Today, Dan and Jordan enter the part of their Endgame coverage where both of them start to lose patience with Alex Jones' silly games, almost reaching their breaking point before a pizza arrives toward the end of this episode and gave them their second wind.
The other voice you will hear in just a moment is my co-host and dear friend, Jordan.
And this, you have joined us today for the third installment of our coverage of Alex Jones' documentary, in heavy quotes, Endgame.
And, you know, this thing is a pile of garbage.
It absolutely wouldn't pass muster as a, let's say, junior high history project.
If Alex turned this in and I was his teacher, I would say, Incomplete needs work.
I'd probably give it a D. Reflecting effort.
I think he's shown some effort.
But in terms of proving any of the assertions he makes, as you can tell from the last four hours of coverage so far leading up to Part 3, he has failed to accurately cite a number of things, and that trend does continue.
Today's episode, we begin where we left off last time, and that was Alex Jones is really pissed off about a road.
He is really mad about this trans-Texas corridor.
So, you know, he lies a little bit about it to begin this thing, and then we jump off into eugenics and Nazis at a certain point.
The next stage of this world government plan is to have a transportation control.
And that is called the NAFTA Superhighway, or in Texas called the Trans-Texas Corridor.
It confiscates 584,000 acres of land to be transferred into control of a Spanish company which will collect tolls in Texas for the next 50 years, and there's no limit in the amount of tolls that can be collected.
So the proposal was made, and this was evidenced by some emails that were sent by a guy named Chris Gutierrez, the president of the Kansas City Smart Port.
And the idea was that the Mexican customs office space would need to be designated as foreign Mexican sovereign territory and meet certain requirements.
And so I'm interested in it in terms of all of the rail...
Rail lines and trucking lines meeting up here is some centralized place where you wouldn't have to take the time for American customs officials to be in Mexico to check stuff.
It's really interesting, but when you really look at the idea of why people were pitching this sort of thing, there is a lot of simplicity that comes from it.
But you look at it and you're like, well, if you just had the ports at some place in America ship directly through a direct line to Kansas City and traverse from there, it wouldn't really be that much further than having them come from Mexico.
It's obviously they're trying to get around having to...
Your benefit as America, or these companies, is that you get to pay next to nothing for the longshoremen who are working at the Mexican ports in order to offload stuff from ships.
Into trains that end up going up to Kansas City as opposed to paying a living wage to people in Los Angeles.
First of all, they're proposing a North American tribunal, which would be similar to what we have in Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement, which is trumped by international law.
...and our Constitution could potentially be rendered invalid, and what we would have is a new North American business law that would trump what we have here in the United States.
It's also interesting to note that the NAFTA headquarters is in Mexico and controls the United States trade and rules against the United States Congress, and no one seems to challenge it.
unidentified
It's very probable and probably inevitable that our right to bear arms to be challenged in a North American court.
Why?
How?
This is just an example of what's happening and what's being proposed.
This is Sharia law bullshit.
They're going to bring Sharia law in there, but we have laws.
In 2005, Cintra, a Spanish-owned company, signed a secret agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation to erect toll roads on existing roads and to toll new roads that were completely paid for by town.
The Australian media company, Macquarie Media, bought 40 local papers around Texas and Oklahoma around this time in 2007 by purchasing two parent companies.
But their intent in doing so was stated as they were trying to put together a portfolio of media operations.
A majority of Texas counties have voted to resist the plan for a North American Union and have vowed to block the construction of its infrastructure.
unidentified
Cool.
Heck, we already know in a law that was passed by a subservient United States Congress...
Where practically nobody in the entire Congress stood up and said no, they've already passed the law saying all their driver's licenses are going to be chipped.
Well, I'm telling you right now, I'm not going to carry in a driver's license.
You've got to chip in it.
So big brother can work everywhere I go and see everything I do.
All of these things are designed to bring more and more control to bureaucracies rather than to the independent individual, the sovereign individual of this nation.
What brought me into this whole discussion was the fact that while I was doing this multi-million dollar research effort in the 1980s and early 1990s, I became aware of an agenda basically to lock up one half of the United States into wilderness corridors and reserves.
What's called the Wildlands Project, but it was also a key cornerstone of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
It was during that study in which I began to realize that...
This was not an effort to protect the environment, but an effort to control you and I. They were dividing the United States up into little compartments in which they would rip out roads.
