the absence of antifa and blm in our news.
https://benjaminfulford.net/2022/01/10/khazarian-mafia-suffer-massive-defeat-as-they-lose-their-homeland/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-geo-political-news-and-analysis_257
All posts by jr.ohmage@proton.me
Continuing the Saga
of the Enemies of the People network
A Preview
Last month I came across Samuel Clemens’ article, “To the Person sitting in Darkness”. I’ve read it before but this time I focused on Clemens’ target, the Reverend Mr. Ament. At first, I thought Clemens had reached into his bag of synecdoche one more time for the name of his targeted antagonist but William Scott Ament was born to it. https://www.academia.edu/8994508/William_Scott_Ament_and_the_Boxer_Rebellion_Heroism_Hubris_and_the_Ideal_Missionary
That Ament had a strong enough interest in the Chinese money system to publish an article between mission tours titled “The Ancient Coinage of China” in September 1888 by the Archeological Institute of America in “The American Journal of Archeology and of the History of the Fine Arts” Vol 4 No. 3 pp 284 – 290 lends, in the least, more credence to Samuel Clemens’ moral position than to The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions outrage.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/495874.pdf
It’s such a big story the following link can serve as the skeleton of modern troubles.
https://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/moderneurope/tao-he/
Flesh that out with a documented version of a root cause of the Boxer Uprising not heard nor repeated very often
https://www.mangaloretoday.com/opinion/The-Don-Who-Made-Two-Empires-to-Clash.html
While some religions require two witnesses to a crime for it to be prosecuted that was no help here. You know how that works.
From http://levantineheritage.com/pdf/Commercial_Philanthropy_American_Mission.pdf
This article explores the interactions of American missionaries and opium traders in and around Izmir (then called Smyrna), focused on Protestant Christian evangelism of its Christian Orthodox residents, in the first part of the nineteenth century. It argues that American missionaries placed confidence in the humanitarianism of American international commerce, even commerce involving opium. Opium was the main commodity that first drew American traders to Izmir, where they bought opium and shipped it for sale in China, and on which, despite its growing controversy there and in America, they made great profits. The missionaries’ faith in ‘free trade’ helped to rationalize their efforts and focus on those Eastern Mediterranean peoples, especially Armenians, who were likewise engaged in commercial activity, in order to reform the peoples of the Ottoman Empire.
The missionaries’ faith in ‘free trade’ helped to rationalize their efforts.
From Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and capitalism in America by E. Richard Brown pgs 122-123
Scientific medicine’s singular concern with the microbiological interaction of the human body and specific disease states had political consequences which Gates and a few others envisioned. In brief, Gates embraced scientific medicine as a force that would: (1) help unify and integrate the emerging industrial society with technical values and culture, and (2) legitimize capitalism by diverting attention from structural and other environmental causes if disease.
Gates and other officers in the Rockefeller foundations believed that medicine had an important cultural role to play. Gates believed that the goal of medicine, the “healing ministration,” “is the most intimate, the most precious, the superlative interest of every man that lives.” After food, water, sleep, and sex, freedom from disease is the great longing of all peoples. The desire for health is a unifying force “whose values go to the palace of the rich and the hovel of the poor.” Medicine is a work “which penetrates everywhere.” Thus, “ the values of medical research are the most universal values on earth, and they are the most intimate and important values to every human being that lives.”
With medicine’s unique acceptance by all people, the Rockefeller Foundation discovered what the missionaries also knew: Medicine can be used to convert and colonize the heathen. In 1909 the Rockefeller philanthropies added public health programs to their earlier efforts to develop public schools and promote agricultural demonstration projects in the South in part because medical care is so seductive to even the most reluctant people.
In China, Gates switched from supporting religious missionaries to building a Western medical system. This episode is fascinating both because of the greater value that Gates, a man of the cloth, placed on scientific medicine in promoting Western influence and because of the unabashed imperialist motivations he himself attributed to Rockefeller philanthropies abroad. In 1905 Gates urged Rockefeller, a frequent contributor to Baptist missionaries, to donate $100,000 to an organization of Congregational missions. “Now, for the first time in the history of the world,” Gates explained to Rockefeller,
all the nations and all the islands of the sea are actually open and offer a free field for the light and philanthropy of the English speaking people…Christian agencies as a whole have very thoroughly invaded all coasts, all strategic points, all points of entry and are thoroughly entrenched where they are.
For Gates, transforming heathens into-fearing Christians was “no sort of measure” of the value of missionaries:
Quite apart from the question of persons converted, the mere commercial results of missionary effort to our own land is worth, I had almost said a Thousandfold every year of what is spent on missions… Missionary enterprise, viewed solely from a commercial standpoint, is immensely profitable. From the point of view of means of subsistence for Americans, our import trade, traceable mainly to the channels of intercourse opened up by missionaries, is enormous. Imports from heathen lands furnish us cheaply with many of the luxuries of life and not a few of the comforts, and with many things, indeed, which we now regard as necessities.
Industrial capitalism, however, required not only raw materials and cheap products. It also needed new markets for its abundant manufactured goods. As Gates added to Rockefeller’s receptive ear:
our imports are balanced by our exports of American manufactures. Our export trade is growing by leaps and bounds. Such growth would have been utterly impossible but for the commercial conquest of foreign lands under the lead of missionary endeavor. What a boon to home industry and manufacture!
Gates’ heady sales pitch to John D Rockefeller was likely intended to be the platform for a wave of American imperialism he was itching to launch based on medical technology.
John D. Rockefeller might not have noticed but his Foundation was losing its foundation.
http://sites.asiasociety.org/chinawealthpower/chapters/feng-guifen/
What These Posts Need Is More Space
They have been getting more cluttered lately and it’s important to appreciate the bigger picture they, the ruling elite, are approaching with this time; and it ain’t no movie.
Lies, deceit, misdirection… a great comprehension awaits the UNwashed if they can handle it.
Aye, there’s the rub.
