By Theodore Shoebat
We are seeing some consistency in the wave of Left-wing iconoclasm, as the New York chapter of Planned Parenthood has decided to remove the name of Margaret Sanger due to her racist and eugenist past. As we read in the Hill:
Planned Parenthood of Greater New York (PPGNY) announced Tuesday that it will remove the name of Margaret Sanger, who founded the national organization, because of her racist legacy and her connections to the eugenics movement.
Planned Parenthood’s Manhattan Margaret Sanger Health Center will be renamed, and city officials are working to rename the nearby Margaret Sanger Square. The organization said the new name would be announced soon.
Sanger, who was a nurse, established the first birth control clinic in the U.S., which would eventually become the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
PPGNY said the decision came out of “a public commitment to reckon with its founder’s harmful connections to the eugenics movement.”
Eugenics is a discredited, racist theory that states the human race can be “improved” through selective breeding of those with “desirable” traits. The theory often targeted poor people, people of color, those with disabilities and other marginalized groups.
With this, I would like to take the opportunity to address the reality that while the Left does have eugenics, let us be weary of the eugenic movement within Right-wing circles…
In the world of the anti-immigration industry, there are two sides: the ones that profit and the ones that influence. On one part of the spectrum you have the private prison industry that profits off of illegal immigration and actually wants non-violent aliens to be detained and remain in detention (as opposed to being deported) so as to get funds from the government. And then on the other side of the coin you have the immigration fixated think-tanks like Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Security Policy.
The biggest private prison company that is profiting greatly out of illegal immigration is CoreCivic, and what is fascinating is that one of its biggest shareholders is the Bank of New York Mellon, founded by the wealthy Mellon family. The principle heir of the Mellon family wealth was major eugenist Richard Mellon Scaife who is the financial father for numerous Right-wing organizations like the Center for Security Policy which is tied to the former CIA head, William Casey, who was instrumental behind the arming of Islamists to fight off the Soviets. In the circle of the anti-immigration industry one finds the profiteers and the instigators. The instigators influence the masses to focus on the propaganda that states that America is getting “invaded” by immigrants and migrants. Meanwhile, you have the profiteers who make hundreds of millions (and even billions) out of detaining migrants. While the undocumented are kept in detention, the masses cheer at such a sight — thinking that their country is being protected, even if the detainees are non-violent — while the private prison system fills their pockets.
You have the instigators who will exaggerate the situation of immigration and make it as though it is an “invasion.” The one who exaggerates national security issues for the purpose of pushing an agenda is of the spirit of antichrist. How did they crucify Christ? They made Christ into a national security issue. The Jews told Pilate: “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.” (John 19:12) They presented Jesus as a terrorist, an enemy of the state. They presented Christ as a national security issue, and innocent blood was shed. This spirit of instigation thrives off of exaggerations.
For example, when the lobbyist for war were pushing for the invasion of Iraq, they made the country look like the next Third Reich. The Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Weizman Shiry said: “If the Americans do not do this now [remove Saddam], it will be harder to do it in the future. In a year or two, Saddam Hussein will be further along in developing weapons of mass destruction.” However, eventually, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Israeli Knesset released separate statements admitting that the “intelligence” coming from both Israel and the United States was false (see Mearsheimer, the Israeli Lobby, pp. 235-236, brackets mine).
The pushers of exaggerations for the purpose of propaganda had their way. They exaggerated a national security issue, and countless lives were lost on account of US policy in Iraq.
You see this spirit in the discourse occurring on immigration. Are there problems? Yes. Are there dangers coming from narcos and gangs? Absolutely. But is this an invasion? No. Is the person who comes here and works in labors that most Americans do not want to do an invader? No.
What you do have is an industry that wants undocumented migrants in detention centers, and does not even want them to be deported but to remain in the United States so to maintain the flow of exorbitant government funds.
THE PRIVATE PRISON SYSTEM
California had 1,300 inmates in the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, which is ran by major private prison industry, CoreCivic. In 2018, the state of California decided to pull these inmates out of Tallahatchie as part of its effort to end its use of out-of-state prisons. CoreCivic needed inmates to fill in the empty cells, and in June of 2018 turned to ICE to obtain east replacements: the undocumented. If CoreCivic loses inmates, it needs replacements and the undocumented make for easy fillings into their institutions.
A good example of this is what took place in 2009 in the states of Georgia and Alabama. In Irwin County in Georgia, the privately ran prison, Irwin Detention Center — which was the county’s top employer — was dealing with a dwindling prison population and needed more inmates. The county collaborated with the Irwin Detention Center and contacted ICE asking them to send illegals to Georgia to be detained. As a report from the Nation stated: “even as Georgia and Alabama passed harsh new immigration laws last year designed to keep out undocumented immigrants … politicians from both states were lobbying hard to bring immigrant detainees in. ICE succumbed to the pressure, sending hundreds of detainees to the financially unstable facility in Georgia that promised to detain immigrants cheaply.”