Quote, these maps show how 50% of America might have been used, might have been set aside in wilderness reserves and buffer zones if the biodiversity treaty had been ratified.
I've looked into the Wildlands Project and the Wildlands Network and all that stuff, and I can't find anything that really backs up at all the claims that they're making.
The Federal Highway System was designed by Pentagon war planners in the 1950s to serve as a rapid deployment conduit to move ground forces Otherwise known as a good highway.
He wrote the book Changing Lanes, Visions and Histories of Urban Freeways.
And I quote, Highway engineers dominated the decision making.
They were trained to design without much consideration for how a highway might impact urban fabric.
They were worried about the most efficient way of moving people from point A to point B. The Yellow Book formed the basis for the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which created the interstate system.
At the time, the bill required a lot of federal funding, 90% of the total funding.
And one of the only reasons that it even got made was because Eisenhower supported it for troop movements, but also for evacuations in the case of a natural disaster or like a nuclear event.
This was the consideration, but not the reason they were made.
Then, Lieutenant Colonel Eisenhower participated in a cross-country tour to see if the vehicles that were used in the First World War could make it across the country.
The unmistakable part of the equation, as it relates to the highways, was a federally supported program of urban renewal in which lower-income urban communities, mostly African-American, were targeted for removal.
The idea was, quote, let's get rid of the blight, says Demento.
So this was at the same time that they would also have instituted the policy known as redlining, which kept the people who were displaced from living anywhere where they would be.
License plate reading software tracks Americans' movements wherever they go.
New systems are being deployed that scan your face, read your lips, and analyze your walk.
Under the treasonous Military Commissions Act, American citizens can be secretly arrested, stripped of citizenship, flown to offshore torture camps, and secretly executed.
Everything that Alex is describing as what could be done by the globalists is stuff that he is describing white people are doing to everybody else right now.
I think it's like this, if I'm reading this situation correctly, based on what has been said so far, this dude is part of some sort of military situation.
He's wearing full fatigues, right?
So he's on the job.
Alex fucking Jones shows up and starts putting a camera in his face and asks him questions.
If I was wearing a suit and Alex Jones came to work and he was like, ah, I've got a camera in your face, I'd be like, get that fucking camera out of my face!
The acclimation accelerated with regular army searching bags at the Super Bowl and the Kentucky Derby, as well as other high-profile events.
Then President Bush signed a Defense Authorization Act, which radically increased the funding for the already bloated shadow government.
In the act, the executive branch formally announced that it was preparing for domestic insurrection and went on to preemptively strip the state government's...
If you had somebody who was capable of combining that level of xenophobic lunacy that Trump had that he needed to get elected with ruthless capability, dude.
Which is better than having George W. and Cheney in, where W. is dumb enough and silly enough to get elected, and Cheney is evil enough to enact all of his plans.
Like, we're stuck with chaotic evil.
George W. is still a million times worse as a president than Trump is, and I hate saying that, but that's true.
For the smallest of reasons, including in the document's own text, any incident in the world, regardless of location, that affects population, infrastructure.
unidentified
Environment, economy, or government functions trigger presidents' will.
It is important to add that the president is merely a puppet of the Global Crime Syndicate and may not use the new powers but simply pass them on for use by future puppet administrations.
Predatory elites have always rationalized their oppression by claiming that they are superior and have the divine right to rule, when all they really are is a gaggle of ruthless psychopaths parasitically feeding on the host population.
Until their cancerous movement causes the collapse of the host.
There have been thousands of tyrannical governments in history.
That everybody already knew about, and there were people who knew what to do in those situations, and he was like, everybody who knows anything is stupid!
It's almost like anti-intellectualism is not a good foundation for government.
The fact that the state is the number one cause of unnatural death.
If you take the 150 million people killed by power-mad government in the last century and divide it by 100,000, the number of souls lost would fill the biggest sports stadium packed with 100,000 screaming fans 1,500 times over.
That's 1,500 sports stadiums crammed with 100,000 people each, all exterminated.
For those who think it can't happen here, or won't happen to them, you have been warned.
The carnage witnessed in the last hundred years was only the preparatory phase of the New World Order's master plan.
unidentified
Hitler and Stein's crimes are now part of history.
This is what happens whenever you don't fucking have any concept of what it is that oppression really is.
Because that's what he's trying to describe there.
Look at all the ways that the government in China has oppressed its people.