Enough With the Constitutional Wallflower Waltz
It’s time to dance like a New Zealander
LOL the Haka must have made somebody nervous; the previous link https://media.livecast365.com/highwire/thehighwire/content/1636683758635.mp4 disappeared but this one works… https://thehighwire.com/videos/nz-warriors-bring-the-heat/
Trick or Treat
A few days ago I came across a work of David J Hill, LL.D., “Science of Rhetoric: An Introduction to the Laws of Effective Discourse” copyright 1877. Dr. Hill was also noted on the cover as President of the University of Rochester and author of Hill’s Rhetorical Series and the Elements of Psychology.
Hill’s inaugural address was quite the measure of the expectations of education in 1888…
The flavor of Hill’s thinking on the nature and content of collegiate liberal education may best be appreciated by selected excerpts from the address. “All education consists in the formation of certain… predispositions for particular kinds of action.” “The law of all education is the progressive translation of imperfect and incomplete conscious acts into the fixed determinations of a mechanical automatism.” “Liberal education does not aim to form the specialist, but to prepare one to be a specialist by making him, in a large sense, an educated man.” The essential elements of liberal training included “certain attainments of knowledge and certain qualifications for conduct.”
In his own distinctive prose, Hill defined his philosophy concerning the several disciplines indispensable for a liberally educated man. “Ability to read ordinary Latin at sight is absolutely essential. All the Greek he can learn is likely to prove valuable.” He should acquire a reading knowledge of modern languages “and a fair speaking knowledge of at least one.” As for mathematics, “No education can be called ‘liberal’ which has not enabled the recipient of it to perceive the mathematical necessity that runs through all natural relations, and to make those calculations which are needed in the exact sciences.” “Some knowledge of substantive science” constituted yet another ingredient of liberal education, and science had so vastly proliferated as to demand “a great revolution in pedagogical methods”–to wit, far more laboratory experience under the direction of specialist professors. Philosophy, to shape “the intellectual and moral character of students,” should retain its traditional and exalted place in the college curriculum. And attention must be devoted to “eliciting those sentiments of the heart which bind the learner to his species and his Creator, fit him for the family and society, the Church and the State… ”
Should young men be equipped for a variety of professions and vocations? Certainly. “The scholar is needed not only in literature, in science, and in the learned professions, but even more imperatively in politics.” Yet the training they obtained should “not be narrow in scope and vocationally channeled [sic]. The best preparation for the specialist is a broad, general culture which lifts him at once from the circumscribed condition of an intellectual mechanic to the dignity of a philosopher.” The doctrine that a college should prepare men “to earn a living by some practical art,” Hill repudiated as heretical, comparable in fact to the theory that “the leading attribute of a successful president of a college [is] dexterity as a commercial traveler rather than scholarly attainments.”
…though the outline of those times is what should be considered if we are to understand the present.
Brazil became a republic and Paris attracted hosts to a great international exhibition, featured by the soaring Eiffel Tower. The Second International of Socialists was founded, and in France the Boulangist ferment, which at its zenith threatened to sweep away the Third Republic, petered out ignominiously. Beyond the Rhine, ambitious William II dropped the pilot of the German Empire, Prince Otto von Bismarck. The Hapsburg Monarchy was morally shaken by the death of Crown Prince Rudolf, almost certainly by his own hand. In a significant real estate transaction, Great Britain, in exchange for territorial concessions in Africa, ceded the strategic isle of Heligoland to Germany; and the celebrated British empire-builder, Cecil Rhodes, started his South African Company. And, as additional veneer on its “westernization” facade, Japan received a constitutional form of government.
What has that to do with today? Change; or as BO referred to it, fundamental change; or as the oligarchs refer to it, The Great Reset.
That ‘Great Reset’ title is, of course, pure BS propaganda; nothing but an effort of psychological manipulation. The Sixties was a time of change, too, except back then everything was not televised. We’ve been hornswoggled into accepting their concept model for the United States is democracy and few of US understand how they did that. The science of rhetoric is important if you want to understand politicians and their handlers. So much of the following link’s content has been pasted below because the political rhetoric is at high pitch. It’s like a rubber sword fight in places.
By the time it got to McGeorge Bundy, the tone changed somewhat.
From https://1997-2001.state.gov/about_state/history/vol_xxxiv/zb.html
- Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/
Washington, November 4, 1964.
/1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 13. No classification marking. Drafted by R. Gardner (IO) and L. Van Nort (OES) on November 3 and cleared by Lee and William D. Rogers (AID) and Robert Barnett (FE).
SUBJECT
Your Luncheon with Mr. John D. Rockefeller, III, Thursday, November 5, 1964
Mr. Rockefeller is expected to request your support for a Presidential Commission on Population./2/ Mr. Rockefeller obviously hopes that such a Commission would enlarge the area of public consensus on governmental measures for dealing with the population problem. At bottom, the issue is whether a Presidential Commission would advance–or delay and deter–operating decisions which will have real impact.
/2/In a November 6 letter to Secretary Rusk, Rockefeller confirmed that he had discussed a Presidential Commission with Rusk at the meeting. (Ibid.) Rockefeller wrote in a second letter on November 11: “We can quickly agree, I think, that the problems of population are among the most critical now facing mankind. Hardest hit are the two-thirds of the world’s people who live in the developing countries, but all of us are vitally affected. Here at home our growing population presents us with problems of urban congestion and sprawl, of relocation of industry and political reapportionment, of mass higher education, of leisure and outdoor recreation, of voluntary fertility regulation, of immigration policy, of economic growth–all basic to the realization of the Great Society. Abroad in our efforts to aid the developing countries, we are confronted with population growth at a rate unprecedented in human history–a rate that threatens to defeat the struggle for social and economic development in which such countries are so deeply involved.” (Ibid.)
The following considerations are among those you may wish to bear in mind in responding to Mr. Rockefeller’s proposal:
- The United States offered in Deputy Assistant Secretary Gardner’s statement before the U.N. General Assembly in December 1962, to “help other countries, upon request, to find potential sources of information and assistance on ways and means of dealing with population problems.”
- Since then the U.S. has become publicly committed in a series of statements by the late President Kennedy, Ambassador Stevenson, Deputy Assistant Secretary Gardner, and by votes cast in the U.N. Asian Population Conference and in ECAFE, to supporting provision through governmental bilateral and multilateral channels of all forms of assistance for dealing with population problems, with the clear exception of the shipping of manufactured contraceptive devices.
