words, 10 Downing St does as he tells them while Brussels tells him to fuck off.

SchMo and Co will ignore Kevin Rudd’s petition for a Royal Commission into Australian media diversity even though it has 368,000+ signatures.

Big Big George and the Reverend Kev both found out that Rupert will throw anybody under the bus. In George’s case it was for titillation, in Rudd’s it was mendacity and self-interest – Abbott could be trusted to obey orders and blow up the NBN to protect FoxTel’s revenues. Morrison will be aware that Murdoch can turn, so pending a heart attack or Jerry speeding up the inheritance by sitting on his face a tad too long, there will be no Royal Commission.

* * * * *

Supplement – Fun with anagrams

Bridget McKenzie – begrimed neck zit

Peter Spud Dutton – doped nut sputter

Scomo Morrison – SOS micro-moron

Michael McCormack – Cecil Cram-Hammock, chemical crack mom, Micmac – clam choker.

Josh Friedenberg – John Beefgirders, John Edger-Fibres, Jib Dogfreshner, Jobs Fingeredher

* * * * *


Col Pot’s war on Rudd: how the tabloids turned under Allan. Crikey.

Col Allan is back to help figure out the post-Trump coverage – Vanity Fair

News Corp editor Col Allan retires – The Guardian

Kick this mob out’: The Murdoch media and the Australian Labor Government (2007 to 2013) – Global Media Journal


This article was originally published on Grumpy Geezer.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

‘Letters’ Tells Urgent Tale of Bushfire Survival in new film supporting Climate Change Act from Photoplay

Media Release, 21st October 2020 – Photoplay Films has launched the provocative ‘Letters’, a film aiming to raise awareness and mobilise political support for the Climate Change Act.

Directed by Melvin J. Montalban, the campaign film encourages Australians to write to their local member of parliament urging them to support the new Climate Change Act, legislation essential to meaningful climate change action.

Part of a wider campaign, ‘Letters’ aims to assist independent MP Zali Steggall in introducing her Climate Change Bill to parliament this November and launches in tandem with Global Climate Change Week across social media.

You can view ‘Letters’ here.

Montalban says: “My family and I were on the south coast when the bushfires swept through last summer. The local community banded together to support us, despite the desperate situation. From having no power to pump petrol or to buy food at the grocery checkout, to mobile reception being cut out, and with it access to the fire warning app, everyone was left to overcome a dangerous situation in a very vulnerable state.

“Haunted by this trip, I wanted to make a film to not only document this experience, but to also address climate action in a productive and hopeful way, so that we can compel our politicians to enact change.”

Photoplay executive producer Oliver Lawrance says: “The film was made just before the world shut down for COVID-19, when bushfires were our most pressing problem, but the challenge of climate change remains urgent and enduring. Letters aims to harness people’s desire to do something meaningful, by encouraging them to sign the petition, write to their MPs and help bring about this very real, achievable goal of an Australian Climate Change Act.”

MP Zali Steggall adds: “The impacts of climate change represent the greatest threat to our national security, economy, health and environment. But if we implement an effective plan now to deliver Net Zero by 2050, we can create a safe and prosperous future for ourselves and our children. This is an issue that unites everyone across the political divide. People all over Australia are getting involved. Thank you for this thought-provoking film, highlighting the need for urgent action. Together, we can make it happen.”

The proposed Climate Act seeks to ensure the long-term safety, security and prosperity of Australia by achieving Net Zero emissions by 2050. To sign the petition visit: #climateactactnow.

Visit the Facebook page here.

Campaign Credits:
Writer / Director: Melvin J. Montalban
Producer: Tom Slater
Executive Producer: Oliver Lawrance
DOP: Tania Lambert
Production Designer: Emma White
Casting: Stevie Ray at McGregor Casting
Editor: Matias Bolla
Sound Design: Georgia Collins
VFX: Alexander Pattinson
Post: ARC Edit, Blackbird and Electric Sheep
Composer: Johnny Higgins


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Seeking the Post COVID-19 Sunshine: More Bipartisan Big Picture Leadership for the Turbulent Mid-2020s

By Denis Bright  

The NSW’s Government’s Draft Report on Federal State Relations (NSW Review) offers a preview of Australia’s future directions within the limitations of those familiar neoliberal policy levers that are so attractive to the LNP at all levels of government. The Morrison Government is indeed polling well after its own 2020 Budget with the support of a smooth communications agenda that focuses on the benefits of a lower state.

NSW will take the plunge on 17 November 2020 with the release of its delayed 2020-21 budget.

Ahead, lies the possibility of an early federal election in the second half of 2021 while remnants of LNP’s popular income and business support measures are still in place before that promised Return to Normalcy.

Hardly in the progressive traditions of the Menzies Government’s Vernon Report on the Australian economy in 1965 or Paul Keating’s Working Nation, the NSW Review offers more tinkering with existing and proposed reduced progressive taxation schedules.

Interested readers should look at the wordy Terms of Reference of the NSW Review on the NSW Treasury site and the background to the five assisting panelists assisting David Thodey.

Unlike the Vernon Inquiry, the NSW Review is silent about the big issues affecting Australia’s future including capital deficits and regional inequalities. Current tinkering with Australian tax systems and more largesse for the upper middle-income support base of the federal and state LNPs across Australia are unlikely avoid the turbulent times ahead in the mid-2020s as income and business support measures are wound back.

Long before the current COVID-19 public health crisis, economic conditions were already deteriorating when the NSW Review commenced its work in mid-2019. It is a long time since the Australian economy could offer a 4 per cent annual growth rate in the post-GFC recovery under the Gillard-Rudd Governments.




Since the release of the NSW Review, the latest national accounts show the deterioration in Australia’s national economy in the June Quarter data released on 27 August 2020:



Indicators like these, demand more than tinkering with taxation structures and ongoing rewards for the business and income support bases of the LNP at state and federal levels.

Fortunately, the NSW Review admits that Australia is not overtaxed by world standards when compared with those thirty-six other OECD countries:



The NSW Review rightly recommends a timely readjustment to national and state taxation.

The proposed prescriptions involve less overall emphasis on progressive taxation. There is support for more GST taxation which is blended with an evaluation of some expanded land and property taxes. Australian taxes on land and property taxes at all levels of government are the third lowest in the thirty-seven members states of the OECD. Most sections of the LNP at all levels of government will not wear any systematic reform of land and property taxes.

The Morrison Government sees reduced progressive taxation as the road to economic recovery and could be expected to side-line any discussion of progressive land and property taxes.

ABC News (6 October 2020) offered a preview of the reality of the tax changes ahead for differing income levels:


How much income tax will you save?
2020-21From 2021-2022From 2024-25
$255 per year$0 per year$0 per year
2020-21From 2021-2022From 2024-25
$1,530 per year$750 per year$2,125 per year
2020-21From 2021-2022From 2024-25
$2,430 per year$2,430 per year$11,505 per year


The NSW Review also raises the possibility of a less generous sharing of the national tax redistributions on behalf of more moderately diversified states like Queensland. Meanwhile, Tasmania retains its protected status with 62.6 per cent of that state’s revenue base in the latest 2018-19 budget derived from the Commonwealth in GST sharing and special grants.



The impact on the rescheduling of income tax grants would be bad news for the weaker state economies as shown by comparisons for unemployment rates in September 2020 (ABC News 15 October 2020):


Victoria had the lowest unemployment rate of the states, but that’s because many people could not look for work during the lockdown.(ABC News: Alistair Kroie)


The federal LNP’s tinkering with progressive taxation is a very long-term political agenda in the traditions of the Tax Revolution by conservative US administrations from Nixon, to Reagan, George W Bush and now Donald Trump.

This agenda should be threatening to disadvantaged sections of Australian society during the current COVID-19 recession. Reserve Bank (RBA) data shows the very unequal burdens which are accumulating during these difficult times. The top quintile of Australian society is already doing quite well. The LNP’s blind-spot is always the plight of the lowest quintile who would face higher GST rates and a drift away from redistributive progressive taxation schedules.


Statistical Postscripts Larger firms have had more success in weathering the national recession with a reduction of just one per cent in payrolls from firms with at least 200 employees compared with a fall of 7 per cent in firms with 20 to 200 employees.


Young people are disproportionately affected by the current job crisis across the nation and will be in dire straits when JobSeeker and JobKeeper programmes are wound back further by the federal LNP in an emphasis on that Return to Normalcy:



The Divided Nation shows up in the effects of employment changes by industrial groups. Sectors with high rates of part-time and casualised employment are badly affected by the current recession. In a statistical postscript, RBA notes that employment losses are largest in sectors with the lowest hourly pay-rates.

The federal LNP has been adept at selling its recent budget and foreshadowing the possibility of an early election in late 2021 on the divisive issue of Phase Three Tax Cuts.

The road to recovery according to the federal LNP is paved with more deviations from traditional progressive taxation agendas which are being reinforced by an ongoing commitment to legalized forms of tax avoidance  through family trusts, negative gearing of investments and dividend imputations to name some of the most common tax lurks for privileged families.

Australia’s leading economists do not share the federal LNP’s zeal for reducing our taxation base (The Conversation 27 September 2020):



However, some suggestions in the NSW Review have considerable merit. Payroll taxes in particular make very little contribution to national productivity and are at odds with transparent bipartisan business support measures.

“Payroll tax now comprises a lower share of state tax revenue than at the time of the Henry Review for New South Wales and Victoria and, revenue has grown roughly 0.7 percentage points slower on average than state operating expenditure.



Australia’s Long Tradition of Government Sector Intervention

It is in the political interests of the LNP to foster a lower progressive taxation take. This  Budget worked well at the 2019 federal election. The assumption that a lower taxation base will advance our post-COVID-19 future is so deeply entrenched in mainstream media reporting that progressive alternatives might be a motorway to the opposition benches at all levels of government.

The federal LNP’s taxation  priorities carry embedded assumptions that wage incentives additional training staff  and support for the business sector will turn-around the trend lines in private sector investment (PM’s Media Release, 9 October 2020):

“Getting money into the pockets of Australians will give them more to spend at their local shops helping to create more jobs.

Our business tax relief measures will also help to keep businesses to stay afloat, to grow and to hire more people.

It is estimated our tax relief package to reduce the personal income tax burden and encourage business investment will create around 100,000 jobs by the end of 2021-22 and boost GDP by around $6 billion in 2020‑21 and $19 billion in 2021-22.”


Australia Always Needed a New Direction

Both the NSW Review and the federal LNP Budget give little attention to Australia’s deplorable rates of private sector capital investment.

Colonial government across Australia prior to 1901 generally supported a high profile for state intervention particularly in the development of essential infrastructure. The weak spots in this colonial era’s style of economic expansion were Australia’s dependence on borrowing from the financial institutions of the City of London. A nation crippled by the enormous burdens of debts from the Great War (1914-18) made little headway in financial development during the inter-war period to 1939.

These new recessionary times during the COVID-19 era are unlikely to be rectified by a new dose of national austerity after the 2021 federal election. Joe Lyons tried such measures during the 1930s as Prime Minister and Treasurer.

Australia needs proactive measures to expand consumer spending and essential infrastructure with the support of new sources of local and overseas capital. Private sector capital formation has been in negative territory continuously since the March Quarter of 2019 as shown by the data from Trading Economics:


Australian Private Capital Expenditure


The United Nation’s UNCTAD World Investment Report is always worth reading for a peek into the future after Australia’s now expected federal election in late 2021.



“Global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows are forecast to decrease by up to 40% in 2020, from their 2019 value of $1.54 trillion, according to UNCTAD’s World Investment Report 2020.

This would bring FDI below $1 trillion for the first time since 2005. In addition, FDI is projected to decrease by a further 5% to 10% in 2021 and to initiate a recovery in 2022, the report says.

“The outlook is highly uncertain. Prospects depend on the duration of the health crisis and on the effectiveness of policies mitigating the pandemic’s economic effects,” said UNCTAD Secretary-General Mukhisa Kituyi.

The pandemic is a supply, demand and policy shock for FDI. The lockdown measures are slowing down existing investment projects. The prospect of a deep recession will lead multinational enterprises (MNEs) to reassess new projects. Policy measures taken by governments during the crisis include new investment restrictions.

Investment flows are expected to slowly recover starting 2022, led by global value chains (GVCs) restructuring for resilience, replenishment of capital stock and recovery of the global economy.”


 Global FDI Inflows, 2015–2019 and 2020–2022 Forecast


Eroding working conditions and commitments to reasonable progressive taxation schedules are no road to economic recovery.