It must be shadowy globalists doing that to us.
It can't be that people...
Who are given the opportunity will fucking horrifyingly treat other people as if it doesn't matter.
Because if you just say that, if you just reveal that it's something that's within the heart of every single human being on the planet, nobody's gonna buy your goddamn pills.
U.S. and British forces worked closely with Mao Zedong during World War II, and at the end of the war, they secretly backed Mao in driving out Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists.
The OSS and then CIA believed that Mao would have a stabilizing effect.
And Georgetown University political science professor Carol Quigley explained in his book, Tragedy and Hope, how the Anglo-American roundtable groups...
back every brand of authoritarianism on communism the fascism to ensure that a centralized government dominates the population and the economy is planned so The only citation for this is an Amazon link to buy Carol Quigley's book, Tragedy and Hope.
So, this is from this op-ed in the New York Times that David Rockefeller wrote called From a China Traveler.
It's a little bit complicated in terms of history.
For context, Nixon had just gone to China in 1972, a year prior from this article's writing.
Previous to this, the relations between China and the United States had been very frosty.
The United States did not recognize the communist government in China, but did retain relations with the anti-communist government in Taiwan, which largely made the U.S. one of China's major enemies in the world.
So they moved to urban centers and took up work in low-wage labor positions, which were the only things that were available to them.
The Exclusion Act specifically made it so skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese people engaged in mining could not come to the United States, and if they did, they'd be put in jail or deported.
This single act completely isolated the already existing Chinese population.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 led to a period known as the Driving Out Period, where angry whites tried to drive out existing Chinese populations from places around them.
The Rock Springs Massacre of 1885 occurred when white miners in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, got mad about job competition and resorted to shooting, stabbing, and assaulting Chinese workers.
At the end of this, at least 28 people were dead, and none of the aggressors were arrested.
This was followed up by the Snake River Massacre in 1887, where 34 Chinese miners were murdered.
Chinatown in San Francisco would go on to be escape-goated for an outbreak of the Bubonic Plague in 1898, most likely caused by a French merchant ship that had arrived with a guy on it who had died of the plague.
As time wore on, the relations never really got to a place you might call good between the United States and China.
Toward the end of the 1800s, Western business interests tried to get into the Chinese market, but were stalled by the Boxer Rebellion in 1899, where nationalist Chinese forces revolted against foreign influence in trade, politics, religion, and technology.
It's fascinating because it's immediately following the end of World War II.
So it's immediately after VE Day and VJ Day.
Those are the same.
They're not the same day.
So the point is that the way that we treated Russia and China immediately after the end of World War II has dominated the entirety of our foreign policy with them since then.
Because we, you know, famously Eisenhower and Churchill were both like...
Fucking, let's go to town.
Let's finish Russia off while we got the chance.
We need to.
They're weak right now.
Let's take them down.
In the same way, China had just been decimated by the Japanese occupation, which was fucking brutal.
Like, the extent to which Japanese occupation was brutal is something that is not really quite as discussed in World War II literature as maybe it should be.
And when you think about why we got North Korea and South Korea, then we start talking about the Japanese occupation as well, and the way that we treated the Koreans immediately following World War II, and how we didn't do any goddamn shit there either.
But then the other question, of course, is, what exactly are we supposed to do?
Are we the only people who are supposed to do anything in these times?
And then the other one, but then we abandoned our, like, there's a whole long mess of things, and it was those small decisions made.
That's true, but then you've got to consider that at that point you already had a deep history since the literal beginning of our country of being real shitheads to the Chinese.
So after World War II, like you're saying, we decided it wasn't worth the effort to try and help the nationalists fight the communists.
As Secretary of State George Marshall told Congress, the cost of an all-out effort to see communist forces resisted and destroyed in China would clearly be all out of proportion to the result to be obtained.
In essence, we abandoned our ally who helped us avoid further complication in World War II and stood back as Mao and the Communists took over the country in 1949.
It would take the U.S. another 30 years to recognize that government, which would be six years after Rockefeller wrote his very short op-ed.
Between 1949 and 1971, U.S.-China relationships were entirely hostile.
They sided against us in the Cold War, and Mao's Cultural Revolution almost completely isolated China from the rest of the world for many years, even from communist countries such as the Soviet Union.
Yeah, so they ended up, it created an opportunity where an American ping pong player got to visit China and it opened up this possibility of other people visiting.