- In actual practice, both the U.S. Government through its AID program and the U.N. agencies have so far limited themselves to technical assistance in the traditional fields of demography, statistics and census taking, together with verbal encouragement of attention by less developed countries to their population problems. Neither AID nor the U.N. agencies have so far specifically earmarked funds in direct support of family planning programs. From a political point of view there may be advantages in avoiding such earmarking and in supporting family planning only indirectly through general budgetary support or support for health and social welfare services. But direct support may well be necessary to accelerate progress in countries such as India, Pakistan and Turkey which are having difficulty in finding funds to implement what are specifically described as national family planning programs.
- The question of U.N. technical assistance to national family planning programs, debated earlier in subordinate bodies, is likely to be a major issue at the forthcoming General Assembly. Two years ago–before the public statements referred to above–the U.S. voted in the Second Committee for a resolution calling for technical assistance, but abstained in Plenary in the separate vote on this issue, which we will now probably have to face once again.
- An increasingly vocal body of Congressional opinion led by Senators Clark and Gruening and by Congressman Udall, has been demanding evidence of effective action by AID to cope with the population problem. They may well introduce legislation in the forthcoming Congressional session earmaking AID funds for this purpose.
- On balance, we believe that a Presidential Commission would not succeed in extending the area of consensus to the necessary operating decisions, and might by its deliberations render such decisions more difficult and controversial than if they are dealt with in the normal way./3/ You may wish to communicate to the other Department participants in advance of the luncheon your own views on the Commission and on the other points raised in this memorandum./4/
/3/On December 22, Rusk wrote Rockefeller: “I have been giving thought to the considerations which you advanced in your helpful letters. While we may not see eye to eye on your tactical suggestion of a Presidential Commission, we in the Department will continue to seek ways of encouraging wider recognition of the implications of this problem and explore opportunities for further progress.” (Ibid.)
/4/No Presidential Commission was established, but the President did include a message on population in his January 5, 1965, State of the Union message: “We seek not to extend the power of America but the progress of humanity. We seek not to dominate others but to strengthen the freedom of all people. I will seek new ways to use our knowledge to help deal with the explosion in world population and the growing scarcity in world resources.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, Book I, p. 4)
- Memorandum From a Senior Adviser to the Vice President (Rielly) to Vice President Humphrey/1/
Washington, November 27, 1964.
/1/Source: Minnesota Historical Society, Papers of Hubert H. Humphrey, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.E.12.7 (B). No classification marking. A handwritten note at the top of the page reads “Draft.”
SUBJECT
Conference on “Pacem in Terris” sponsored by the Fund for the Republic
As the enclosed letter/2/ indicates, the conference on Pope John’s encyclical “Pacem in Terris”/3/ will be held in New York on February 17-20. You will recall that we discussed this some months ago and passed the word to Robert Maynard Hutchins/4/ that you were interested in attending and addressing the group. They are now moving ahead with plans to make a definite schedule for the conference. As the enclosed letter indicates, their plans are a bit grandiose. They had hoped to get Khrushchev, the Pope and President Johnson. I doubt if they are going to end up getting any of them.
/2/Not found.
/3/Pope John XXIII’s encyclical, Pacem in Terris, urged international cooperation for peace and justice and committed the Church to a concern for all human problems.
/4/Hutchins, President of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, was the chairman of the convocation. The Center was an American non-governmental organization and was hosting the conference as part of the UN International Cooperation Year.
As Harry Ashmore’s letter indicates, they want you to put the arm on the President and get him to make a commitment on this. I do not think I would be in any hurry to do so. This strikes me as the type of conference where it might be better to have the Vice-President as the star, rather than the President. I think it is going to be a first-rate conference with very high level people from the intellectual, journalistic and diplomatic world attending./5/ But it is designed to be a high powered intellectuals’ conference, not a conference given to cautious diplomatic statements. I am not at all sure that this is the right medium for the President. I see no harm in having him open the conference but I’m not sure that he would want to schedule a major speech there.
/5/Other speakers scheduled to attend included U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Senator J. William Fulbright, Ambassador George Kennan, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Abba Eban, three former Presidents of the General Assembly, historian Arnold Toynbee, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Linus Pauling, and theology professor Paul Tillich. (UN Press Release ICY/22, February 9, 1965; Minnesota Historical Society, Papers of Hubert H. Humphrey, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.F.13.7 (B))
To be perfectly blunt, I am somewhat reluctant to see you bypassed as the star of this conference. This would probably be the best foreign policy speaking engagement you would get in the next year. The subject of the conference would permit you to give a very high level speech which would really combine all your major foreign policy interests–arms control and disarmament, relations between the developing and the developed world, foreign aid, international organizations, United Nations, and peace./6/ If the President is inclined to attend, by all means I would not discourage him. But I don’t think I would exert any pressure at this time.
/6/On February 17, 1965, Humphrey delivered a long speech at the conference, in which he explained that statesmen “cannot ignore the implications for the survival of mankind of new discoveries in technology, biology, nuclear physics, and space.” He also clearly enunciated the new threats to peace and security: “In Pacem in Terris John XXIII returned to a theme he had discussed in Mater et Magistra when he stated: `Given the growing interdependence among peoples of the earth, it is not possible to preserve lasting peace if glaring economic inequality among them persists.’ If control of nuclear weapons is a central issue in improving relations between East and West, accelerating the economic development of new nations is essential to harmony between North and South.” Humphrey spoke of the need for social justice: “Those who have been `more blessed with this world’s goods’ must heed the Pope’s plea to assist `those political communities whose citizens suffer from poverty, misery and hunger and who lack even the elementary rights of the human person.’ We must do this out of compassion–for we are our brother’s keeper. And we also do it out of self-interest as well–for our lot is their lot, our future their future, our peace their peace. This planet is simply too small for the insulation of the rich against turbulence bred of injustice in any part of the world.” (Remarks of the Vice President, February 17, 1965; ibid.)
- Memorandum From Robert Komer of the National Security Council Staff to President Johnson/1/
Washington, April 27, 1965.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Robert W. Komer Files, Population Control 1965-March 1966. Secret. Copies were sent to McGeorge Bundy, Bill Moyers, and Douglass Cater. An attached covering memorandum reads: “Mac–Here’s a little flank attack that I think might just penetrate LBJ’s defenses. It’s a hard dollar and cents argument for taking a more serious view of birth control in the LDCs. Any harm in just trying this out on LBJ? It might score, and he did tell Gaud he wanted to talk aid this week. The study mentioned is a paper by Steve Enke, a RAND economist. Didn’t want to overload LBJ but you ought to read it.”