Australia’s vast human and natural resources justify a repeat of those post-1945 reconstruction strategies which kept unemployment at a 1.9 per cent average between 1940-41 and 1973-74 when the first global shock-wave of the energy crisis pushed the average to 7.6 per cent for the next two decades as noted by Jeff Borland and Steven Kennedy in their paper for ABS in 1995:


Australian Unemployment Rate – 1900/01 to 1996/97


New challenges demand more than tinkering with progressive taxation schedules in the interests of political grandstanding to win a federal election for the LNP in late 2021. The current focus on lower taxes and more concessions for the business sector is unlikely to deliver the Post-COVID-19 Future as the welcome outcomes are all derivatives of ideological loyalties to the LNP’s market ideology (Australian Government’s Economic Recovery Plan).

A better style of sustainable economic and community planning might include more emphasis on social market agendas through public private partnerships (PPPs) which receive no mentions in the NSW Review.

Australian and especially overseas corporate sectors would surely want to have a stake in investment fund opportunities by credible financial institutions such as the national Future Fund and the Queensland Investment Fund (QIC) by offering discretionary dividends based on investment performance rather than the traditional fixed interest government loans which are still offered by NSW Treasury.

The non-discretionary dividends would be particularly attractive to overseas investors in our relatively strong national currency as shown by the long-term trends in conversion rates between the Aussie and US dollar:


Graph from


Overseas investment that is moderated by controls imposed by national and state investment funds assists in keeping our currency at optimum levels rather than the lower dollar rate preferred by successive federal LNP governments with added benefits to the diversification of Australian financial sectors which received no hits in that NSW Review.

These capital flows would fund investment deficit areas in the Australian economy such as sustainable energy plans, essential infrastructure, preventative health programmes and indigenous community and regional development programmes.

This is a very different Light on the Hill to Chifley’s vision which once kept average unemployment rates below 2 per cent until the arrival of the first energy crisis in the 1970s. Such opportunities are open again to both sides of politics if Australian governments can break out of that colonial cringe as welcomed by Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1992.

One thing is absolutely clear. Very little will come out of the NSW Review under the auspices of NSW Treasury and its team of panellists with their hearts set on a more neoliberal future in a divided society that is plodding Back to Normalcy.

Denis Bright is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). Denis is committed to citizen’s journalism from a critical structuralist perspective. Comments from insiders with a specialist knowledge of the topics covered are particularly welcome.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 4)

Continued from: Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 3)

By Outsider  

For over 200 years an ‘elite’ core of powerful ‘global’ leaders and grossly affluent individuals and foundations have promulgated the fear of over-population. They have persisted with devious, and some quite bizarre, schemes to control the earth’s population.

As already noted the eugenics ‘principles’ were advanced by Margaret Higgins Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League and later, in 1934, Planned Parenthood. Try as they may Planned Parenthood found it difficult to disguise Sanger’s eugenic legacy – by attempting to ignore her ‘negro project’ (It was one of the first major undertakings of the new Birth Control Federation of America, the product of a merger between the American Birth Control League and Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, and one of the more controversial campaigns of the birth control movement). However, as acknowledged by Alan Guttmacher, when he succeeded her as President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; “… we are merely walking down the path Mrs. Sanger carved out for us.” (E. Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (Cul Publications, New Hope, Kentucky, 1979, at 102).

It may help to explain here what Sanger meant when she spoke and wrote of using birth control and sterilisation “to eliminate human waste” and “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” In her Birth Control Review she promoted truly Nazi eugenics and white supremacy. As one contributor to Sanger’s Birth Control Review wrote: “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the pariahs or outcasts, who are gaining the fastest.”  She was not alone. Sanger’s same magazine published a favourable review by her lover, Havelock Ellis, of the book The Rising Tide of Color: Against White World Supremacy by T. Lothrop Stoddard (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1920). Ellis noted that Stoddard chose to “concern himself mainly with … the maintenance of White supremacy.” Ellis agreed that “by prejudice of color, we must mostly be on his side in this matter.” Ellis also shared his concern about African Americans: “the migrations of lower types, even within the white world, such as those which have worked havoc in the United States, must be rigorously curtailed.” Ellis also wrote the preface to Sanger’s 1920 book, Woman and the New Race, Brentano’s, New York 1920).

In a later Birth Control Review article, Sanger called for giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

In her autobiography she would recall: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan… I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses… I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak… In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (The Autobiography of Margaret Sanger, W.W. Norton, New York, 1938 at 366).

Sanger was, first and foremost, a eugenicist – one who believed in the ‘inferiority of non-white races’. In 1939 she proposed the infamous ‘Negro Project’, a plan which had its roots deeply steeped in Nazi ideals, and would be developed at the behest of public-health officials in southern states, where – she wrote – “the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Sanger also attempted to set up birth-control clinics in poor New York City neighbourhoods to target “Blacks, Hispanics, Slavs, Amerinds, Fundamentalists, Jews and Catholics.”

An even greater pursuit of eugenics might be levelled at the door of the Rockefellers. In the 1930s they funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany which directed the infamous eugenic schemes of the Third Reich. Hitler’s criminal practices brought embarrassment to eugenic sentiments but in no way halted the ambitions of the elite community committed to population control.

As already noted, the Wilhelm Institute – previously the Kraepelin Institute – as funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, invited the Swiss born psychiatrist, Dr. Ernst Rüdin to be its first head. He founded the German Society for Race Hygiene and was appointed by Heinrich Himmler to draft the Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses – the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, also known as the Sterilisation Law – adopted under Adolf Hitler’s signature in 1933. These laws were patterned after ‘Race Laws’ which had been drawn up by the Rockefeller organisation and introduced as statutes in the American State of Virginia.

Meanwhile, in the United States eugenics ideas were embraced by the setting up of the Human Betterment Foundation by philanthropist Ezra Seymour Gosney. Its first President Paul Bowman Popenoe (The Progress of Eugenical Sterilization, Journal of heredity, vol. 25:1, 1934) was also a member of the American Eugenic Society. This too was originally funded by John D. Rockefeller and Max Forrester Eastman. From these foundations the World Wide Population Control movement might be said to have grown.

German eugenic practices, seemingly an embarrassment, actually continued unabated amongst the political elite. For instance, Prof. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer – Dr. Josef Mengele’s mentor during the Nazi holocaust – Director in 1937 of the Third Reich Institute for Heredity, Biology and Racial Purity later founded, and continued actively within, the Institute of Human Genetics in Munster, until his death in 1969. He also remained a foreign member of the American Eugenics Society.

Nevertheless, the disturbing condemnation of the German eugenic experiments embarrassed the American Eugenics Society, and consequently its members transferred some support to the Family Planning Association, Planned Parenthood and later the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

In the United States other strong ties to eugenic views are connected with the Draper family.

In 1932 General William Henry Draper Jr. provided the finances for the Third International Eugenics Congress in New York and facilitated the appointment of Dr. Ernst  Rüdin  as Chief of the World Eugenics Movement – The International  Federation of Eugenic Societies. General Draper went on to form the Population Crisis Committee/Council, recruiting the respected Generals William Childs Westmoreland and Maxwell Davenport Taylor to activate Zero Population Control Strategies. These activities were sponsored by funds from the Rockefeller and Du Pont Foundations.

General Draper, as advisor to President Lyndon Baines Johnson, also recommended the setting up of the United States Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.), which was instrumental in financing ‘birth control’ and ‘population control’ schemes in tropical countries. This was said to safeguard America from the threat of development in ‘over populated’ countries.

In addition General Draper took a leading role in Planned Parenthood becoming an active Vice Chairman. In 1966 he was one of the first recipients of the Margaret Sanger award; “for his singular contributions … to resolve the world population crisis.” In the early 1970s he was appointed by President Richard Milhous Nixon to the United Nations Population Commission.

The general’s son, William Henry Draper lll, became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Deputy Advisor on National Security in the George Herbert Walker Bush presidency. He served, amongst other Boards, on the Population Action International formed out of the Population Crisis Committee founded by his father.

Another of the Draper clan was Wickliffe Preston Draper the founder of The Pioneer Fund in 1937. This was one of the most controversial non-profit organisations in the United States involved with the funding of plain, ‘scientific’ racism. In 1986 he was appointed to Head the United Nations Development Programme and, as Director of the U.S.A.I.D., according to a 1991 report he prepared, he “… assisted 254 million couples to be surgically sterilized over the 90s.”

The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (U.N.F.P.A.) now claims that 37 per cent of Ibero-American and Caribbean women have been sterilised.

In 1969 the setting up of the U.N.F.P.A. could be traced to Julian Sorell Huxley, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist and internationalist, largely responsible for the foundation of U.N.E.S.C.O. in 1947. Huxley had close links with the British Population Investigation Commission and the Eugenics Society.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, Professor Glanville Williams, Fellow of the Eugenics Society-England and author of The Sanctity of Life and Criminal Law (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1957), was one of the elite few boldly to expose the ideology of population control when he commented: “since industrialisation, the upper stratum of society fail to replace themselves, while the population as a whole is increased by excess births among the lower and uneducated classes.” In addition, Professor Williams’ book had a remarkable influence upon the case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, the landmark legal decision delivered on 22 January 1973, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, and effectively legalising the procedure across the United States This was reflected in comments made by Justice Blackmun, in the majority verdict, concerning the definition, or lack thereof, of personhood.

Nevertheless the Rockefeller Foundation continued its support of eugenics, both in the United States and overseas. In Japan, for instance, it continued to support the initiatives undertaken in favour of legalised abortion approved under the Eugenic Protection Act. (J. B. Sharpless, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council and the Groundwork for New Population Policies, Rockefeller Archive Center Newsletter, Fall, 1993). Preservation of Japanese homogeneity was necessitated, amongst other reasons, because of the more obvious consequences of post-war American occupation.

In 1952, in company with Major General Frederick Henry Osborn, former President of the American Eugenics Society, John Davison Rockefeller Jr. founded the Population Council which, in more recent days, has been associated to the promotion and production of the pill RU 486.

One other tributary flowing from the leaders of the Human Betterment Foundation was the formation of the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception – A.V.S.C.. Another incarnation used the name Birthright International. A.V.S.C. has been at the forefront of pro-coercive or other encouragement, for sterilisation and contraception as population control measures; embracing abortion and other ‘reproductive health’ projects. In March 2001 A.V.S.C. became Engender Health.

In 1966 population control was officially authorised by the United Nations General Assembly by commending nations willing to decrease their populations. The following year the United Nations Fund for Population Activities – U.N.F.P.A. was launched. Other U.N. organisations, U.N.E.S.C.O., the United Nations Development Fund – U.N.D.F. and the United Nations Children’s Fund – U.N.I.C.E.F. continue to support the population control incentives of U.N.F.P.A.

In 1971 the International Planned Parenthood Federation was recognised by the United Nations as a major Non-governmental organisation and associate of U.N. Economic and Social Control, U.N.I.C.E.F. and the World Health Organisation and attracted hefty financial support. (S. Mosher, McNamara’s Folly: Bankrolling Family Planning, Population Research Review 13, no. 2. (March/April 2003 at 2).

In 1968 the World Bank had already determined that its foreign aid funding would be tied to population control advances. The World Bank moreover, has for over thirty years, provided in excess of $2.5 billion in grants to 130 reproductive health projects in some seventy countries. And in company with massive private funding from the foundations established by billionaires and their foundations – Rockefeller, Bergstrom, Buffett, Gates, Hewlett, Packard, Soros, Turner et cetera – the World Bank and the United Nations Population Fund, formerly the United Nations Fund for Population Activities – U.N.F.P.A. continue to provide incredibly large financial contributions for ‘population control’ projects. Many of them are co-ordinated through the International Planned Parenthood Federation and associated like organisations such as The Population Council, the Concept Foundation, EngenderHealth, IPAS – an international, non-governmental organisation which promotes access to safe abortions and contraception,  Pathfinder International, a global non-profit organization which concentrates on reproductive health, family planning, HIV/AIDS prevention and care, and maternal health, et cetera.

In 1968 the imaginations of a new elite family of ‘over-population scare mongers’, were stirred when Paul Ralph Ehrlich published his The Population Bomb (Sierra Club/Ballantine Books, San Francisco, CA). This was followed in 1991 when Ehrlich and his wife Anne, wrote The Population Explosion (Touchstone Books, New York)

As already noted, particular emphasis on racial aspects of population control can be traced to Henry Kissinger, who, in 1974, took responsibility for the National Security Study Memo 200. This memo discussed the implications of population growth. Essentially, it stated that population growth in the developing world would lead to a desire for self determination of their economies. Proposals were then made to see that their populations were controlled. Even so, this fact was to be withheld from the countries’ leaders. Amongst the countries specifically targeted were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, Colombia and Indonesia.

In the light of contemporary issues it is interesting to note some of the proposals put forward by the Club of Rome as outlined in 1991 by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. (The First Global Revolution, Pantheon Books, New York ). “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution; the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … the real enemy is humanity itself” (at 115).

So the web of ‘population control’ unfolds but one intriguing aspect remains. Twenty years before Mikhail Gorbachev and Stephen Rockefeller and Maurice Strong launched their draft of a new ‘Earth Charter’ before the United Nations Assembly, in June 1979 a man operating under the pseudonym of  R.C. Christian – who in fact might have been one Robert Carter Cook – contracted the Elberton Granite Finishing Company, from Elbert County, Georgia U.S.A. to erect the Georgia Guidestones.