It led to the opening of the U.S. liaison office in Beijing and the beginning of normalization of relations.
At the point that Rockefeller wrote his tiny op-ed article, the world had almost no access to China for decades.
And some of the assessments that he made as a, quote, China traveler were probably a little naive or generous, also taking into account that he wanted to try and get into the Chinese market now that it was open.
Reading that op-ed in that context, in my ears, it falls a long way short of open support for Mao and his authoritarian rule.
The criticism made of Rockefeller's statement is valid, and it's terrible optics to minimize the brutal authority.
Well, adult mortality rates increased.
Not necessarily.
China had a life expectancy of 35 years in 1949, which went up to 66 years by 1976.
These stats are not enough to justify his policies, but it would be easy to see those sorts of things being persuasive signs to someone who came in and just got the lay of the land as a visiting tourist.
So what I'm saying is that David Rockefeller, I think he fucked up in making this op-ed.
It's a little hasty, possibly, but it's not an all-out sign of globalists being in favor of Mao's authoritarian rule.
It needs to be taken in the proper context that it existed in, which was decades and decades of terrible China relations only being opened up after a very bizarre ping-pong game.
If you went to a conversation with any Chinese person and Nixon at that time, every single grievance the Chinese person would have would be like, yeah, no.
Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose.
The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.
David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10th, 1973.
So China is a country of a very large population, but also one of limited resources in many ways.
There's a terrible history of famines in the country, history between, with 1828 famines recorded between 108 B.C. and 1911 A.D., including the Northern Chinese Famine of 1876 through 1879, in which 9 to 13 million people died.
The Great Chinese Famine of 1958 through 1962 led to the deaths of about 15 to 30 million people due to starvation.
Famine in 1850 through 1873 led to the deaths of over 60 million people.
One in 1942 to 1943 killed 2 to 3 million.
One from 1936 to 1937 killed approximately 5 million.
Famine has historically been a major problem in China because of the weather patterns and high incidents of droughts.
However, all this has naturally been exacerbated at times by the warring states period and just general conflict, getting in the way of distribution of food or just burning down fields.
And more recently by Mao's government doing an absolutely shitty job of managing the resources that were available.
Well, as he was rising to power, he was strongly in favor of larger populations, believing that more communists meant more power for him.
Towards the end, he was more amenable to birth control ideas, even launching a family planning initiative in 1971 with the slogan, One child is too few, two are just five.
The issue was that at the time, China was home to one quarter of the world's...
China at the time was home to a quarter of the world's population with access to only 7% of the world's usable land.
Two-thirds of their population was under 30, and the baby boomers were entering the stage of life where they would reproduce.
This was all a complete disaster in the making for a country with a deep, deep history of famine.
Planned Parenthood was not involved in the creation of the one-child policy, but there is some concern that they may have not done enough to stop it or mitigate the crueler aspects of it.
Planned Parenthood is part of an organization called the International Planned Parenthood Federation, whose members also include the China Family Planning Association.
There's been some concern over the years whether or not the CFPA, the China Family Planning Association, has been complicit in the sterilizations and forced abortions that the Chinese government used to enforce with its reproductive rules.
Right.
unidentified
Articles trying to claim Planned Parenthood is complicit consistently make weak arguments that require caveats like, without being able to read Chinese or hop on a plane to investigate, it's unclear what CFPA...
Because your argument then is anytime family planning of any sort comes about, it is Planned Parenthood.
But I will only mention it whenever family planning does not go the way that I want it to go.
That's the argument.
That's the entire argument right there.
Okay, so, yes.
Planned Parenthood has allowed so many women who otherwise would have been bogged down by children and yada, yada, yada, and all of this shit.
Sure, Planned Parenthood has given them an escape through that.
Whatever.
But this one group of people in China who are maybe involved, or maybe they weren't, or maybe they couldn't been, or whatever, they had a thing, and that did a thing?
And I think a better argument that you could make is that given the lack of evidence of outright participation in the disgusting practices that China has definitely engaged in enforcing their one-child policy, it's possible that the International Planned Parenthood Federation was interested in operating China as a way to offer self-directed.
birth control alternatives to the harsh, oppressive ones offered by the state.
The same goal can be reached by education or by force, and the path of force has always had too many consequences to be worthwhile, and possibly their efforts led to the end of the policy in 2015.