While you’re thinking about foreign aid, here’s a fascinating statistic. A recent study claims that if economic resources in many LDC’s were devoted to retarding population growth rather than accelerating production growth, these resources could be 100 times more effective in raising output per capita! In many of these countries, spending only about one percent of their present overall development outlays on reducing births could be as effective in raising per capita output as the other 99%.
The above figures are just one good economist’s./2/ However, even if they’re off somewhat, there’s no doubt of the rapidly declining cost of population control because of new devices. This could have immense significance for areas where we are investing massive amounts of development capital–all of Latin America, India, Pakistan, Turkey (to take just our biggest clients). The process of getting these countries to the stage of self-sustaining growth, and thus reducing the longer term foreign aid burden on us–could be greatly foreshortened.
/2/Komer sent the studies to which he is referring to Bill Moyers the next day. They include two papers by RAND economist Stephen Enke, “Economic Programs to Prevent Births” and “Lower Birth Rates–Some Economic Aspects,” as well as summaries of recent polls concerning birth control. (Memorandum from Komer to Moyers, April 28; ibid.)
I’m not propagandizing for a big US push on the still sensitive issue of birth control. Things are already moving in this field at a pretty good pace. But the relevance of figures like the above to the achievement of our foreign aid goals is so striking that you may want to consider ways and means of gradually using our foreign aid more as an incentive to major efforts in this field by the less developed countries themselves. You might want to include this subject in your aid talks with Bill Gaud.
Would you like to hear more about this?
R.W. Komer/3/
/3/Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.
- Memorandum From Robert Komer of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)/1/
Washington, August 4, 1965.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Robert W. Komer Files, Population Control 1965-March 1966. Secret.
Mac–
We’re moving on population control. Califano is setting up a task force/2/ (perhaps more at Moyers’ urging than LBJ’s; Bill is a bug on this).
/2/No other references to the Califano task force have been found, and no mention of such an entity appears in later State Department internal histories on this topic.
The argument will be over how much splash we can make without setting up counterpressures, both here and abroad. Much will depend on what the Vatican finally comes out with.
Another problem is that little in the way of legislation seems called for. Most of what’s needed can be done by Executive action. This creates a special message problem, so I suggested linking population control abroad at least to the war on want./3/
/3/In a letter dated August 30 to UN Secretary-General U Thant at the second UN World Population Conference in Belgrade, President Johnson wrote: “we must now begin to face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying population. Our government assures your conference of our wholehearted support to the United Nations and its agencies in their efforts to achieve a better world through bringing into balance the world’s resources and the world’s population. . . . It is my fervent hope that your great assemblage of population experts will contribute significantly to the knowledge necessary to solve this transcendent problem. Second only to the search for peace, it is humanity’s greatest challenge.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, Book II, p. 951)
Incidentally, population research in government is abysmally low–only about $500,000 directly attributed.
RWK/4/
/4/Printed from a copy that bears these typed initials.
- Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Ball) to President Johnson/1/
Washington, September 22, 1965.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, Vol. 15. No classification marking.
SUBJECT
White House Conference on International Cooperation
Recommendation
- That you agree in principle to the proposed program of the White House Conference on International Cooperation/2/ scheduled to be held November 28 through December 1, 1965./3/
/2/The attached proposed program is not printed. To commemorate the 20th anniversary of the United Nations, 1965 was designated “International Cooperation Year.” On October 2, 1964, President Johnson announced U.S. participation in the ICY. He told the representatives of the more than 200 bipartisan participating groups that international cooperation was “a clear necessity to our survival. . . . The greater the nation the greater is its need to work cooperatively with other people, with other countries, with other nations.” The President also announced his intention to call a White House conference in 1965. (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64, Book II, pp. 1186-1188) On November 24, 1964, Johnson named a Cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Harlan Cleveland to coordinate U.S. participation. Three objectives designated by Cleveland for the ICY included: “1. An inventory of ongoing projects and programs involving international cooperation. 2. An intensive public relations campaign in the U.S. to stress the magnitude and effectiveness of international cooperation. 3. A series of suggestions for future international cooperative projects.” (Memorandum from Joyce to Pollack, February 17; Department of State, SCI Files: Lot 68 D 152)
/3/The “approve” line is checked. A handwritten note by the President reads: “If I’m available which I doubt.” In a September 23 memorandum to the President, McGeorge Bundy “warmly” supported the recommendations, but added, “I would put all this even more affirmatively if I did not feel that you were wary of additional engagements.” (Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, Vol. 15) Gordon Chase commented to Bundy in a September 28 memorandum that the President’s hesitancy “probably” reflected a “general reluctance to get tied on firmly to anything so far in advance.” (Ibid.)
- That you make remarks at the final plenary of the Conference on December 1, 1965. (Text to be provided.)/4/
/4/The “approve” line is checked. A handwritten note by the President reads: “See above.”
- That following the final plenary there be an early evening reception at the White House./5/
/5/The “approve” line is checked. A handwritten note by the President reads: “See above.”
Discussion
Following your designation of 1965 as International Cooperation Year (ICY), you appointed a Cabinet Committee to coordinate the Government’s participation. The private sector was engaged through the United Nations Association.
In response to your public requests (excerpts enclosed),/6/ the Cabinet Committee and the United Nations Association created joint committees on various areas of international cooperation. We expect a number of the committee reports will contain proposals worthy of consideration for your State of the Union message. You will recall that this was discussed when you recently joined us for a luncheon in the Department.
/6/Not printed.
It may be desirable for you to release some of the recommendations before the opening of the Conference. We plan to make specific suggestions to this end.
We have developed the enclosed tentative program of the Conference which would personally involve you, high government officials and congressional leaders.
You would participate in the final plenary session of the Conference on Wednesday, December 1, by receiving the reports and recommendations of the Conference and making appropriate remarks. This would be followed by an early evening reception at the White House.