These stones represent a new – humanistic – ten commandments, ‘Ten Commandments of the New World Order’ for ‘Mother Earth’. They are articulated along four principles:

  1. Reducing the world population
  2. Promoting environmentalism
  3. Establishing a world government, and
  4. Promoting a new [world] spirituality.

The 1st Commandment demanded that a stable world population of just 500,000,000, “in perpetual balance with nature,” was to be an initial goal.

The others are:

  • Guide reproduction wisely, improving fitness and diversity.
  • Unite humanity with a living new language.
  • Rule passion, faith, tradition, and all things with tempered reason.
  • Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  • Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  • Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  • Balance personal rights with social duties.
  • Prize truth, beauty, love, seeking harmony with the infinite.
  • Be not a cancer on the Earth; leave room for nature; leave room for nature.

By 1996, what had started in the late eighteenth century with Thomas Robert Malthus. who sounded the alarm that the population would outstrip the food supply, had been taken up in 1968 by Paul Ralph Ehrlich in his bestselling book The Population Bomb, for which he even organised the Zero Population Growth – later renamed Population Connection – arguing that the growth in global population would lead to famines and ecological crisis, and even suggested that people have no more than two children, a member of the Zero Population Growth struck out on his own with a much more radical agenda. One Les Knight launched the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (V.H.E.M.) with the goal of “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed.”

The V.H.E.M. is an environmental movement which calls for all people to abstain from reproduction and thus the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind, thereby allowing the Earth’s biosphere to return to good health.

The motto of the Movement is: “May we live long and die out.” Les Knight of V.H.E.M. avowed: “No matter what you’re doing to improve life on planet Earth, I think you’ll find that phasing out the human race will increase your chance of success.” And “The sooner we go extinct, the greater the biological diversity we’ll leave behind to carry on.”

To be continued …

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Dan Andrews stares down the lynch mob

By Ad astra  

If you detest Dan Andrews and want him gone, stop reading now. What follows will not please you.

As a citizen of Victoria I am incensed by the continual attacks on our premier. It’s not surprising that the State Opposition leader, the hapless Michael O’Brien, attacks Andrews in his usual censorious manner. But why are so many others targeting Andrews, who tries so earnestly, day after day, to do his best for us, the people of Victoria? Notwithstanding the mistakes he concedes he has made, who could doubt his sincerity, his earnestness, his diligence and his devotion to his job?

His attackers resemble a lynch mob, determined to string him up. Who are they?

I’m referring to people who work in the media. Journalists, news editors of print and electronic outlets, proprietors, and the moguls who control the media; you know who they are.

To get the anti-Andrews drift, you have only to read the newspaper headlines, watch the top stories on TV, or listen to the comments of the political elite.

But for a daily dose of political aggression and arrogance, listen to Andrews’ daily briefings on COVID-19. Without fail, he turns up to update us and to answer questions. He stays at the lectern until those present have exhausted their questions. It is not the number of questions that are directed to him that best characterise lynch mob behaviour; it is the tone of them, the arrogance they portray.

Many of his interrogators seem angry with him, keen to trip him up, eager to embarrass him, hell bent on making him uncomfortable. His calm, measured responses annoy them, so they up the ante with more assertive questions that cast doubts about the veracity of his answers. Words such as ‘surely’, ‘wouldn’t you agree’, ‘you must admit’ embellish their questions. Those who lead the lynch mob ask the same questions over and again, Now they are asking: ”Will you now resign?” Every time he offers them the same answer.

Those of you who have chooks will be familiar with the ‘pecked chook’ syndrome, where one chook is set upon by the others, who will peck it to death unless it is separated from them. They attack the head of the hapless chook until it bleeds. The blood evokes more frenzied pecking, and so on it goes until the poor animal is dead. The lynch mob displays such behaviour.

The same mob is there day after day. Andrews knows them by name. Watch them. Listen to their words. Observe the tone of their questions. Note their persistence with the same line of questioning. You can’t miss the pleasure they display as they peck away, hoping they can upstage their colleagues by drawing the first blood.

One inquisitor appears every day to lead the mob. Her questions are always acerbic, aggressive and accusatory.

Andrews often points out that his inquisitors have asked the same question time and again, and that his answer is the same. Clearly, he becomes frustrated, tired of the repetitive questions. But he patiently stays at the lectern until they run dry. And returns the next day for another round. His patience seems to have no bounds.

Recently, he has wisely exposed some of his team to the questioning ordeal. It has taken some heat off him, but has not tempered the questions.

Never willing to miss an opportunity, Morrison government ministers wait in the wings ready to take peck at him. Greg Hunt and Josh Frydenberg, and now Alan Tudge, acting immigration minister, have relished being a proxy for PM Morrison, who has chosen to keep his nose clean by hiding in the background. In the past few days, they have chosen to provoke Andrews by enabling arrivals in Victoria without notice. These people have simply appeared without proper documentation and some have on-travelled elsewhere, leaving Andrews astonished and angry. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they were trying deliberately to provoke him.

Perhaps though, what has annoyed the lynch mob most is that Andrews’ strategy for controlling the spread of COVID-19 in Victoria has worked. The number of cases has been falling steadily. This past weekend, record low figures were achieved. As a result, restrictions have been eased, as promised, with more to come next weekend.

Whatever he does though, it will never be right, never enough for his detractors.

The painful reality for the lynch mob though is that Andrews has stared them down, and they don’t like it.

This daily inquisition is demeaning, unnecessary, unbecoming, and a pox on our politics. It must now stop.

This article was originally published on The Political Sword

For Facebook users, The Political Sword has a Facebook page:
Putting politicians and commentators to the verbal sword

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Sloppy Methodology: Social Media, Censorship and New York Post’s Hunter Biden Story

It was highly probable. Given the howls of concern that social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook nurse and nurture a bias (every choice on content entails one), a gift was made to critics to show just that. Last Wednesday, Twitter prevented users from posting links to a New York Post story. The story, claimed Twitter, was “potentially unsafe,” replete with “hacked materials”. Those attempting to post links to the article faced a terse message. “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.” Facebook followed suit by restricting the story’s spread, placing it in the hands of third-party fact checkers.

The article in question featured Hunter Biden, making mention of an alleged email from April 2015 suggesting that he had introduced his father, Democratic presidential contender and former Vice President Joe Biden, to Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy firm. “Dear Hunter,” goes this email supposedly obtained by the Post, “thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent[sic] some time together. It’s realty[sic] an honor and pleasure.”

The email correspondence had been purportedly obtained from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, though the owner of the computer repair store who passed on the material to the FBI and one Rudy Giuliani was unsure if Hunter had left the computer with him. Thin stuff to go on.

Father Biden repeatedly claims to have never discussed his son’s “overseas business dealings” with him. The Biden election campaign has also denied that the meeting ever took place. “We have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”

At another time, the move by the platform might have caused a shrug of indifference. But Biden is leading in the polls. Every anti-Trump agitator is concerned to ease the pathway for the president’s defeat. Every advocate for Trump is keen to ensure that flames are lit under his opponent.

Republicans saw horror and golden opportunities, using a narrative long deployed by the Democrats against the Trump administration and the GOP: that social media platforms had become the unwitting, or even witting accomplices to electoral interference and misinformation glee. “This is a power grab from big tech billionaires drunk on their own power,” fumed Texas Senator Ted Cruz in a Saturday press call. “This is a direct act of electoral interference,” asserted GOP House Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). “We ask: did anyone at Twitter communicate with the Biden campaign? Did the Joe Biden campaign have any communications with Twitter, Facebook?”

Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, could also lay some claim to being victimised – in a fashion. Her personal Twitter account was locked after she posted the article late on Wednesday. On Thursday, Twitter momentarily blocked a link to a House Judiciary Committee webpage.

It was all too much for the Republican National Committee, which filed a Federal Election Complaint against Twitter on Friday arguing that censoring Post’s article constituted an “illegal corporate in-kind political contribution” to Biden’s campaign. Twitter, the complaint argued, had “engaged in arguably the most brazen and unprecedented act of media suppression in this country’s history, and it is doing so for the clear purpose of supporting the Biden campaign.”

For his part, President Donald Trump released a few volleys of rage. “So terrible that Facebook and Twitter took down the story of ‘Smoking Gun’ emails related to Sleepy Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in the @NYPost.”



With what can only be seen as another twist of Cleo’s irony, Trump again suggested the repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the very same provision his detractors also argue should be confined to legislative oblivion. The section grants legal immunity to internet platforms for enabling users to post content. It also provides a “Good Samaritan” clause enabling platforms to remove or block material deemed offensive.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration issued a scrappy, clumsy proposal to reform section 230 that would penalise companies for removing material while sparing others. The proposal attempts to challenge company immunity for hosting material provided by a third party. Platforms, or “interactive computer services” would only be able to claim immunity from suit if they removed or restricted access or availability to such content falling within a range of objectionable categories. These include material “promoting self-harm,” and “promoting terrorism or violent extremism” though definitions are left begging. As to how one is to arrive at such a standard, it is that of an objective, reasonable belief.

Biden is of like mind – at least in terms of his loathing for section 230. The stance there, as it has been for the entire anti-Trump coterie, is holding social media companies to account for knowingly disseminating misinformation and falsehoods. (The knowing element tends to be the problem.) In his January interview with The New York Times, Biden argued for its immediate revocation. “For [Mark] Zuckerberg and other platforms.” A company such as Facebook was not “merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods we know to be false.” There was “no editorial impact at all.” It was “totally irresponsible.”

The decision by Twitter and Facebook regarding the New York Post article recklessly adds fuel to GOP claims. While it was being celebrated by Kevin Roose in The New York Times as an indication that Facebook and Twitter were “finally starting to clean up their messes,” there was little by way of elucidation. Cristina Tardáguila of the International Fact-Checking Network had a few questions for Facebook. What was their methodology in such cases? “How do they identify what needs to be less distributed?” Could such decisions ever eschew partisanship?

Twitter’s decisions had not been well-argued or well-reasoned. The Post episode moved chief executive Jack Dorsey to an admission. “Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM [direct message] with zero context as to why we’re blocking: unacceptable.”

The storm duly caused a change of heart. The high priests of social media went about their business of tinkering and readjusting content policies. “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong,” Dorsey reiterated, “and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix. Our goal is to attempt to add context, and now we have capabilities to do that.”

Vijaya Gadde, speaking for the Twitter collective as the company’s global lead for legal, policy, and trust and safety, claimed “that labelling Tweets and empowering people to assess content for themselves better serves the public interest and public conversation. The Hacked Material Policy is being updated to reflect these new enforcement rules.”

According to Gadde, Twitter would no longer remove hacked content except the sort “directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them.” Not exactly a rousing change. Tweets would also be labelled “to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter.” Contextualised editorialising – of a sort.

The implications for such a decision are not small fare. Twitter’s decision to limit dissemination of the article for having content supposedly hacked was a scolding gesture to the way material is obtained. In the miasmic terror of foreign interference, bias and how electoral contests might tip in favour of or against the ogre in the White House, perspectives on what can be discussed and spread have been skewed. What of purloined material that exposes state or corporate misdemeanour, the bread and butter enterprise of such groups as Anonymous? With this rationale, as Glenn Greenwald noted with characteristic seriousness, reporting on everything from the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers would find itself restricted, if not blocked altogether. A real boon for the censors.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 3)

Continued from: Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 2)

By Outsider  

Eugenic views quickly spread to Europe and Australia.

Australia has an Indigenous history of at least 60,000 years. Before the English invasion in 1788 most of the inhabitants of Australia were isolated from the rest of the world.

The Indigenous People of Australia were labelled ‘Aborigines’ by the invaders. Etymologically the word fits: it is a Latin word from ‘ab’ meaning origin, and ‘origin’ meaning from the beginning. But it came to carry a racist meaning as the occupation progressed. Indigenous People account for about three per cent of the modern Australian population.

The Indigenous population of Australia at the time of the invasion might have been between 300,000 and 1,000,000. They lived in small communities with social and religious customs in common. Like all other societies, their technology, food and hunting practices varied according to the local environment.

Most lived in the southern and eastern regions in the Murray River Valley, the same coastal regions most heavily populated today. Those who practice traditional aspects of Indigenous life currently live in desert areas where the presence of the new-comers is sparse.