The factors that I brought up there and was discussing at the beginning of that in terms of the fucking disastrous famines, the situation they found themselves in in that baby boom, it's very understandable why those policies would be considered.
what they did in response to them are unforgivable.
he offers or any weirdo dumbass website can prove is speculation.
It's just nonsense where they want to tar Planned Parenthood as being collaborators as opposed to possibly they were there trying to make it like We can do this better.
But there's no way that you would allow anyone to hear and then record you saying depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world.
That, even for Kissinger, who may have said it in private, would never say it in public.
Most likely before that, it was a message board meme attributing the following quote to Kissinger.
Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world because the United States economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.
This quote cannot be authenticated, however.
If you just try to source the part of it, the quote, the U.S. The US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.
The beginning of the quote, what's here in Alex Jones' documentary, does not appear in the text.
And the following is the context of the second part of the text.
Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply and develop domestic alternatives, the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.
That fact gives the US enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries.
Wherever a lessening of population pressures through the reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.
There is a thin veneer of similarity in terms of, like, well, he is talking about population issues, but he's not talking about how population control should be our highest priority, or depopulation.
Well, so researchers looked into the quote that Alex uses, and they've only been able to trace it back, like, the furthest back they can get instances of it.
Are a Louis Farrakhan speech and an interview with the anti-nuclear activist Lorraine Monet as being the most likely public sources, earliest public sources of the misquoting.
Both claim to be quoting the same source of Kissinger.
This man said, word for word, exactly what you said.
When you are quoting somebody for a documentary or a research paper or of the like, one thing that you should be sure to do is to get every word right.
Like, if we were doing this documentary, and then Alex Jones, before he introduces these white letters on a black background with ominous music behind him, if he says, to paraphrase David Rockefeller, you'd be like...
All right.
Well, I found parts of this quote.
unidentified
To kind of malign David Rockefeller, here's the quote.
Also, there was a period of time where the idea of genetics and hereditary traits was new, and the explosion of possible applications of it was new, and we didn't.
And he had some ideas about sort of self-control being essential to having a successful life.
Anyway, he had a lot of value-based stuff that was unnecessary.
But be that as it may, the term Malthusian catastrophe refers to a situation that Malthus warned about, namely a situation where population increase outpaced agricultural production.
He warned that when that happened, there would be a disaster and the deaths would be plentiful.
Alex uses one source as a citation for this and he doesn't specify where in the book he's talking about.
So we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality of the poor he's talking about.
And if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid forms of famine, we should seditiously encourage the other forms of destruction which we compel nature to use.
Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits.
In other towns...
In our towns, we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses.
Making the point that, like, if you don't want to be concerned about the potential for the poor to feed themselves, then why not fucking bring back the plague, you dumbass?
Develop the theory of evolution, its chief tenet being the survival of the fittest.
With the help of T.H. Huxley, known as Darwin's bulldog for his strong support of Darwin's theories, Darwin's theories were pushed into wide acceptance among key scientific circles throughout England, and then the world.
Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, credited as the father of eugenics, saw an opportunity to advance mankind by taking the reins of Darwin's evolution theory and applied social principles to develop social Darwinism.
The families, Darwin, Galton, Huxley, and Wedgwood were so obsessed with their new social design theory that they pledged their families would only breed with each other.
But also, I just want to be clear about this, just because it's like...
It seems very uncommon to us, but intermarrying within your family, like marrying your cousin or your second cousin, was not uncommon in Britain in the 1800s.
So Alex saying that these guys, they intermarried with each other, that is...
The moneyed class of the planet, and particularly the royal families of the world, who are already obsessed with breeding and filled with a predatory disdain for the underclass, Yeah, but that makes sense for them.
Well, what we've talked about with fucking Trump, if you go back through his family, of course they're fucking racist eugenicists because none of them want to admit, I'm just as random-ass dude if I didn't have money.
Yeah, if I didn't figure out a couple of real nice scams, I would just be an asshole.
You can't allow yourself to admit that.
So, of course, if you're a fucking inbred king, you're not going to be like, well, anybody could do my job.
You have to be like, well, it's because of genetics.
That's the reason my family has money.
It's because of genetics.
Not just because we've fucked over everybody that's ever gotten in our way.
Because apparently, maybe it is genetics, Dan.
Maybe...
Sociopathy is something that you can transfer down through the line so you never have to deal with the fact that other human beings are also real.