The Congress passed a concurrent resolution/7/ supporting the ICY program and designated six Senators and six Congressmen to attend the Conference. Other legislators will also participate. We expect about 1200 top citizen leaders and 300 government officials to participate. The Conference will, therefore provide you and the United States Government with the opportunity to present graphically the efforts of the Administration to achieve peace and cooperation in the world.
/7/Senate Concurrent Resolution 36, agreed on June 22, 1965. (79 Stat. 1429)
George W. Ball
- Memorandum From the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) to President Johnson/1/
Washington, November 4, 1965, 9:30 a.m.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, Vol. 16. Confidential. A handwritten note indicates the memorandum was received at the LBJ Ranch on November 6 at 9:10 a.m.
SUBJECT
Should we go Ahead with the White House Conference on International Cooperation Year?
- Jake Jacobsen has passed me your message, and I have not done anything further on this matter until I could get back to you. But neither have I issued any general stop order./2/ I want to do just what you want done, but I don’t think I should cancel or postpone this Conference without a definite decision from you. It is now scheduled, by your repeated public affirmation, for November 29-December 1. No one short of the President should make any decision to derail what the President has repeatedly ordered.
/2/Bundy had raised the issue with the President in a memorandum on November 2: “At the outset, let me say that while I don’t blame you for your concern about the number of White House Conferences, the record shows we are pretty firmly committed to go through with this one as scheduled. In addition to the fact that many leading private citizens have already contributed much time and effort in preparation for the Conference, the public record leaves us little room to maneuver.” (Ibid.)
- My memoranda to you have failed to speak adequately of the history of all this. It began in 1964 after the UN General Assembly designated 1965 as International Cooperation Year. You gave that designation your enthusiastic support.
(1) First in your June, 1964 speech at Holy Cross you said,
“I propose to dedicate this year to finding new techniques for making man’s knowledge serve man’s welfare. . . .
“We intend to call upon all the resources of this great nation–both public and private–to work with other nations to find new methods of improving the life of man.”
(2) Then on October 2, 1964 you issued a Proclamation of International Cooperation Year. The operating clauses of this Proclamation are as follows:
“Now, therefore, I, Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the United States of America, do hereby
–proclaim the year 1965 to be International Cooperation Year in the United States of America;
–rededicate the Government of the United States to the principle of international cooperation; and
–direct the agencies of the Executive Branch to examine thoroughly what additional steps can be taken in this direction in the immediate future.
I also call upon our national citizen organizations to undertake intensive educational programs to inform their memberships of recent progress in international cooperation and urge them to consider what further steps can be taken.”
(3) On the same day you addressed a gathering of notables in the East Room and made an eloquent and moving announcement of plans for a White House Conference on International Cooperation:
[Here follow excerpts from the President’s remarks on October 2; see footnote 2, Document 274.]
(4) With that send-off, people went to work. On November 24, 1964, you designated a Cabinet Committee under Dean Rusk to prepare for the White House Conference. Committees were formed on a whole range of topics, and the interest of leading private citizens was engaged in a year of preliminary work. They really are leading citizens, and I attach two pages of representative names of those who have taken an interest in the Conference (Tab A)./3/
/3/Not found.
(5) On March 4, 1965, you received Bob Benjamin and gave the whole undertaking another strong boost.
“On October 2, I proclaimed this twentieth anniversary year of the birth of the United Nations as International Cooperation Year in the United States.
“I am highly pleased by the extent of voluntary support being given to this observance by citizens throughout the country. Mr. Benjamin’s progress report this morning was inspiring. I believe Americans today fully recognize that international cooperation is the one sure way toward peace. The depth of such citizen support is a source of strength for all of this nation’s policies and purposes.
“I am hopeful that the White House Conference on International Cooperation which I have called for November 29 to December 1, can be a landmark session. I hope the conference and the preliminary discussions leading toward it can be a source of new and thoughtful evaluations of what we can do in every major field of international cooperation.”
(6) Since then the wheels have been rolling. Thirty Committees of private citizens have prepared reports which are now going to press. Invitations have been printed. Committee and Panel Chairmen have arranged their programs. A remarkable group of Americans have responded to the challenge you gave their leaders in the East Room a year ago. All of this can do good. Little if any of it can do harm. You started it in a great speech. Why should it be stopped now?
- It may be that I have failed to respond to some special concern of yours. Here are some cases of possible objections with brief answers.
Objection One: The Conference will mess up the White House for three days.
Answer: All that the White House is committed to is a single reception which the President needs to attend only if he is in town.
Objection Two: The Conference will put forward a lot of embarrassing proposals.
Answer: There will be no wild proposals, because the private committees have shown themselves very responsible. Moreover, the freedom of action of the executive branch will be fully protected./4/
/4/On November 19 the Bureau of the Budget informed Chase that the ICY report on food and agriculture was “closely parallel” to a proposed Presidential statement on food. However, “BOB has informally made the point to me that if this report comes out, it will substantially decrease the chances of the President making a food initiative anytime in the near future–i.e. he won’t want to appear to be following the ICY Committee’s lead.” (Memorandum from Chase to Bundy, November 19; Johnson Library, National Security File, Subject File, White House Conference on International Cooperation, ICY–Tabs 26-31)
Objection Three: Some far-out type may use the White House for his own protest on Vietnam, or something else.
Answer: This is always a possibility when any group is asked to the White House, but the very presence of 1,000 other well-behaved peace-lovers will be the best possible answer.
- So my strong recommendation is that we should proceed on schedule. I can think of no reason whatsoever for cancellation, and the only good reason for a postponement would be to allow you to take a larger part in the Conference after your convalescence. Such a postponement can readily be arranged if you wish–though it might raise unnecessary questions about your health, and it would also increase the burden on you at a later time. The only other alternative I can see is to proceed with the Conference, enlist the help of Mrs. Johnson and the Vice President, and keep the load on you as light as possible.
Carry on with Mrs. Johnson and the Vice President
Postpone it on grounds of health
Speak to me/5/
/5/None of the three options was checked.
McG.B.
P.S. Arthur Goldberg just called me on another matter and I checked this problem with him. He asked me to pass this message: It really would be disastrous with all the supporters of the UN if we cancel the Conference. He and Dorothy Goldberg will be delighted to do anything they can to pitch in and keep the load on you as light as possible.