From the late eighteenth century, during the powerful and imperialist expansion of the new-comers, the Indigenous population was dispossessed of their land and killed in very large numbers. The interpretation of this history in Australia is disputed and debated in what are commonly referred to as the ‘history wars’, with ‘conservative’ historians arguing that the horror and brutality of the past is being exaggerated for political reasons. For a serious position on the subject one should go to the works of professor Henry Reynolds – some seventeen of them, from Aborigines and Settlers: the Australian Experience, 1788–1939 (ed) Cassell Australia, No. Melbourne, 1972 to Unnecessary Wars, NewSouth Books, Sydney, 2016)

The invaders regarded themselves as the ‘colonisers’, why – the ‘civilisers’, of Australia in 1788. Most of them spoke and those who are ‘exposed to Australian history’ still speak of the great Judeo-Christian civilisation which was imported by the invaders. The invaders discharged a huge dose of a product which has propagated and remains a distinguished contribution to a ‘white society’: a huge dose of English, or British, or Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy. Massacres accompanied the expansion of the frontier. Many Indigenous communities resisted the invaders, but the original people of Australia suffered one of the biggest attempted exterminations in history.

Between 1788 and 1900, the Indigenous population of Australia was reduced by 90 per cent. The disappearance of the Indigenous People in southeast Australia was so rapid that it was believed that they would all soon die out.

Apart from loss of access to land, and death by violent force of arms, infectious diseases like chickenpox, smallpox, influenza and measles killed many. Indigenous People still have a deep spiritual and cultural connection to the land so, being forced off their traditional land, caused the disintegration of social cohesion.

In the first part of the twentieth century, the racial theories of Social Darwinism were popular in Australia and were used to attempt to justify the invaders’ treatment of the Indigenous People, as ‘sub-human’, ‘primitive’ and an ‘inferior race’. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is an act octroyé by the Imperial Parliament in 1901, was – and in parts still is – deeply discriminatory. Later, the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 established camps to provide a place for the ‘doomed race to die off’, as – it was desired and thought – the Indigenous People would ‘inevitably become extinct’. They sadly disappointed the new-comers.

Their policy allowed many Indigenous People to be treated like experimental animals. In the 1920s and 30s thousands of Indigenous People all over Australia were subjected to ‘scientific’ investigation into brain capacity and cranium size. Australian fascination with eugenics is similar to the obsession of Nazi Germany society in relation to the Jews and the other Ungeziefer, vermin in the 1930s and early 1940s.

An Australian Professor of Anatomy said in 1926 that Indigenous People were: “Too low in the scale of humanity’ to benefit from ‘the civilising influence of Anglo Saxon rule.”

In 1929 an Australian anthropologist wrote that: “… Some races possess certain powers in greater degree … than do others. Thus, the Australian Aborigines and the African Negroes are human and have their powers, but they are not necessarily equal to the white or yellow races.”

Scientists at the British Museum in London became interested in studying a people they saw as being on the ‘brink of extinction’. The Indigenous People were subjected to ‘scientific’ research to establish if they were closer to apes than humans.

A shallow sea separates the island state of Tasmania from the rest of Australia. In 1803 the British landed on Tasmania and soon established it as a colony. They began a deliberate campaign to exterminate the Indigenous population, a ‘mission’ which lasted between 1820s and 1832. They called that The Black war. It was actually genocide. By 1830 the Indigenous Tasmanians were almost completely wiped out. Those who survived were rounded up and removed to Flinders Island, off the north-eastern tip of Tasmania. The official stated aim of this isolation was to ‘protect and save them’.

With the same indifference for the truth, a recent tourism website advertising Tasmania officially promoted, informed any intending visitor that in 1830 George Augustus Robinson, British Protector of Aborigines, started ‘his mission to protect Aborigines’ and take them to a settlement on Flinders Island.

In 1856 the few surviving Tasmanian Indigenous People on Flinders Island, including a resistance hero called Truganini, were moved to another settlement. Truganini was the sole survivor of this group, and she was moved to yet another settlement. She died three years later, and was buried. After two years, her remains were exhumed by the Royal Society of Tasmania and placed on public display. In 1976 on the centenary of her death, her remains were finally incinerated and scattered in the sea in accordance with her wishes.

Social Darwinism is by no means dead. For example, the Encyclopedia  Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite CD Rom 2003 Edition states that “The original Tasmanians were an anthropologically interesting Negritoid people, with the widest nasal index ever recorded and shorter and broader heads than the Aboriginal peoples of the continental mainland.” Interestingly the ‘original invaders’ are not described in terms of their physical appearance! (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003, Ultimate Reference Suite).

Children of mixed Indigenous and new-comer descent were labelled ‘half-castes’ and considered a threat to so-called ‘racial purity’. A policy based on eugenics theory had these children taken away from their parents “to breed the blackness out of them.” Between 1910 and 1970 up to 100,000 Indigenous children were taken forcibly from their families. Parents were not told where their children were and could not trace them, and children were told that they were orphans.

It had been all the way convenient to the Australian racist governments to assume that Indigenous People were ‘dying out’, thus solving ‘the problem’. An ‘assimilation programme’ was introduced to eliminate those of mixed descent. This was done by the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families. These children are often referred to as the ‘Stolen Generations’. A National Inquiry was set up in 1995 and found that forcible removal of Indigenous children was a gross violation of human rights. It was racially discriminatory, and an act of genocide. (Bringing them Home, Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, April 1997). The invaders and the new-comers appeared to be convinced that ‘white, Christian families’ and ‘boarding schools’ were the best environment in which to rear Indigenous children. ‘Good Christians’ believed (maybe continued to pretend) that what they were doing was ‘protecting them’ and was ‘best for them’, whether the children or their parents liked it or not. (The spread of these ideas to Europe and Australia, The article was produced for South African history online on 22 May 2011).

After the Royal Ambush of the Whitlam Government in November 1975 nothing serious was done to remedy the condition of Indigenous People. The recommendations of the 1997 Report were largely disregarded. There followed committee after committee, mainly to assuage ‘the conscience’ of the Westminster parties in Canberra. There was a belated apology – but no reparation, no compensation of the victims. There were more committees, studies, reports. Even a thoughtless contemplation of ‘double sovereignty’ – Royal and Indigenous – was quickly dismissed by a ‘liberal’ but ‘Elizabethan’ prime minister. In the meantime the new-comers made room in Parliament for some ‘reformed’ Indigenous: a senate seat here, a ministerial position there. An inarticulate ‘reconciliation’ is talked about, a cretinous slogan of unity is offered, and risks becoming  Australian national anthem and replacing the already periodically modified, what for  inclusiveness and gender neutrality – and never mind decency: ‘Advance Australia fair’. The silly product of a marketeer’s effort: “I am, you are … ” is commonly taught in primary schools, thus replacing serious history with counterfeiting rubbish. That is not reform, it is not truth-telling; it is at best the bad performance by amateur colonials of some work not even of the quality of Gilbert & Sullivan. Meanwhile, the Indigenous People are filling the gaols, and the cemeteries in increasing numbers. The genocide attempted two hundred years ago moves on slowly, very slowly, as it becomes a phlegmatic, indifferent populace and its institutions.

Eugenics – the ‘science’ of ‘improving the race’ – remained a powerful  influence on the development of ‘Western civilisation’, and in Australia, Melbourne’s elite was among its chief proponents.

In the period across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries all the institutions and practices of modern societies came into being and eugenics played an important role in moulding them.

An important leader of a loose alignment of like-thinking middle class academics and doctors was the Professor of Anatomy at Melbourne University from 1903 to 1929, Richard James Arthur Berry. His influence extended beyond the university, which still has a building bearing his name, to some of the most important members of the city’s society.

There was a short-lived Eugenics Education Society, but until the founding of the Eugenics Society of Victoria in 1936 eugenicists operated primarily as a pressure group within the university, the education department and various government agencies and committees.

Important legislation, in the form of three Mental Deficiency Bills, was presented to parliament in 1926, 1929 and 1939 by Premier Stanley Seymour Argyle, a medical practitioner himself and a friend and colleague of Berry.

The bill aimed to institutionalise and potentially to sterilise a significant proportion of the population – those seen as ‘inefficient’. Under such category were slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, as well as those with small heads and with low intelligence quotient. The Indigenous Population was also seen to fall within this group.

The first two attempts to enact the bill failed not because of any significant opposition but, rather, because of the unstable political climate and the instability of governments.

The third attempt in 1939 was passed unanimously, but not enacted in the first instance because of the outbreak of the second world war and, later, due to the ‘embarrassment’ of the Holocaust. Some of the many Australian admirers of Mussolini and Hitler ‘suffered that embarrassment’ – and no more.

Other state parliaments were also inspired to promote such legislation by Berry’s many town hall lectures across the nation.

An important Royal Commission in the 1920s also had recommended a range of eugenic reforms including measures relating to child endowment, marriage laws and pensions. Perhaps the culmination of all this activity was the commissioning of a national survey of mental deficiency by the Federal Minister for health, Neville Reginald Howse, a medical doctor, in 1928. It was carried out by Berry’s colleague, the Chief Inspector for the Insane in Victoria, William Ernest Jones. Jones claimed that the statistics collected showed the incidence of mental deficiency was rising, mainly due to genetics, and was more often found in the working class. He concluded that urgent government action was required along the lines previously championed by Berry. The survey was tabled before parliament and created a sensation in the press.

Little happened, however, as the government fell and the Great Depression hit the nation. The Director of the Department of Health, Dr. John  Howard Lidgett Cumpston, claimed that the dire financial situation destroyed any chance of reform.

Another important influence of eugenic thinking was found in the development of post-primary education in Victoria.

The most important educationists involved in the development of secondary and technical schools in Victoria were either active in eugenic circles or closely associated with Berry. Perhaps the most influential, the first director of education, Frank Tate, was associated on most important government bodies with Berry and strongly supported his research on head size and, on occasions, introduced his public lectures.

Others, such as the first Director of the Carnegie funded Australian Council for Educational Research, Dr. Kenneth Stewart Cunningham, as well as one of the most significant early psychologists, Dr. Christopher Ralph McRae, published research claiming to show that working class children were unfit for academic secondary education and the university study that it led to.

Professor McRae replicated in Melbourne suburbs research carried out in a variety of different socio-economic suburbs of London. He subsequently reported in the Victorian Education Gazette – which was sent out to every state school primary teacher – that those in schools in poorer suburbs “will never go to university and should not follow the same curriculum … as people live in slums because they are mentally deficient and not vice-versa.” As a consequence, in this period the Victorian Education Department set up technical schools in the poorer suburbs of Melbourne with just a few academic high schools.

In comparison, in New South Wales the Director of Education, Peter Board, vigorously opposed such thinking and championed higher education opportunity for all. Many more state school children in New South Wales were given an academic secondary education and went on to university.

Richard Berry returned to England in 1929 but others took up the mantle, founding the Eugenics Society of Victoria. Its membership read like a who-is-who of Melbourne’s elite including the Chief Executive Officer of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research – the precursor to the C.S.I.R.O., the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, the President of the Royal College of Physicians and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Although the aims of the Society included supporting the sterilisation of mentally defectives, more and more they were involved in environmental reforms – such as slum clearance – and the birth control movement.

In Britain Richard Berry continued to preach his uncompromising theory of ‘rotten heredity.’ In 1934 he would argue that to eliminate mental deficiency would require the sterilisation of twenty-five per cent of the population. At the same time he also advocated the ‘kindly euthanasia’ of the ‘unfit’.  But his legacy in Australia continued, with the Eugenics Society of Victoria operating until 1961.  Melbourne may wish to forget its dark past, but the powerful leaders of the eugenics movement once controlled the city, and their beliefs influenced a generation. (R.L. Jones, Eugenics in Australia: The secret of Melbourne’s elite, The Conversation, 20.09.2011).

A major part of the eugenics agenda remained the sterilisation of those considered to be ‘unfit for procreating’. To weed out ‘undesirables’ and to create a ‘perfect race’, the selection of some for sterilisation – and worse – has always been the obsessive preoccupation of the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ and their descendants. In the first half of the twentieth century it was the major concern of Margaret Louise Higgins Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood which would evolve into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She was a leading birth control activist, feminist, nurse, and sex educator; she helped finance Gregory Goodwin Pincus, the American endocrinologist whose work on the antifertility properties of steroids led to the development of the first effective birth-control pill. Sanger was one of the most infamous proponents of eugenics during her time. But when the ultimate eugenics experiment occurred – the Nazis ‘Final Solution’ – just about everything relating to eugenics gained a pretty bad name, and most supporters went quiet – for a while. It does not mean that the world was through with eugenics.

The ‘science’ continues to raise its ugly head in ‘civilised Western societies’, but in slightly more subtle forms than witnessed in Nazi Germany.

The term itself of course was coined by Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, in 1883. It means ‘good birth’ and it has to do with ‘selective breeding’ and ‘tinkering with hereditary’ in order ‘to improve’ the human race. Weeding out undesirable life is a big part of this. One may recall at this point the full title of Darwin’s famous 1859 work: The origin of species, By means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

Advocates for ‘improving the human race’ were many, and plenty of schemes were implemented to do just that. Hitler of course famously sought to purge the human race of ‘unfit elements’ and create a ‘super race of blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryans’. After unleashing the second world war during which an estimated 70-85 million people perished and exterminating six million Jews, one would have hoped that it was the end of eugenics.