It was actually developed by Galton back in the 80s and 70s as a way to track racial traits and genetic histories.
James Bond got a license to breed.
The Cold Springs Harbor Research Facility was started in the United States by eugenicist Charles Davenport with the funding of prominent robber barons Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Harriman.
The Cold Springs Harbor is much bigger than the eugenics piece that Alex is talking about, but he's pretending it's the entire research laboratory facility.
There was a eugenics department in it that was widely ignored, Right.
When we're talking about eugenics, if you stop and think of what we did to dogs, what we turned wolves into and we now call dogs, that's eugenics.
That is the concept of eugenics is if you find certain characteristics over time, if you have complete control over those, you can breed further enhancement of those characteristics.
Because when you start throwing in human eugenics, then you start throwing in biases people have towards race, standing, class, all of this shit.
Like, legitimately, if we were to X out all of the other factors and just go by genetics, like, at the purest level, this guy has large feet, this lady has large feet.
And then breed accordingly with no regard for anything else, eventually you're going to get huge feet.
The way that the word has always been applied is discriminatory and monstrous.
But from a purely let's all step back, Before we knew that discrimination was bad.
And you hear these people saying eugenics and you're like, well it kind of makes sense because look at what we did to dogs and cats and yada yada yada.
We domesticated them.
That whole thing.
My problem with eugenics is that people often mistake it for the idea of something intrinsic.
No, it's like, it's so hard to explain eugenics in such a way that satisfies both my inability to divorce humanity's idea of speciality from the rest of the animal kingdom, you know?
While at the same time divorcing it from the evil of like, Well, you know, of course, if you have a skull that's three and four-thirds inches long, you're much smarter than somebody else.
So the argument that this good doctor is presenting throughout the entire thing is like, I understand where sterilization could work, but the way we're doing it is capricious.
The way we're doing it is completely unnecessary.
It's blind.
He's the voice of conscience in the fucking movie along the whole way.
So he's fighting against it.
He's trying to make sure that they don't fucking sterilize her.
At least the movie you've described has a plot, fucking rolls along, gets through all of it, nails out the plot points, and then bring it home with the victory.
They did make one really good salient jab in the movie, I thought, which shocked me for 1934, which was that when the girl had to go to court to be decided if she was going to be sterilized, because they were appealing her case, another character was due to be in court, and it was the son of the governor.
And, like, he's back in chambers, and there's a nurse there who's, like, trying to keep him together, and he, like, rips off her shirt.
And he's, like, some sort of maniac.
And the governor, the dad, is, like, keep it together, keep it together.
And the lawyer comes over and is, like, you're all right, you're all right.
And the lawyer walks him out, and this guy is, like, he has makeup to make him look like a fucking...
The important point to make is that eugenics as a worldwide phenomenon...
It long predates the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute existing in Germany way predated the Nazis.
So the connection between them is not really concrete.
Now, at the same time, there's a lot of questions about the things that may or may not have been studied at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute during the war, but drawing a causal and linear relationship there is not appropriate.
In 1914, she started a monthly newsletter called The Woman Rebel.
The woman rebel with the slogan, no gods, no masters.
She produced this newsletter antagonistically in large part because she wanted to create a legal challenge for the Comstock Act of 1873 regarding obscenity, which made it illegal to disseminate information about contraception.
Postal authorities would go on to suppress the release of five out of the seven issues she would create.
In August 1914, Sanger was indicted for violating obscenity laws, but instead of going to trial, she fled to England.
On October 26, 1916, Sanger was arrested for operating a women's clinic in New York's then-poverty-ridden Lower East Side.
She was arrested, and when she was released, she reopened the clinic, was arrested again.
At that point, she reopened the clinic again.
The police responded by shutting the clinic down for good.
When she went to court for this charge, she was found guilty, and the judge held that women do not have, quote, the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.
She appealed that and it was rejected, but in 1918 her appeal was heard and the case set the precedent that it exempted physicians from the law prohibiting the distribution of contraception information to women, provided it was prescribed for medical reasons.
I, like, if Phyllis Schlafly, who should be lit on fire, and then...
When her soul is brought back from hell, lit on fire again, tossed down there again, and so on and so forth, because I never want her to get comfortable anywhere.
I don't want her to be comfortable in her eternal torment.
I want her to have to keep bouncing around anymore.