- Editorial Note
The White House Conference on International Cooperation was held November 29-December 1, 1965, in Washington. President Johnson, who was in Texas, did not address the conference, but Vice President Humphrey read a message from the President at the opening session on November 29.
In his message to the conference, which the President called “a Town Meeting of the leaders of the Nation,” he urged the participants to seek “new ways to raise the world’s millions up from poverty, new policies to conserve and develop the world’s resources, new methods to rid the world of destructive disease; new means to increase commerce between nations; new safeguards against the overriding danger of war; new avenues to world peace.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, Book II, pages 1128-1129)
The administration found that many of the conference’s reports contradicted stated policy or supported programs targeted for extinction. According to an early Bureau of the Budget reaction memorandum, the report on population–a “tricky and sensitive subject” called for more extensive and dramatic U.S. action, when the current U.S. policy was “not to be doctrinaire and to use soft approaches.” Regarding the human rights report, another memorandum noted: “This report proposes to press forward the U.S. into international cooperation in human rights on a broad front. The efficacy of the recommendations involves judgments of U.S. domestic political aspects and how far U.S. goes in surrendering sovereignty or binding its internal affairs by international agreements. These are ticklish problems.” (Memoranda from Chase to Sisco, November 12 and November 17; both in Johnson Library, National Security File, Gordon Chase Files, International Cooperation Year)
White House staff members hoped that the conference would be forgotten. “The one outstanding piece of business left over from the ICY conference,” Harold Saunders wrote Bundy on December 17, “is how to organize (or scuttle) the follow-up. . . . Sisco has sent all the reports to the Cabinet Committee requesting reaction to their recommendations by 22 December. So far the citizens’ committees haven’t done anything but talk about organizing themselves to follow through. Sisco hopes a quick informal reaction to the recommendations will pre-empt them. My sense is that we want to keep communication informal and let it trail off.” Bundy wrote on this memorandum: “I agree.” (Memorandum from Saunders to Bundy, December 17; ibid., Name File, Saunders Memos, Box 7)
- Editorial Note
In late 1965, as White House staff began to review the issue of population, the State Department’s population expert, Robert Barnett, was asked to prepare an overview for White House use. Barnett reported, “Gordon Chase (White House) says it seems to be what was needed for the aid review now afoot over there.” (Memorandum from Barnett to Read, November 22, 1965; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 13) After providing a historical overview stretching back to the Eisenhower administration, Barnett set out a series of principles by which U.S. Government policy could be guided. He made two points. First, the United States could “treat the population problem scientifically without anxiety that to do so will provoke obfuscating ideological dispute as to propriety of that activity.” Second, the U.S. Government “should advocate no specific or elaborate national policy with respect to population questions beyond the policy of stating readiness to respond to requests for help originating at home or in foreign countries with needed resources, financial, scientific, technical, and personnel.” (Ibid.)
In a series of major messages in the first 2 months of 1966, President Johnson raised the issue and followed these guidelines on at least six occasions. On January 20, in an address in Independence, Missouri, he said: “The hungry world cannot be fed until and unless the growth in its resources and the growth in its population come into balance. Each man and woman–and each nation–must make decisions of conscience and policy in the face of this great problem. But the position of the United States of America is clear. We will give our help and support to nations which make their own decision to insure an effective balance between the numbers of their people and the food they have to eat.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1966, Book I, page 42) He spoke again on February 1: “The United States cannot and should not force any country to adopt any particular approach to this problem. It is first a matter of individual and national conscience, in which we will not interfere.” (Ibid., page 119)
A National Security Action Memorandum, dated November 21, 1966, and annotated “draft not used,” includes a covering memorandum that urged immediate action, but cautioned: “There are admittedly some tough issues to be resolved, both in policy and in tactics. . . . There’s also the political question–whether pushing hard encourages opponents to fight back when we might get just as far by moving ahead quickly. I gather you’ve decided this is urgent enough to risk a fight. In any case, this in-house shouldn’t cause trouble.” The matter went no further. (Johnson Library, National Security File, Robert W. Komer Files, Population Control 1965-March 1966)
McG B
https://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/mcgeorge-bundy/
https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/mcgeorge-bundy
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2719480/Document-19.pdf
Dahl
Robert A. Dahl speaks of “the three great milestones in the development of democratic institutions—the right to participate in governmental decisions by casting a vote, the right to be represented, and the right of an organized opposition to appeal for votes against the government in elections and in parliament.” In enumerating these three great achievements of democratic government, Dahl also implies that they are embodied principally in three main institutions: parties, elections, and legislatures: Dahl, Robert A. (ed.), Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966), p. xiGoogle Scholar. See also William Nisbet Chambers “Party Development and the American Mainstream”, especially pp. 18–19, in Chambers, and Burnham, Walter Dean (eds.), The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development (New York: Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar.
https://peoplepill.com/people/robert-a-dahl/
https://prabook.com/web/robert_alan.dahl/1301105
Of course, one doesn’t need to have read Science of Rhetoric to recognize Domestic Enemies; all we have to do is pay attention.
These goblins been around for a long time…
From https://web.archive.org/web/20010706190013/http:/globeusa.org/globeusa/images/Octobernewsletter.pdf
GLOBE USA Receives Grant from Rockefeller Foundation
In August, GLOBE USA gained another prominent supporter by receiving a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. A longtime a supporter of making policymakers aware of global trends and issues, Rockefeller approved a grant for GLOBE USA to highlight the changing role of national legislators as globalization and international institutions take traditionally national policy issues into the international arena. The grant will be used to improve GLOBE USA’s website and produce a publication and a briefing for members to be held at the beginning of the 107th Congress.
When the Oligarchs Speak…
Picture Baghdad Bob. Bob’s their uncle.
The United Nations has joined the World Economic Forum (WEF) to announce a global coronavirus news service, declaring the time has come for “new social norms” that seek out and correct “wrong” information.
Observing that social media is a mechanism for driving opinion on a host of issues, the two globalist organizations announced Thursday they want to “combat dangerous misinformation.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/misinformation-infodemic-world-vs-virus-podcast/
They sound earnest
“Misinformation is happening within our friends and families. So we have to find strategies to, first of all, recognize it. And, secondly, as active citizens, just like we wear masks to protect others, we need to be the good citizen, the active vector fighting back in our daily lives.”