But cases of it keep occurring, and vigilance is always required. Eugenics was still being considered in Australia less than ten years ago. In 2011 the Western Australian government released a draft bill on mental health, for which there were some very ominous and frightening recommendations. The 271 page report was open for public discussion. It was really intended that the public would be aware of this bill, and discuss it. Major concerns were to be found at pages 135-136 where one read about recommendations for the sterilisation of children, without the need of parental consent. The relevant clause read:

209. Requirements for sterilisation procedure.

A person must not perform a sterilisation procedure on a person who has a mental illness unless –

(a) if the person is a child who does not have sufficient maturity or understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to himself or herself – the Family Court has authorised the sterilisation procedure to be performed; or

(b) if the person –

(i) is a child who has sufficient maturity and understanding to make reasonable decisions about matters relating to himself or herself; or

(ii) has reached 18 years of age and has the capacity required by section 12 to give informed consent to the sterilisation procedure being performed, the person has given informed consent to it being performed; or

(c) if the person has reached 18 years of age but does not have the capacity required by section 12 to give informed consent to the sterilisation procedure being performed – the person’s enduring guardian or guardian has given consent in accordance with the Guardianship Act Part 5 Division 3 to it being performed.

Penalty: imprisonment for 5 years.

210. Chief Psychiatrist and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board: report.

As soon as practicable after a sterilisation procedure is performed on a person who has a mental illness, the treating psychiatrist must report to –

(a) the Chief Psychiatrist; and

(b) if the person is a mentally impaired accused, the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board, that the procedure was performed.”

A number of other features of the bill were also a cause for concern, including the following:

  • 12 year olds being able to consent to psychosurgery – pp. 108, 109, 110, 197,198, 199, 213;
  • 12 year olds being able to consent to electroshock – pp. 100, 101, 103, 104, 194, 105;
  • the restraint and seclusion of children – pp. 122, 121, 113, 246;
  • the involuntary commitment of children – pp. 21, 22, 35, 19, 107, 36, 53, 54, 183 -185, 190, 191, 213, 214,18, 46, 47, 48, 65, 66, 70, 73, 75-77.”

Of course all governments may regulate mental health issues at least to some extent, and there may be much in the proposed bill which is not of concern, or in fact helpful. But some of these issues seemed to be of genuine concern. Legislators, doctors and scientists all have a role to play, but if allowed to go unchecked, then they may also cause great damage.

Unnecessary alarmism is to be avoided, but so too must be a lack of awareness and a lack of concern.

A century ago Gilbert Keith Chesterton wrote a prophetic work entitled Eugenics and other evils: An argument against the scientifically organized state. In it he said: “The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statues, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen – that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the government will really help it to persecute its heretics… I am not frightened of the word ‘persecution’… It is a term of legal fact. If it means the imposition by the police of a widely disputed theory, incapable of final proof – then our priests are not now persecuting, but our doctors are.”

From a similarly religiously biased position Clive Staples Lewis put it this way in The problem of pain: “Once the old Christian idea of a total difference in kind between man and beast has been abandoned, then no argument for experiments on animals can be found which is not also an argument for experiments on inferior men. If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.” Or children for that matter.

The bill was eventually amended and a Western Australian Mental Health Act 2014 ensued. Presently discrimination on the ground of mental illness is covered by anti-discrimination legislation in Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, and in the Australian Capital Territory. The New South Wales law extends only to “physical” and “intellectual” disability – which leaves people with mental illness in a difficult position. (Proposed new Mental Health Bill Australia – Children to be Sterilized. 12 Year Olds Can Consent to Psychosurgery and Electroshock!, and Australian Eugenics?).

To be continued …

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Ruby-faced Gladys

By John Haly  

Poor old gullible Gladys #koalakiller Berejiklian has all the emotional desires, so many of us have, and the demands of a taxing job that exacerbates her needs. She has always known she might have a lot to deal with, which explains why she has consolidated so many public departments. She just had to silence so many disparate voices making weekly demands of her, to lessen her obligations so that she could focus on matters of the heart. I mean, how many of us have not made the perfect choice of partners, that in later years reflectively ask, “WTF was I thinking?” Give her a break; it was a one-off mistake. “Princess” Gladys’s ruby complexion is a reflection of her private embarrassment. Her handling of public matters, although, has been exemplary – according to her liberal colleagues. I mean, it’s not like she makes a lot of mistakes as a public servant.

So she spent too much money on ferries built overseas with asbestos and too tall to fit under bridges in Parramatta River. But who could have predicted that? So her trains don’t fit the rail lines or go through the tunnels in the Blue Mountains. But who else could have built those trains? Bejesus, who goes to those places by ferry or train anyhow! So she allowed state forests to be logged and Koala habitats to be destroyed. So she approved the expansion of a quarry in the Hunter which will eliminate 52 hectares of prime koala habitat. So she asserted that those lazy public service bludgers (aka “essential workers“) were not worthy of a mere 2.5% wage rise during a recession. Besides the coffers were depleted after the extravagant pay rises awarded to all 65 coalition politicians in Macquarie St earlier in 2019. Still, some public servants were rewarded, such as the $87K rise to our Police Commissioner. You know him, Mick, the fellow who defended the laws Gladys brought in to strip search our kids. A sentiment echoed by the NSW Police Minister, David Elliott.

She is so good with money, though. She got one million dollars for Vales Point Station. Not her fault that it was valued at $730M. Yeah, OK, there were a couple of over-runs. I mean, who doesn’t overrun a budget on the light rail by $3B and Stadiums by $100M Sadly the modern revamp to replace that old “dump” of a Museum at Ultimo which they were very keen to give to their donor property developers, will be retained after protests by all those caffe-latte-drinking leftist protestors. Moving the Powerhouse Museum to a flood plain was a mistake anyone could make when it was such a dry season, that bushfires were all the rage.

Speaking of the worst bushfires in NSW, wasn’t that a confusing time? Not helped by allegations that Gladys refused assistance by the Navy for fire-threatened south coast towns. Berejiklian pulled up short of suggesting our honourable prime minister was lying. Eliminating public service bloat is important – achieved by cutting rural fire service capital expenditure by 75% ($49.9M). These were efficiency dividends, and besides, they still had 25% of their funds. Such unneeded bloat was presumably why she needed to get rid of 26 out of the 36 specialist fire management officers responsible for doing hazard reduction? Ten officers are more than enough for a State area of over 80M hectares. Slashing 500 full-time positions from National Parks and Wildlife was just being economically rational, surely? She was just clearing the bush her own way, and who could have predicted climate change would result in more significant fires? Probably why she thought cutting $12.9M from the state’s Urban fire fighting budget was an act of foresight.


Blackened Home of Ash


Think of all the generous help she gave the federal government and irrigators by supporting the water trading of the Murray Darling Water Plan designed in 2012 whose Authority acted unlawfully when it “completely ignored” climate change projections for the determination of water allocations. Gladys did later begin to recant by considering new water-sharing plans for the Namoi River and water registries. This didn’t include the water registries of Helen Dalton’s Bill which would have listed MP’s water interests. That unsuitable Bill was allowed to lapse. Unlike the Broken Hill pipeline or profitable fracking at Narrabri that threatened water security, as they’d already been approved and one doesn’t want to antagonise donors by reversing decisions! So country towns in NSW ran out of waterWarragamba Dam got polluted, and we had to resort to the desalination plant in Kurnell that relies heavily on fossil fuels to run, making Sydney resident’s water bills to rise. Gladys Berejiklian’s degrees were in Arts and Commerce, so it is unfair to expect her to understand climate science and the causality of events that lead to droughts. It is no wonder she refused to meet with representatives of the Menindee Lakes. I mean, what did they expect her to do, raise the fish from the dead? Folks just expect too much from our Premiers who are far too busy meeting reputable donors or partaking in $950/ticket luncheons (a price just under the $1K disclosure guidelines) with dignitaries.

Westconnex Protest issues list

Gladys is good for business. She is raising so much money for her donors from the public and transport industry, via Sydney’s nine toll roads with a locked-in 4% rise in tolls per year till 2060. That donor, Transurban (Westconnex), may have struggled with the planning to get NSW’s road infrastructure built, but Berejiklian’s support did not waver. She not only supports her generous donor, but her ongoing support to the legal industry has been commendable. NSW will be tied up in litigation for decades because of the compulsory acquisitions of houses and the structural damages to still-standing homes wrought by Westconnex’s construction activity.

Let’s not forget the prescience she exhibited when she hired Aspen Medical (whose director hid $15M in the British Virgin Islands) for $57m for COVID-19 work in Newmarch House (which had 19 Aged Care deaths) and for that lovely cruise ship, the Ruby Princess! She seeks out the “best quality” advice when she needs it. But these errors are past us, and now our business-focused Premier has this COVID-19 infection all under control, almost!

The implications of corruption implicit in this ICAC investigation are over the top, surely? It’s not like someone gave Gladys a bottle of Grange Hermitage that she forgot. Although memory failures featured significantly in her testimony to ICAC, but then who needs an excellent memory to run a State? It’s not like she was accustomed to maintaining a detailed memory with “meticulous focus on every minor policy detail“.

I mean has the shock, horror, scandal news rags of Murdoch said anything critical of Gladys other than she had been “falling for a bloke called Daryl? Of course not, so honestly, there isn’t anything to be seen here. Just move along and don’t forget to vote them back in, on March 2023! Besides, who will remember any of her government’s small foibles by then?

Fine wines & good times.


This article was originally published on Australia Awaken – Ignite your Torches.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 2)

Continued from: Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 1)

By Outsider  

Eugenics is not a dead, spurious historical phenomenon; its roots and influential tentacles are deep and enduring. And the human casualties – even after the end of the Nazi ‘experiment’ resulting from this supremacist ideology – number in the tens of millions. Eugenics began as an elitist, racist, supremacist movement which enlisted highly respected academic scientists in a kind of mission aimed at controlling human reproduction. It was a diabolical, gigantic human experiment precipitated by a deluded misconception: the belief that by applying population control methods used in animal breeding would result in improving the ‘quality’ of the human ‘race’.

The previously mentioned David Starr Jordan, President of Stanford University, was an influential American eugenicist whose publication, The Blood of a Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races by the Survival of the Unfit, was aimed at influencing the wide public. It was published in 1902 and again in 1910 by the American Unitarian Association, Boston, MA. Eugenicists adopted dubious racial-genetic theories borrowed from animal breeding techniques used to improve the genetic stock of animals. They used specious screening and measuring techniques – that they called ‘scientific’ – to identify, label and control human beings with presumed inferior genetic traits, whereby some humans could be declared ‘unfit’. To reduce the number of ‘unfit’ people, eugenicists promoted policies to control human reproduction – through forced sterilisation – and restrictive immigration.

America’s leading scientists espoused eugenics, and all the premier universities offered eugenics courses, including Chicago, Harvard, Northwestern, Purdue and Yale. The father of American eugenics could be regarded as Charles Benedict Davenport, a Harvard educated zoologist, who taught biology at both Harvard and the University of Chicago, who headed the Eugenic Record Office and spearheaded a worldwide campaign to create a master ‘Nordic race’ and sterilise or segregate all other ‘inferior’ humans to control their population size. Davenport was interested only in cataloguing defective human traits, with the ultimate goal of removing the carriers from the national gene pool. His textbook, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (Balefire Publishing, H. Holt & Co., New York, 1911), combined sound science with unadulterated nonsense about ‘genetic predispositions’: “One family will be characterized by political activity, another by scholarship, another by financial success… another by insanity, another by imbecility and epilepsy, another by larceny and sexual immorality, another by suicide…” et cetera.

Still, in 1904 Davenport had received large grants from the Carnegie Foundation and the widow of the railroad baron E.H. Harriman to open the Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor. He worked closely with the American Breeders Association, adding a Eugenics Committee the purpose of which was “to devise methods of recording the value of the blood of individuals and families, peoples and races” emphasising ” the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.”(E. Black, War against the weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race, Dialog Press, Washington D.C., 2003, at 39).

In 1910, again with funding from Carnegie and Harriman, Davenport opened the Eugenics Record Office – E.R.O. for the purpose of compiling family records on the ‘unfit’ and to take a census of America’s ‘defective’ population at hospitals, prisons, refuge homes, and insane asylums. Davenport hired Harry Hamilton Laughlin, a lawyer, to head the E.R.O. field office operation and collation of the records.

The E.R.O. census takers determined that ten million Americans met the criteria for ‘defectives’ classified within ten categories. The first category was the ‘feeble minded’ – a broadly defined catch-all category which included stutterers, people who spoke poor English, and those who were shy. Physicians working for the government enthusiastically surgically sterilised tens of thousands of such unfortunate persons.