It's true that John D. Rockefeller Jr. did support Sanger's work around that point in 1923.
Like everybody should.
But that's not telling the entire story.
The reason that Alex chose that date specifically to bring up is that that's the year that Sanger opened the country's first legal birth control clinic.
But he's leaving out that around this time, Sanger also married her second husband, oil businessman, Noah H. Slee, and he provided much of the funding for her efforts.
So the Rockefellers did start...
It was hard to come in once it became legal that she was running a birth control clinic.
But they weren't involved before that.
She was getting screwed all over the place and people were not helping her.
She carried this crusade for a very long time and then once it was legal, some outside funding came in and she got married to this really rich dude and he gave a bunch of money to her.
Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenicist and conservationist Madison Grant, calling his race-based book, "The Passing of the Great Race," his "Bible." That's true, but Madison Grant was a fucking monster!
Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves no value to the community.
The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.
Right, but it's using that good for him if he had never been born to imply that there's a moral characteristic to his genes or whatever that he was doomed.
Talking about Judas being doomed from birth because of bad genes and so it extrapolates from there and you know what?
That's not the craziest thing I've ever heard a preacher say.
That's not the craziest thing I've heard a preacher say on Alex Jones' show.
Alex Jones has frequently had Reverend James David Manning on his show, who says that the gays put semen in Starbucks lattes because they like to have a good time.
That same year in the United States, more than 25 states passed forced sterilization laws, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of brutal sterilization policies.
When Hitler came to power in 1933, one of his first acts was to pass national eugenics laws modeled after laws in the United States.
Gertha, the letter that Alex Jones posts as a citation, is reporting to someone named Mr. Eddie about what he observed of the Germans collecting eugenic data.
It has nothing to do with helping them or overt aspects of the Holocaust.
It was written in 1937 before Kristallnacht, before the invasion of Poland, etc.
Alex has a citation that is another letter from this guy.
This is from November 11th, 1922, a year before the Beer Hall push.
And at that point, Hitler and the Nazis were a small but noisy group, decidedly not in power.
The letter affirms that there are Germans interested in the principles of eugenics and sterilization but does not show that he was at all sent there to help the Nazis.
That said, Davenport was a bad dude.
He did write for some German scholarly journals much later than he should have, going up to 1939.
Weirdly, in 1938, he wrote a letter to the editor of the Time magazine and said about FDR and Joseph Goebbels, both, quote, led revolutions and aspired to dictatorships while burdening their country with heavy taxes and reducing its finances to chaos.
Look, I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush, but if your name is mentioned in 1930s Germany, I'm going to lead with you're probably not a good dude.
Like, period.
The list of guys mentioned...
Okay, so you know a guy's name from 1930s Germany.
But there's no evidence provided he collaborated with them.
Also, a year before he went to Germany, a review panel convened by the Carnegie Institute concluded that the Eugenics Record Office, which he was in charge of, at...
One of the big reasons that they didn't find out for so long is that because these research centers, these eugenics records offices, their primary function was to collect data.
And that takes a long time.
So there's a big window before someone's going to recognize that something is up and that what you're doing is meaningless.
So there's an argument to be made that what they were doing was actually defrauding these foundations.
They probably didn't mean to, but in the end, the product is that's what they did.
And that, folks, is where we will have to cut off for today.
I feel really bad about this.
Not bad, but...
The way this documentary is going and the way our coverage of it is going, it's an impossible task for me to figure out an end point for this section of the coverage.
And I apologize for cutting things off right in the middle of some hot Nazi talk.
There's some Nazi stuff at the end of today's episode, and we'll jump right back into it tomorrow, at the beginning of tomorrow's episode.
But anyway, guys, if you'd like to find out more about our show, you can go to knowledgefight.com.
We are on Twitter at knowledge underscore fight.
You can also find us on Facebook.
We are there.
You can leave a review of the show, follow us, tell your friends, all that good stuff.
We're also on iTunes, and we would appreciate it if you subscribed or if you wanted to leave a review.
Any of those things are really helpful, and it would mean a lot.
But for now, I've got to get out of here, because...
This documentary sucks, and it sucks to relive it as I edit our coverage of it.
And I'm sorry that we're putting you through it.
You know what, though?
Listeners ask for it.
I'm only apologizing halfway.
But hey, guys, all the best to you and yours, and we will catch you tomorrow.