But they got baggage…
A lot of baggage
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/guatemala-statement/
…In 2012, a class action lawsuit was brought by victims of the experiments and their families and filed against the United States and others. The lawsuit was dismissed on grounds of governmental immunity. The Rockefeller Foundation was never named in that suit, nor did the Foundation’s name ever appear in any of the filings…
Au contraire
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/maryland/mddce/1:2015cv00950/312057
https://newspunch.com/rockefeller-foundation-sued-infecting-citizens-syphilis/
A federal judge in Maryland allowed the lawsuit against The Johns Hopkins University, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co (BMY.N) and the Rockefeller Foundation to proceed after it was discovered they helped the U.S. government conducts illegal experiments on unsuspecting citizens in the 1940s.
Reuters.com reports: In a decision on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang rejected the defendants’ argument that a recent Supreme Court decision shielding foreign corporations from lawsuits in U.S. courts over human rights abuses abroad also applied to domestic corporations absent Congressional authorization.
And now the fauci show continues to collapse in a most horrible fashion
and they get offended when we question their lies.
Stop believing them.
Stop believing in them.
They lie.
All the time.
Rockefeller Foundation Announcement
Having been a leader and prime mover of the eugenics movement as reported at https://www.meehanreports.com/eugen-PT-pt1.htm, last months announcement by https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/statement-by-dr-rajiv-j-shah-on-the-anti-eugenics-projects-dismantling-eugenics-convening/ was such a surprise it appears it has not yet registered on the abortion industry’s wrecked-her scale.
Though we pray this will deal a major blow to the abortion industry we must keep in mind that these are the days of deceit; the possibility that it is an UNannounced hand off to the Gates foundation must be considered a probability. Or perhaps this mea culpa sacrifice is intended to focus on the white racist angle, not so much the agents who used the eugenics movement to target the congenitally ‘sick, lame, and lazy’ they felt were not worth the space God provided them; any further attention generated by this disengagement could be jinned up by their progressive army to create more anger events the oligarch’s politicians can use to further dismantle the Republic.
You might dismiss that as cynicism but you can’t claim it is baseless.
One more related item.
I came across this news recently that https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200611/The-egg-decides-which-sperm-fertilizes-it.aspx announced last year…
…This new study by researchers from the U.K. and Sweden looked at the dynamics between the waiting ovum and the sperms that swim towards it. The team says that there is a chemical communication that occurs between the female reproductive system that receives the sperm and the incoming sperm cells from the male partner. They explained that the primary mechanism might be known, but the molecular mechanism that forms the basis of choice of sperm cell by the egg is not clear. They write, “there is a growing appreciation that females can bias sperm use and paternity by exerting cryptic female choice for preferred males.”
The team from Stockholm University and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust speculates that there may be chemicals that attract the sperm. These chemo-attractants are released from the eggs…
I mention that study for two reasons. First, the scientists we are supposed to recognize as the final word on all matters and subjects they deign to invest their money in or make their money from https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/10/20/dr-anthony-faucis-little-known-biodefense-work–its-how-he-became-the-highest-paid-federal-employee/are, as humans, still limited to speculating about the origins of life and yet they cannot include, even in their speculations, that God, the Supreme Being as our Creator, created the process that makes every person, every single one of us, special; and women are blessed as His tool in the creation process establishing the link, persevering through to my second reason, that every person who contributed to the establishment or the continuation of the eugenics system worked or works against God’s will and is not to be trusted.
Seriously contemplate that.
Family Album
From https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/Rockefeller.html
Evidence collected from a variety of public documents indicates that the Rockefeller fortune, although nominally distributed among many individual members of the Family, is actually coordinated under a central management. We have identified a number of persons, who, as employees of the Rockefellers, not only advise the Family on its personal investments but also represent its collective interests on the Boards of Directors of dozens of major corporations. This coordination of capital resources also appears to include moneys held in trust funds, moneys held by tax-exempt philanthropies set up by the Family, and even some moneys of non-Family institutions.
The picture of an enormous concentration of economic power, which follows from this evidence, stands in sharp contradiction to the usual public image – and the recent Congressional testimony – which the Rockefellers have presented. It is hoped that many questions raised by this report will be taken up in continuing investigations by the Congress….
*************
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Riddick_interview_4.pdf pgs 214-218
The senate.gov information probably belongs in the character of the chain yankers portion but it works here and shows why the need for vigilance never ceases.
*************
We all know what the phrase ‘talking out of both sides of your mouth’ means and it’s a rare person who can claim innocence but the Rockefeller Foundation has taken that weakness and turned it into a weapon.
The following link is dated 2013 and its subject is the next hundred years. On the introductory page it is written “views expressed in the report do not reflect those of the Rockefeller Foundation”; on page 4 (four) it shares the news that “a 1915 Rockefeller Foundation report by W Welch and W Rose proposed a new public health education to build the approaches and cadres needed to improve population health. Foundation activities promoting public health since 1913 now span 52 countries across 6 continents.” If you have been paying attention, you should be getting the idea by now, 2 (two) years into the alleged pandemic, there is more than a little UNconstitutional law developing around the subject of ‘health’; don’t think for a minute it stops at health.
On page 5 (five) the subject turns to organizing the dream and the message in the box claims:
The White paper does not make predictions or a forecast of a certain future. It rather projects different scenarios for the future. It makes explicit the critical assumptions and uncertainties we have about the future of healthy societies, and the different plausible
futures they imply, as a basis for creative thinking about how to shape the future.
Yeah, like they were starting at scratch in 2013. The mRNA manipulation was less of a surprise to them than to US.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/1b8843cc-0d4c-4d5e-bf35-4c7b2fbbb63d-the.pdf
*************
It’s a primer.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.66.9.897
Public Health in Imperialism: Early Rockefeller Programs at Home and Abroad
Consider This
In these contrived chaotic times the number of articles written purportedly looking to identify responsible parties for the ongoing attacks on all fronts of Western Civilization has in effect turned the subject into a game of ‘who struck John?’ which brings to mind all the times I’ve heard or read a news story of interest only to have it end just shy of recognizing the perp responsible. Heading into the third year of this declared war on the imagined pandemic, a goodly portion of the population still shows no sign of being capable of grasping the reality of ‘how we got here’; and yet they appear willing to continue their descent for as far as they’re pushed.