Secular eugenicists, some of them still calling themselves ‘good Christians’ discarded the Biblical belief that all humans descended from one source; that despite various ethnic diversities, humans share a common heritage. Instead, eugenicists embraced a new thought and the called it ‘scientific racism’.

“In the early 20th century, most scientists believed in the existence of distinct biological races. Scientific disciplines such as physical anthropology, cephalometry, phrenology, physiognomy, and anthropometry sought to measure physiological differences among human populations. The thinking was that physical differences translated into mental differences. Cephalometry, for example, dealt with the variations in size, shape, and proportion of skulls among human races. Scientists theorized that larger skulls held larger brains, which resulted in increased intelligence. Races possessing a higher average ‘cephalic index,’ that is, the Nordics, were supposedly smarter.

What separated scientific racism from older ideas about race was the belief that racial differences were fixed and unchangeable. Mankind was divided into superior and inferior races. Such theories lent themselves to racial discrimination.” (E. Rudolph, White Lies: Eugenics, Abortion, and Racism, 2014, PDF file).

Eugenicists’ materialistic view of the world inevitably led to ‘social engineering’. If heredity and/or environment determine all human behaviour, then it stands to reason that man can be modified – ‘engineered’, like any other material object. Eugenicists were confident in the ability of their ‘scientific method’ to evaluate, classify, and manipulate; ultimately to repair the negative characteristics and qualities of human beings – just as is done in the breeding of animals. However, to do so, it was essential to dispense with free will. Only by eliminating free will can human beings be manipulated and improved – for society’s best interests.

The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1922 by Henry Fairfiild Osborn, the eldest son of prominent railroad tycoon William Henry Osborn and President of the American Museum of Natural History, was a large umbrella organisation for various factions. The Society changed its name in 1972 to the more ‘palatable’ Society for the Study of Social Biology; and again to the more pretentious appellation in 2008 of Society of Biodemography and Social Biology. American promoters of eugenics included highly trusted professionals, including well known lawyers and medical doctors, national leaders, charitable organisations, and respected corporate foundations – all well established and financially well provided. The Society collaborated with the Department of Agriculture(!) and various state agencies in formulating public policies designed to restrict the birth rate of humans deemed genetically, ethnically, or socially ‘unfit.’  Notable proponents of eugenics defined power and prestige in America. They included: the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Harriman railroad fortune, Harvard University, Princeton University, Stanford University, Yale University, the American Medical Association, Margaret Higgins Sanger, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Robert Mearns Yerkes, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the American Museum of Natural History, the American Genetic Association and a sweeping array of government agencies from the obscure Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics to the U.S. State Department. (E. Black, War against the weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race, Dialog Press, Washington D.C., 2003).

It is especially significant that the United States was the first country to impose eugenic sterilisation under state statutes. Indiana was the first, in 1907, of 30 states which enacted forced sterilisation laws. And the U.S. Supreme Court by the hand of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 in 1927.

Applied Eugenic (The MacMillan Co., New York, 1918), a textbook co-authored by Dr. Paul Bowman Popenoe, a venereal disease specialist, advocated eugenicide. The recommended methods included: a “lethal chamber. “Lethal selection” was another method, realised “through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.” (E. Black, Eugenics and the Nazis: the California connection, SF Chronicle, 9.11.2003).

Another American physician, regarded as ‘progressive reformer,’ Dr. John Randolph Haynes, recommended medical murder of mentally ill patients: “There are thousands of hopelessly insane in California, the condition of those minds is such that death would be a merciful release. How long will it be before society will see the criminality of using its efforts to keep alive these idiots, hopelessly insane, and murderous degenerates. …  Of course the passing of these people should be painless and without warning. They should go to sleep at night without any intimation of what was coming and never awake.” (Haynes Papers, box 84, c. 1918).

Dr. Harry Hamilton Laughlin’s Model Eugenical Sterilization Law (Arizona State University, Tempe AZ., 1922) served as the model for both American sterilisation laws, and was the blueprint that Hitler used to frame Germany’s Sterilisation Law (1933); its ethnic exclusionary Nuremberg Laws (1935); and its medical murder of handicapped children and of adults in psychiatric institutions under Aktion T-4. (On 1 September 1939, the day German tanks rumbled into Poland, Hitler signed an informal memorandum allowing specially-appointed doctors to deal with “incurable” patients by “granting [a] mercy death after a discerning diagnosis.” This memorandum unleashed Aktion T4: a programme to clear hospitals and free up resources by euthanising the mentally disabled.) In recognition of his contribution, in 1936, the Dean of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute awarded Laughlin an honorary Medical Doctor degree. Eugenics institutes in the United States and in Germany were financed by America’s corporate elite – the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation.

“Throughout the first six decades of the twentieth century, hundreds of thousands of Americans and untold numbers of others were not permitted to continue their families by reproducing. Selected because of their ancestry, national origin, race or religion, they were forcibly sterilised, wrongly committed to mental institutions where they died in great numbers, prohibited from marrying, and sometimes even unmarried by state bureaucrats. In America, this battle to wipe out whole ethnic groups was fought not by armies with guns nor by hate sects at the margins.

Rather, this pernicious white-gloved war was prosecuted by esteemed professors, elite universities, wealthy industrialists and government officials colluding in a racist, pseudo-scientific movement called eugenics. The purpose: create a superior Nordic race.

To perpetuate the campaign, widespread academic fraud combined with almost unlimited corporate philanthropy to establish the biological rationales for persecution. Employing a hazy amalgam of guesswork, gossip, falsified information and polysyllabic academic arrogance, the eugenics movement slowly constructed a national bureaucratic and juridical infrastructure to cleanse America of its “unfit.” (E. Black, War against the weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race, Dialog Press, Washington D.C., 2003).

American eugenicists saw mankind as a ‘biological cesspool.’ The goal was to sterilise fourteen million people in the United States and millions more worldwide – the “lower tenth” – and then continuously eradicate the remaining lowest tenth until only a ‘pure Nordic super race’ remained. Ultimately, some 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilised and the total is probably much higher. No one knows how many marriages were thwarted by state felony statutes. Although much of the persecution was simply racism, ethnic hatred and academic elitism, eugenics wore the mantle of respectable science to mask its true character.

Psychiatrists withheld medical treatment on the ground that “nature had intended for them to die,” according to Black.

Though the term eugenics was largely abandoned after the revelations at the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trials, its proponents have not given up nor disappeared. Eugenics continues to permeate United States public health policies and research involving vulnerable, disenfranchised human subjects. Covert eugenicists invoke the ‘greater good for society’ argument when they seek to embark on dubious public health policies and experiments to which no rational person would voluntarily agree. Experiments aimed at behaviour modification and genetic engineering aimed at controlling biological traits have most often backfired, after causing irreparable harm to hundreds of thousands of victims. The moral problem at the heart of eugenics – and public health as well – continues to be the tension between public – that is the social – good and individual liberty, rights and interest.

The only change is in the terminology: from eugenics to human genetics. As The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics (Oxford University Press, 2012) makes clear, “while there is a common ‘old wine in new bottles’ argument about eugenics, this reading disregards a rather more openly continuous history.”

The journal Annals of Eugenics (1925) became Annals of Human Genetics in 1954; Eugenics Quarterly (1926) changed its name to Social Biology in 1969, then changed again to Biodemography and Social Biology in 2008; the Bulletin of the Eugenics Society (1969-1983) changed to Biology and Society; The Journal of Eugenics Society (1984-1990); The Eugenics Review (1909-1968) changed to the Journal of Biosocial Science (1969). The Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics –  which had been named for Francis Galton, who had been Chair of Eugenics at the University College of London, and coined the term eugenics – was renamed the Department of Human Genetics with Galton as Chair of Genetics in 1963.

“Historians of race and American medicine have documented over two centuries of race-based scientific exploitation. There is a long history of the use and abuse of racialized bodies in the name of advancing medical knowledge… Scientists’ expectation of uniformity within racial groups and differences across racial groups was a belief repeated across at least two centuries of American research.

Yet, their assumptions were not proven in their studies, and researchers admitted that individual variation was the most significant finding… their own research led them to conclude that ‘race’ provided little, if any, meaningful health information.” (Susan L. Smith, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2008).

Austin Leland Hughes, Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, deconstructs the dogmatic belief in the supremacy of all knowledge derived from measurable scientific methods in his essay: “Folly of Scientism,” (The New Atlantis, 2012) “The eugenics movement arose, with its battle cry, “The unfit are reproducing like rabbits; we must do something to stop them!” Plenty of prominent Darwinians endorsed such sentiments in their day, but no more incoherent a plea can be imagined from a Darwinian point of view: if the great unwashed are out-reproducing the genteel classes, that can only imply that it is the great unwashed who are the fittest – not the supposed “winners” in the economic struggle. It is the genteel classes, with their restrained reproduction, who are the unfit. So the foundations of eugenics are complete nonsense from a Darwinian point of view.”

Nevertheless, modern day eugenicists continue to occupy positions of authority at academic institutions, in medical professional associations, in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, in bioethics departments, at medical journals, and in public health agencies. (Alliance for Human Research Protection, American Eugenics Research – Racism masquerading as “science”, May 7, 2015, posted in Before Nuremberg and tagged eugenics, Steven Mosher, scientific racism, Origins of Population Control, War Against the Weak, American Eugenics Research – Racism masquerading as “science”).

To be continued …

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Creating the Australian New Deal

By Christian Marx

Right now, here in Australia we are facing the biggest job crisis since at least the Great Depression of the early 1930s. The COVID-19 virus is the final straw that has broken the camel’s back. The ugly truth is that we have had three decades of rampant globalization via the weakening of import tariffs and the complete offshoring of manufacturing, and now even the service industry.

Try getting technical advice for an electrical product here in Australia. You have more chance of getting a job! (And that is saying something). Almost all technical advice comes from places as exotic as India, or as far away as Manila in the Philippines. These poor buggers get paid about one fifth of what an Australian worker would. Corporations love to exploit cheap labour!

This current morally bankrupt government has no intention of creating jobs. It suits their neoliberal dogma to keep the masses desperate for an ever-dwindling amount of jobs. This of course benefits their donor class. The millionaires and in some cases, billionaires need people desperate as this creates willingness to work for poor remuneration and increasingly precarious conditions.

The usual jackals in the media howl down any raise in Newstart for fear of upsetting their puppet master in New York, and the LNP`s grand plan for a brave new world. This author finds it unconscionable that in the middle of a near depression with nearly 14% out of work, or almost two million Australian adults jobless!

In the middle of a job’s crises to pair back the temporarily-raised Newstart and JobKeeper programme is economic suicide. The poorest tend to spend any money they are given, namely on rent, food and essential items. This money then goes straight back into the economy.

Instead, what do these reprobates do? They give more tax cuts to the upper-middle-class and the very rich. This money is unlikely to be put back into the economy. Rather, it will end up in shares, trust funds or some other investment.

The only way to get this country back on its feet economically is via a New Deal jobs programme and robust social safety nets for those who have fallen on hard times. In fact, even that bastion of capitalism, America embarked on their own ‘New Deal‘ under Roosevelt in 1933.

America was on the brink of collapse due to the stock market crash and the greed of the capitalist class of 1929.

Private capital had no stomach for creating jobs and large projects that benefitted the populace as there was no profit to be made in the short term, and they were unwilling to spend what was needed to kick-start the economy. History is now repeating throughout much of the Western world!

This new deal consists of three key goals: Relief from the harshness of unemployment and poverty, re-starting the economy, and reforming the corrupted financial system (which caused the depression in the first place).

Neoliberal capitalism was already failing badly before COVID-19. Now it has totally collapsed. Only the very rich and their cronies in media and government benefit from this hard-right dogma. Neoliberal capitalism is all about transferring public institutions into private, for profit hands. We have seen how disastrous this has been across a whole range of services.

One of the greatest failures is the bloated, for profit job agencies, which do bugger all to find people jobs while pocketing huge subsidies from the government. This system is financed to fail. Contrast this to the wonderful Commonwealth Employment Service which was run not for profit and was excellent at placing workers into jobs.

Under a New Deal we can create 100% employment and provide full-time jobs for all those who need it. There is plenty of work to be done! Infrastructure and community service is crying out for more help! Added to this is to create a robust social safety net to at least above the poverty line. $500 per week indexed to average wage increases would be a good figure.

Nobody needs to be in poverty in a country as rich as Australia. This is just a political decision to favour a small number of business scions and power brokers in the media. In fact, we had one of the best social security systems in the world in the 20th century, and we didn`t collapse into insolvency!

Which brings me to another great myth that needs to be smashed. The lie perpetuated by sock puppets in the mainstream media, and sadly even lately by the ABC! The bulldust that financing social programs and raising unemployment benefits will create more debt. This is garbage, and the politicians know this.

A sovereign nation that owns and controls its own public Federal Reserve cannot go into debt to itself. Money can be created and be allocated to where it is needed. Yes, it is true that we need to keep an eye on inflation, but this is what federal taxes are for. Taxes provide a break on runaway inflation by taking some money out of the system.

State taxes do operate on a different level to federal taxes however. Federal tax just takes this money out of the system… however state taxes are used to fund important public works such as infrastructure etc. I believe that Modern Monetary Theory is the way of the future and will free us from the ideological nonsense of neoliberal capitalism, which has proven to be an absolute basket case in every major Western nation!

In summing up, the only way out of poverty and joblessness is for the public sector to work again and to regulate the worst excesses of private capital… which even pre COVID-19 had driven us to the point of extreme hardship, transferring wealth to the very rich, while making it harder for every day folks to survive let alone thrive. Scandinavian countries are an excellent example of what could be achieved with the political will. So far, the only major party that has touched on creating a New deal is the Greens, who are advocating a Green New Deal.

Under this radical new approach, we could eliminate poverty, create an abundance of well-paying jobs, and in turn kick start a very moribund economy. Be bold and be visionary, people! We can do this if we embrace Modern Monetary Theory. Of course that would mean the wealthy job creators would have to compete with the public sector and provide decent wages, full-time jobs, and good conditions… which is exactly what they have been avoiding for the past 30 plus years!

Christian Marx is a political and social activist interested in making the world a fairer place. He has a Bachelor of Social Science and has a keen interest in sociology, politics and history. He was one of the organizers of the March in March rallies in Melbourne and is the founder of the progressive news and information site: Don`t Look At This Page.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 1)

Continued from: COVID-19: Where was it born: China, the United States or Ukania? (At the school of Doctor Rasputin: part 7)

By Outsider  

4. Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths

Eugenics is an attractive word resulting from the combination of two Greek words: εὐ = ‘good’ and γενής = ‘growing’. Its accepted definition is that of a set of beliefs and practices aiming to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be ’inferior’ and promoting those judged to be ‘superior’. And in that process lays the problem. For two and a half millennia, beginning with Plato, the concept has cast a long shadow, up until the notorious Dr. Josef Mengele, better known as ‘the angel of death’ for his activity as both a German Schutzstaffel – SS officer and physician during the second world war. He was part of the SS-Totenkopfverbände which ran the concentration and extermination camps.

Mengele was not, as many of such party thugs as made up the SS, an uneducated person: before the war, he had received doctorates in anthropology and medicine, and began a career as a researcher. He joined the Nazi Party in 1937 and the SS in 1938 and was assigned as a battalion medical officer at the start of the second world war. In early 1943 he was moved to the Nazi concentration camps service and assigned to Oświęcim, Auschwitz, in occupied Poland, where he saw the opportunity to conduct genetic research on human subjects. More precisely the Auschwitz concentration camp was a complex of over forty concentration and extermination camps. Auschwitz ‘proper’  consisted of Auschwitz I, the main camp in Oświęcim; Auschwitz II-Birkenau, a concentration and extermination camp built with several gas chambers; Auschwitz III-Monowitz, a labour camp created to staff a factory for the chemical conglomerate IG Farben; and dozens of subcamps.

The long shadow is still with us.

The ‘concept’ of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master ‘Nordic race’ did not originate with Hitler and his regime. The idea was revamped relatively recently – just over one hundred years ago – in the United States, and cultivated in California. There eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ‘ethnic cleansing’, a more recent descriptor of ‘final solution’.



Eugenics may still be the racist pseudo-science determined to wipe away all human beings deemed ‘unfit,’ preserving only those who conformed to some kind of ‘Nordic’ stereotype. Elements of the ‘philosophy’ were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilisation and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909 California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilised some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in ‘colonies,’ and persecuted untold numbers in different ways. Before the second world war, nearly half of coercive sterilisations were performed in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such operations.

California was considered an epicentre of the American eugenics movement. During the first decades of the twentieth century, California’s eugenicists included potent but little known ‘race’ scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Bowman Popenoe, an American agricultural explorer, Ezra Seymour Gosney, a lawyer and philanthropist, and Charles Matthias Goethe, a banker, entrepreneur, land developer, philanthropist, conservationist, founder of the Eugenics Society of Northern California, and a native of Sacramento, California, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlour talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Yale. These academicians espoused ‘race theory’ and ‘race science’, and then ‘arranged’ and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.

David Starr Jordan, president of Indiana University and the founding president of Stanford University, originated the notion of “race and blood” in his 1902 work The blood of the nation, a study of the decay of races through survival of the unfit, published in 1902 by the American Unitarian Association in Boston, MA. In the work the distinguished author declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904 the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island which collected millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilisation.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics programme and even funded the programme on which Dr. Josef Mengele worked before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California’s quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organisations – which functioned as part of a closely-knit network – published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudo-scientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and made propaganda for the Nazis.

Eugenics appealed and galvanised the elite members of the wealthy and academic class who believed that uncontrolled population growth by poor people posed a threat to the social order. One of the first proponents of population control was the Anglican clergyman, Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus who in 1798 published a tract called An Essay on the Principle of Population in which he stipulated that within twenty three years – by the year 1890, there would have been standing room only on the earth. To prevent that catastrophe he recommended facilitating an increased mortality rate.

“All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons … Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.” (Quoted in A. Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The Social costs of the new scientific racism, Knopf, distributed by Random House, New York, N.Y.1977; see also: S. W. Mosher, The Origins of Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 2009).

Malthus’ dire prediction did not materialise; but his essay was a commercial success, issued in six editions. His views about the need to control the population of the poor was adopted by the British and American upper class. Furthermore, as life-spans lengthened and general health improved in the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin suggested that not only were the poor having more children who survived, they were rapidly ‘dumbing down’ the population. This was regarded as an ominous ‘dysgenic’ trend. A Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, an English Victorian era statistician, polymath, sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, psychometrician, and eugenicist, coined a term which gave a pseudo-scientific gloss to ‘eugenics’ promoted as a progressive ideology aimed at increasing the birth rate of ‘the fit.’ In 1863 Galton theorised that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably talented people = better offspring. Galton and his staff collected extensive genealogies which were duplicated in every western country. Galton advocated “eugenical marriage” as a “religious duty,” nothing more. (E. Black, War against the weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race, Thunder’s Mouth Press/Avalon Publishing Group, New York, N.Y. 2004).

However, Galton’s version of a freely chosen “positive eugenics” soon gave way in the United States to government mandated racially charged “negative eugenics.” Legislation was enacted to control the reproduction of segments of the population which were deemed to be the carriers of ‘defective’ genes.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, Galton’s ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Johann Mendel, the founder of the modern science of genetics, re-discovered the principles of heredity. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervour that the same Mendelian concepts determining the colour and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of a human being.

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, ‘race’ conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called ‘progressives’ fused their smouldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton’s eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The ultimate purpose was to populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind – and less or none of everyone else.

The ‘superior species’ the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed ‘Nordic types’. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian labourers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Southern Europeans, Jews, dark-haired ‘hill folk’, poor people, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American race-scientists.

How would that be done? By identifying so-called ‘defective’ family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilisation programmes to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was literally to wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior – the so-called ‘unfit.’ The eugenicists hoped to neutralise the viability of ten per cent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.

Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported  “Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population,” prepared by  Bleeker Van Wagenen and published in 2009. Point eight was euthanasia.

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a “lethal chamber” or public locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Dr. Paul Bowman Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during the first world war, co-wrote with professor Roswell Hill Johnson the widely used textbook, Applied Eugenics (The Macmillan Co. London and New York, 1920) which argued, “From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution … Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.” Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to ‘Lethal Selection,’ which operated “through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.”

Eugenic breeders believed that American society was not ready to implement an organised lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty per cent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.

Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalised, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilisation, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilisation procedures with little or no due process. In its first twenty-five years of eugenic legislation, California sterilised 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as ‘bad girls,’ diagnosed as “passionate,” “oversexed” or “sexually wayward.” At Sonoma, some women were sterilised because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.

In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilisations would be performed, 700 of which were on women. The state’s two leading sterilisation mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilisation centres included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.

Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote – in an 8-1 decision in the case of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), that “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. … Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilised or otherwise persecuted as sub-human. (The Supreme Court ruled on eugenics once again in Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). There the United States Supreme Court held that laws permitting the compulsory sterilisation of criminals were unconstitutional if the sterilisation law treats similar crimes differently. In the case, the Oklahoma law applied to “habitual criminals” but it did exclude white-collar crimes. That could have applied even to traffic tickets which are a crime. The Court held that treating similar crimes differently violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).

Years later, at the Nuremberg trials bringing Nazi war criminals to justice, some of their lawyers would quote Holmes’s words in their defence.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealising sterilisation and circulated them to German official and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimise his anti-Semitism by medicalising it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudo-scientific façade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among otherwise reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler’s race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the 1920s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany’s Nazi eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in two volumes in 1925-27, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. “There is today one state,” wrote Hitler, “in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”

The United States Immigration Act of 1924, which established the Border Patrol, was another piece of legislation based on the principles of racial purity and white supremacy and greatly admired by Hitler: “Compared to old Europe, which had lost an infinite amount of its best blood through war and emigration, the American nation appears as a young and racially select people. The American union itself, motivated by the theories of its own racial researchers, has established specific criteria for immigration … making an immigrant’s ability to set foot on American soil dependent on specific racial requirements.”

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. “I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” (Mein Kampf, an unexpurgated digest, translated with critical comments by B. D. Shaw, Political Digest Press, New York, 1939).

Hitler even wrote an admiring letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The passing of the great race his “bible.” (The passing of the great race: or, the racial basis of European history, originally published in 1916, Eastford, CT, USA 2017).


Photo courtesy of David Dorado Romo. National Lbrary of medicine at Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.


Peters used the El Paso example to demonstrate how effective Zyklon B was as an agent for killing unwanted pests. Peters became the managing director of Degesch, one of two German firms which acquired the patent to mass-produce Zyklon B in 1940. During the second world war, the Germans would use Zyklon B in concentrated doses in the gas chamber to exterminate millions of people the Nazis considered Ungeziefer, vermin, sub-human pests.

During the Third Reich’s early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler’s plans as the logical fulfilment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the Los Angeles County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany’s sterilisations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader Charles Matthias Goethe on returning from Germany enthusiastically addressed to a key colleague thus: “You will be interested to know, that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making programme. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought. … I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.”

That same year, ten years after Virginia passed its sterilisation act, Dr.  Joseph Spencer DeJarnette, director of Western State Hospital located in Staunton, Virginia, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”

More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions. By 1926 Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 – almost $4 million in twenty-first century money – to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926 Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Dr. Ernst Rüdin, considered as the founding father of psychiatric genetics or of ‘racial hygiene’, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.

Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s eugenic complex of institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915 it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the Institute to construct a major building and take centre stage in German race biology. The Institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the Institute, once again, was Hitler’s medical henchman Ernst Rüdin. Rüdin’s organisation became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.

Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

Leon Fradley Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society declared of Nazism, “While we were pussy-footing around … the Germans were calling a spade a spade.”

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades, American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity. The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On 13 May 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogramme to its Paris office: “June meeting Executive Committee nine thousand dollars over three year period to K.W.G. Institute Anthropology for research on twins and effects on later generations of substances toxic for germ plasma.”

At the time of Rockefeller’s endowment, Professor Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer of the University of Münster, a human biologist and geneticist and a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer’s early tenure. In 1935 Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt which was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, supported by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor’s journal he edited, that Germany’s war would yield a “total solution to the Jewish problem.”

Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was  Dr. Josef Mengele. On 30 May 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, “My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer (captain) and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer [Himmler].”

Dr. Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed atrocious experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer’s Institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin’s eugenic institutes.

Rockefeller executives most likely did not know of Mengele. With few exceptions, the Foundation had ceased all eugenic studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the institutions they helped found, and the science they helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.

After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity – an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defence. That was to no avail: they were found guilty.

However, Mengele’s boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re-established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade “human genetics.” Typical was an exchange 25 July 1946 when Popenoe wrote Verschuer: “It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany. … I suppose sterilisation has been discontinued in Germany?” Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenic luminaries and then sent various eugenic publications.

Verschuer wrote back: “Your very friendly letter of 7/25 gave me a great deal of pleasure and you have my heartfelt thanks for it. The letter builds another bridge between your and my scientific work; I hope that this bridge will never again collapse but rather make possible valuable mutual enrichment and stimulation.”

Soon, Verschuer once again became a respected scientist in Germany and around the world. In 1949 he became a corresponding member of the newly formed American Society of Human Genetics, organised by American eugenicists and geneticists.

In the fall of 1950 the University of Münster offered Verschuer a position at its new Institute of Human Genetics, where he later became a dean. In the early and mid-1950s, Verschuer became an honorary member of numerous prestigious societies, including the Italian Society of Genetics, the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and the Japanese Society for Human Genetics.