The easy and immediate answer to who is behind these attacks is Satan but that answer doesn’t carry enough meat on its bones to generate interest either these days.
Here’s some advice to anyone offering up the usual subjects as responsible parties. Save everybody some time by skipping over the politicians. Not that I’m making excuses for politicians or bureaucrats; in a perfect world they be getting rolled up in the righteous reset real quick but very few of them are organizers; they’re participants, not planners; there is a reason most of them leave government wealthier than when they entered, they’re good at following directions, they know that’s one skill they can handle and it pays very well.
Oh yeah, Soros presents another opportunity for how-to-chase-your-tail and drag the public along . Read this https://www.richardpoe.com/2021/06/18/how-the-british-invented-george-soros/ and look up the meaning of Soros.
Same thing with China. While their leadership’s POV is differently sophisticated than U.S. politicians it’s not likely they have the capability to complete every stage of a knock down brawl even if it’s not dragged out.
That China, recently hauled from its lair spitting biological fire and UNseemly boasts, is about to invade the world and soon thereafter officially claim control over humanity does not seem likely; at least not by riding their war wagon that distance anytime soon and not by themselves; yet there is no doubt the weekly reports MSM churns out about China the Giant is designed to convince US our day is done and like Hillary promised US a while back, they’re going to take some/most of our stuff (not Hillary’s & friends) and give it to those in need so the world is equally poor and this http://un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf is the vehicle that’s going to make it happen and fear is going to be the fuel providing the power because fear is the energy capable of turning lies into reality.
So who is behind the curtain working the levers? I’m sure you know and I’m just as sure few want to understand.
The path to a potential 21st century American tyranny emerged from a tangle of 19th Century eastern European trails originating from defeated revolutionary attempts to end the remaining world’s monarchs reign, starting in Russia and heading west.
Meanwhile, back in the US, a branched passage in one man’s life was providing a series of opportunities for him that unfolded into realities with the help of his trusted advisors. Together they extended his family’s interests from industrial domination to civic uniformity to world governance and engineering humanity. Most people appreciated his success because we believed the benefit extended throughout civilization and was worth the price.
Alas, those benefits also provided a means to facilitate our acknowledged benefactor’s dark side.
A few examples:
Benefit: Organized Education Format
The Price: Opened the door to an acceptance of defense spending and the influence of European socialist revolution loser refugees and the emerging financial elite.
https://www.colonialpublishingco.com/app/download/14933160/Dodd+Report+web.pdf
Benefit: Warmth in the winter
The Price: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5735/
…Mr. Walsh read an article by Professor John J. Stevenson of Columbia University in the Popular Science Monthly, which Mr. Rockefeller in a letter to Mr. Lee had pronounced the best article he had ever seen on the labor question. The article declared that “one E. H. Harriman was of more lasting service to a nation than a million unskilled laborers;” that “unskilled labor is merely animated machinery,” and that “owners of industrial concerns assumed all risks.” Members of trade unions were referred to as “peons,” and it was said that the principles of the unions were “no better than those of the India thugs, who practiced robbery and murder.”
Mr. Walsh wanted to know if Mr. Rockefeller thought these two statements were true. The witness declined to give his opinion of the statements separately, but said that the article as a whole was sound and of great value…
Benefit: Domestic Tranquility
The Current Price:
Dear Chairmen Roberts and Hoekstra, Vice Chairman Rockefeller, and Ranking Member Harman:
As you know, in response to unauthorized disclosures in the media, the President has described certain activities of the National Security Agency (“NSA”) that he has authorized since shortly after September 11, 2001. As described by the President, the NSA intercepts certain international communications into and out of the United States of people linked to al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization…
Of course, a few random examples shouldn’t convince a confirmed cynic burdened with partially developed humanist beliefs, a solid starting point is needed.
Let’s start by looking at the character of the people who are yanking our chains.
https://sangam.org/taraki/articles/2005/11-25_The_Addiction_Trade_Wars.php?uid=1326
https://www.alternet.org/2015/06/5-elite-families-fortunes-opium-trade/
From http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~lorenzo/Ninkovich%20Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf
…Influential figures such as the lawyer Raymond B. Fosdick, soon to become the foundation president, believed that scientific analysis and tested fact should be made available for social purposes, to the point that he could speak almost mystically of “the possibilities of ultimate social intelligence.” Reflecting that new instrumentalist orientation, a resolution adopted by the trustees early in 1929 stipulated that henceforth “the possibilities of social experimentation were to be kept constantly in mind.”
A few years later a foundation officer stated more bluntly that policy would aim at “the advance of knowledge, with the idea of social control as a general guiding line.”20 From that perspective, the problem with the PUMC was its ivory tower preoccupation with pure research, not its emphasis on science and knowledge. The reorientation took place in a decade when the fledgling social sciences appeared to be on the verge of a takeoff in their development, which the Rockefeller philanthropies had done much to promote. The foundation perceived nothing sinister or undemocratic in the renewed faith in the possibilities of scientific social intelligence. As Edmund E. Day put it, “If we cannot get anywhere with the scientific attitude in the social field, if we cannot effect anything like substantial control on the basis of scientific study of social phenomena, then the prospect of civilization assumes different color.” It seemed as much a matter of historical necessity as of ideology to pursue the new branch of knowledge to its widely ramifying frontiers.21 Granting the beneficial consequences of the change of direction, some trustees, nevertheless, blanched at its practical implications. “We used to be so careful about entering politics,” moaned Frederick Strauss, thereby illuminating one reason behind the foundation’s earlier fixation with medicine; the new approach seemed to him to be “loaded with dynamite.” His objections were overridden, however, by the arguments of Fosdick, who reassured Strauss that the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, another family philanthropy, had long been engaged in such funding and that, moreover, foundation interests were adequately protected by a policy of indirect funding. “If there is any taint about this work,” he concluded-a point that he was not prepared to concede in any case-“the taint is once removed.” x22
The taint is once removed. In a few years after that was said they won’t be concerned at all how close they are seen to the taint.
More later.