Human genetics’ genocidal roots in eugenics were ignored by a victorious generation which refused any connection with the crimes of Nazism and by succeeding generations which never knew the truth of the years leading up to war. In time governors of five states, including California have issued public apologies to their citizens, past and present, for sterilisation and other abuses spawned by the eugenics movement.

Human genetics became an enlightened endeavour in the late twentieth century. Hard-working, devoted scientists finally cracked the human code through the Human Genome Project. Now, every individual can be biologically identified and classified by trait and ancestry. Yet even now some leading voices in the genetic world are calling for a cleansing of the unwanted among us, and even a master human species.

There is understandable wariness about more ordinary forms of abuse, for example, in denying insurance or employment based on genetic tests.

After the passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act on 21 May 2008 genetic discrimination is illegal in the United States. Yet, because genetics research is global, no single nation’s law can stop the threats. (E. Black, The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics , 6 July 2009).

Some concluding considerations seem appropriate at this point.

As professor John Galloway observed, “Whatever the motives and methods used to realise them – persuasion, education, coercion, sterilisation, segregation, euthanasia and more – eugenics has stemmed from the belief that a population, ‘race’, or even the species, is ‘degenerating’ and in urgent need of improvement and revitalisation.” (E. Rudolph. White Lies: Eugenics, Abortion, and Racism, 2014, PDF file).

To be continued …

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

After a brief interlude the Tories are reverting to type

By Grumpy Geezer  

Was it a concupiscent affect of the smell of burning koalas that aroused the stumpy leader of the NSW Nationals Porky Barrels, the Neopolitan Bonaparte of MacQuarie Street, to re-gel his coxcomb, puff out his chest and challenge Gladdy Berejiklian to a punch-up in the car park if he wasn’t given licence to accelerate the extinction of our cuddly national icon?

To be fair to Porky he did qualify that he didn’t want to exterminate koalas – just their habitats. Regardless, as per historical precedent, he was encouraged into exile after it was revealed that the only submission Barilaro had received promoting such ecocide was from a clear-felling developer mate and party donor.

Dungowan Estate is Barrels’ personal Elba – a sprawling, bucolic pile in the favoured Southern Highlands retreat of Sydney’s negatively-geared glitterati and Range Rovered, cos-play country squires where he’s no doubt pondering the workings of rorting from home.

The most surprising thing about Barrels’ posturing is not that it exposed his grifting or that he openly endorses the monetisation of species extinction, it is that he got nailed by Gladdy when all he’s been guilty of is adhering to the Tory’s pre-pandemic playbook. In Barrels’ absence his stand-in, the nominative deterministic Paul Toole has refused to explain if the National Party is accepting donations from property developers and then lobbying on their behalf.

Porky, it should be noted, is a protégé of the voice from the bush, our $80 million water boy Barking Barmy Joyce. He’s the master’s apprentice. Barking has been in the dog house (unavoidable pun) ever since his tendency to file his junk in other people’s spam folders became public knowledge but you can’t keep a good sex pest down – his subsequent public appearances have the subtlety of an outboard motor in a grease trap. He may be a corrupted idiot but at least he’s entertaining. Less can be said of his L/NP partners in crime.

Porky and Barking Barmy are the clowns in the L/NP goat rodeo, distracting the punters from the criminality that is the new normal under this tainted regime. Australia Pty Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry and the L/NP is its marketing department, reverting to type now that they’ve worked out their tactics for implementing their disaster capitalism agenda.

Nev Power’s spokesman SchMo McCacky keeps at smarm’s length from any and all accountability, relying on plausible deniability and blame deflection as his primary defences should he ever have to front the beak to explain his behaviour; and he’s betting that a cowed, complicit and conned media will continue to meekly suck his toes.

Bridget Bam Bam McKenzie (the Devine Brown of politics – she can blow a huge grant) and the sports rorts imbroglio have demonstrated to SchMo that he can brazen out the transgressions Trump-style. Let’s call it herd impunity – there are so many Tories with their fingers in the till, the rort-a-thon is so widespread and the lies so prolific that scrutiny is fleeting – some dogs may bark but the caravan of corruption moves on.

SchMo’s shovel-ready smirk, his curries, cubbies and chook pens is Looney Tunes does Goebbel’s performative propaganda from the PMO’s PR machine. They’re waving their contempt for us punters in our faces; distracting us with balloon tricks while rummaging through our silverware.

The arrival of COVID briefly interrupted the Tories’ festival of felonies. Treasurer and $60 billion man Mibrane Hertz wore the expression of a punched quiche when it dawned upon him that he’d been left with a warehouse of Back In Black coffee mugs – now going at 3 for $2 on Gumtree. The tunnel-visioned Tories, after being caught with their pants down, have quickly pivoted via the Hertz smash and grab budget, back to their dirty deeds of shovelling largesse to mates, donors and Tory electorates.

The Tories’ coagulation of corruption, incompetence and malice is their business model, their arrogance and disdain being fronted by a vapid solipsist, a believer in both miracles and a punitive deity on whose behalf he seeks to persecute the undeserving – those who are not in on the game of mates.

Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure Norbert Bellende, a man accused by a Federal Court judge of indulging in criminal activities continues to sit uncontrite in Cabinet, the judge’s accusation dismissed as “commentary” by Attorney General and chief law officer Duncan Stool.

Fidel daFigueres, Minister For Monetisation of Emissions, Caymans Islands’ aficionado and water entrepreneur uses his number juggling skills to demonstrate how spewing extra carbon into the atmosphere is really a reduction. The rest of the world will be unamused as they slap penalties on our exports in retaliation and pay for clean energy produced elsewhere. Australia’s promised technology roadmap will be a guidebook of stranded assets.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Deputy PM Forgetful Jones extols the virtues of a $30M purchase of land valued at $3M, leased back to the party donor mate at the lower valuation with a $10M cow under-pass thrown in. The best that the Nationals can come up with as their party leader is a man who can be hypnotised by a chook and who’d struggle to keep the crayons inside the lines of the pictures in his autobiography – Elvis Parsley, Return to Sender.

These are a small sample; soon to be forgotten road signs to the endemic corruption of a crime cartel whose diversity program has cultivated spivs, stand-over merchants, water thieves and neo-con cultists led by a smarmy narcissist who’s failed upwards his entire career, a man who dodges responsibility for the 676 aged care deaths that occurred under his watch, a right to life, anti-euthanasia ayatollah who will nevertheless happily toe-tag your granny to boost the share dividends of Maserati-driving old folks home investors.

“All tip and no iceberg”, “You choke on your Weeties”, “What we have got is a dead carcass, swinging in the breeze…”, “Like being flogged with a warm lettuce.” PJK quotes, aimed at the Tories and now could be applicable to the ALP, an Opposition in name only. How good’s getting a free run?

At least in his Budget reply Albo showed signs that he’s re-discovered his mojo. Keep it up please, Albo – these are dark days getting darker.

* * * * *

Bruz – fruendlyjordies examines John Barilaro’s track record.


This article was originally published on The Grumpy Geezer.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Peter Dutton won’t be taking detained refugees’ phones

By Paul Gregoire  

The controversial bill to outlaw phone use by refugees has been defeated, enabled by popular vote, advocates and a public poll.

A significant victory was claimed by the Australian campaign to uphold the rights of wrongly detained refugees in this country, when Senator Jacqui Lambie announced last Friday that she’ll be voting against depriving immigration detainees of contact with the outside world.

The outcome is noteworthy because Lambie didn’t make any backdoor political deals in coming to her decision. She threw her vote open to the public, asking what they thought. And of the over 100,000 people who got back, an overwhelming 96% asked her to vote against it.

Set to be voted down in the Senate this week, the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 was all about removing mobile phones from those in immigration detention, as well as expanding the search and seizure powers of officers.

Despite the usual nasty rhetoric coming from the department to justify why these people should be cut off from the rest of humanity, Lambie made clear that detainees aren’t organising “riots” on phones, but rather they’re texting “friends and family” and watching “YouTube videos about cats”.

Credit must also be extended to the hundreds of thousands in the community – the supporters, civil society groups and politicians of all persuasions – who ensured that all immigration detainees won’t be deprived of this vital lifeline, including the Medevac transferees hauled up in hotels.

A victory inside

“I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all the amazing people who voted no to what Jacqui Lambie created,” said 34-year-old Kurdish refugee Mostafa Azimitabar. “And I’d also like to thank Jacqui Lambie for supporting us on this and letting us have our phones.”

“I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all the amazing people who voted no to what Jacqui Lambie created,” said 34-year-old Kurdish refugee Mostafa Azimitabar. “And I’d also like to thank Jacqui Lambie for supporting us on this and letting us have our phones.”

“Sometimes I feel my phone is alive,” the long-term detainee continued. “I can be in touch with my family and friends, first of all. And also, I am in touch with my lawyer and some doctors,”

“I feel I am not alone. I don’t feel homesick. And it helps me not to give up.”



Mostafa, or Moz, is currently being held in Melbourne’s Mantra Hotel, along with around 60 other former offshore detainees, who came to Australia for treatment after two doctors assessed it as necessary, and the minister checked and then gave approval, under the now revoked Medevac laws.

Indeed, Moz and other rights advocates both inside and outside detention, ran a successful campaign on 1 September that involved calling the office of acting immigration minister Alan Tudge to tell him that confiscating refugees’ mobile phones wasn’t on.

“This is a small victory. It means that the power of the people is stronger than the politicians,” Moz told Sydney Criminal Lawyers. “And these people who wanted us to keep our phones, I am sure they want us to be free.”

Itching to deny them

Dressed up in the scare tactic rhetoric of minister Tudge’s second reading speech on it, and its numerous provisions, the Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities Bill doesn’t overtly indicate that mobile phones and internet-capable devices are its main target.

But considered alongside what had come before, its aim is obvious.

Back in February 2017, then immigration minister Peter Dutton and the Australian Border Force launched a new policy that aimed to confiscate the mobile phones of everyone in immigration detention.

Prior to the enforcement of this prohibition, the National Justice Project obtained a temporary injunction, which the not-for-profit legal service followed up with a class action that culminated in the Federal Court ruling in June 2018 that the department couldn’t confiscate detainee’s property.

The Federal Court initially knocked back a Dutton-led challenge to the temporary injunction in August 2017, so the minister then went about introducing the first version of the prohibiting items legislation in September that year, which simply went on to lapse.

Then in May, when federal parliament met for three emergency sitting days to deal with legislation that couldn’t wait until after the pandemic, Dutton and Co made a renewed attempt to bring about laws to confiscate refugees’ phones.

Life-saving devices

More than 150,000 voices from across Australia called on the Senate to take action, and today we congratulate the senators for listening,” said National Justice Project director George Newhouse, who successfully brought the class action against Dutton’s initial phone ban.

“Mobile phones save lives every day,” the legal service’s principal solicitor continued. “They are a legal, emotional, social, and cultural lifeline without which the government could silence and punish people seeking asylum with impunity.”

Newhouse explained that minister Dutton is trying to take away phones “from the innocent men, women, and children who he has detained.” And this would not only deprive them of vital communications with loved ones, but also cut them off from their legal representation.

“I believe that Priya, Nadesalingam and their two children would be in Sri Lanka today if they had not had their mobile phones with them on the night that the guards stormed their room in Villawood Immigration Centre,” Newhouse maintained.

Also known as the Biloela Tamil refugee family, Priya, Nadesalingam and their two Australian-born children were about to be covertly deported by plane last August, when they were able to contact supporters via their phone, which led to a last minute judicial reprieve.

Now, the family are deplorably being detained at Scott Morrison’s Christmas Island facility.


Biloela Tamil refugee family (Image from

Release them into the community

The failed mobile phone confiscation bill appeared mid-pandemic at a time when there was a rising focus upon the former Manus Island and Nauru offshore refugees and asylum seekers who came to Australia under Medevac last year and are now being held in hotels.

The men at the Mantra Hotel and the other 120-odd detainees held at Brisbane’s Kangaroo Point Central Hotel weren’t – and still haven’t been – given any way to protect themselves against COVID-19.

There’s no room to keep social distance in these establishments. The guards don’t take virus protective measures. And one staff member has tested positive for COVID-19 whilst working at each of the hotels that are now deemed alternative places of detention (APODs).

The majority of the information about the plight of these men – who were brought here for medical assistance and then locked away during a health crisis to be given none – has been making its way out to the public via their mobile phones and internet-capable devices.

And as long-term refugee rights advocate Jane Salmon points out, now Lambie has seen this important victory over the line, it’s time to turn back to the greater campaign that involves seeing the Medevac refugees released into the community, so they can have their freedom after seven long years.

This piece was originally published on The Big Smoke. You can find them on Facebook ( and on Twitter (

Paul Gregoire is a Sydney-based journalist and writer. He has a focus on civil rights, drug law reform, gender and Indigenous issues. Along with Sydney Criminal Lawyers, he writes for VICE and is the former news editor at Sydney’s City Hub.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Scroll Up