In fact, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) has a quota for how many “non-criminal aliens” they want to stay in the country as detainees. In early 2010, James Chaparro, director of ICE Detention and Removal Operations, produced an internal memo (which was later obtained by the Washington Post), remarking that too many non-criminal aliens were being sent back and not enough — that is, not within the desired quota — were being made to stay in detention facilities. Chaparro wrote:
“As of February 15, 2010, DRO removed or returned 60,397 non-criminal aliens which is an average of 437 removals/returns per day. The current non-criminal removal rate projections will result in 159,740 removals at the close of the fiscal year. Coupling this with the projections in criminal removals only gives us a total of just over 310,000 overall removals — well under the agency’s goal of 400,000.”
So, they actually want these undocumented people in these detention centers. Chaparro pushed field agents to boost the average daily population of ICE detention facilities to 32,600 and [i]ncrease the number of Tier One Non-Criminal Fugitive alien arrests along with Tier Two arrests. Re-entry/Reinstatement in every field office.” Chaparro also suggested that each office go through thirty to sixty noncriminal cases per day in a “surge” to meet deportation quotas. So there is a quota for detentions and deportations for noncriminal aliens. This explains why ICE — in five ICE field offices in Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark and Philadelphia — was detaining people even after they claimed asylum, actions that have been ruled against by a federal judge, James Boasberg, as we reads in NPR:
In a legal setback for the Trump administration’s immigration policies, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that the government may not arbitrarily detain people seeking asylum.
The ruling comes in a case challenging the administration’s policy of detaining people even after they have passed a credible fear interview and await a hearing on their asylum claim.
…
As a result, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to conduct case-by-case reviews of more than a thousand other asylum-seekers who have been denied release by those five ICE field offices.”
They want people, even people who aren’t violent, to be detained, and ICE makes deals with private prisons to fill their cells with undocumented migrants because it means big profits. According to a Daily Beast investigation, for-profit immigration detention was a nearly $1 billion industry in the year 2018 alone. GEO Group, another major private prison industry, is expecting to make $2.3 billion in 2019. ICE paid an estimated $807 million in fiscal year 2018 to 19 privately owned or operated detention centers. In November of 2017, 71% of all detainees were held in 33 private prisons. Money contracts being dealt between the government and the for-profit prison companies are kept in the realm of the unknown. Mary Small of the Detention Watch Network remarks:
“Even though billions of taxpayer dollars are being obligated to private prison companies, the contracts between them and the federal government aren’t publicly available, so we don’t know how much these companies are being paid, how many people they’re holding or how long their contracts last … This culture of secrecy—bolstered by revolving door politics and political contributions—have paved the way for a rapid and reckless expansion of the detention system.”
The two largest private prison systems, CoreCivic and Geo Group, enjoyed an increase in the value of their shares in 2018 after ICE announced that it would have 15,000 new beds subsequent to the Trump administration’s decision to detain migrant families. It is no wonder that Trump’s campaign was bankrolled by both CivicCore and Geo Group, as we read in a report published by the Hill:
“President Trump’s plan to establish more detention centers for undocumented immigrants will give a boost to private prison companies that backed Trump’s presidential campaign, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
CoreCivic and Geo Group both saw their shares spike last month after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that it will likely add 15,000 new beds for families after Trump’s executive order to detain undocumented immigrant families together, according to the newspaper.
…
Both companies have relied on ICE for a significant chuck of their revenue in recent years, according to the Journal, which reported that the agency made up a quarter of CoreCivic’s revenue last year, up from 13 percent a decade earlier.
Geo Group experienced a similar rise, with ICE making up 24 percent of its recent from 10 percent in 2007.
Each of the companies donated $250,000 to Trump’s inauguration, and Geo Group last year held a leadership conference at one of Trump’s golf resorts in Florida.”
According to the Daily Beast, GEO gave $281,360 to Trump’s campaign. Between 2002 and 2012, private prison companies spent $45 million for lobbyists to back them up, and for campaigns for politicians that they wanted to advance. The Corrections Corporation of America admitted that their existence is dependent on contracts with the state. As the Corrections Corporation of America told its shareholders: “Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities … any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.”
THE ANTI-IMMIGRATION MOVEMENT
What is fascinating is the financial relation between CoreCivic and the Bank of New York Mellon Corp, which is a major shareholder of the private prison and was started by the very wealthy Mellon family a principle heir of whom was Richard Mellon Scaife, the financial father of many Right-wing think-tanks and outlets who was a close supporter of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. According to a recent financial report:
“Bank of New York Mellon Corp raised its stake in Corecivic Inc (NYSE:CXW) by 3.2% in the third quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The institutional investor owned 3,628,022 shares of the real estate investment trust’s stock after buying an additional 113,046 shares during the period. Bank of New York Mellon Corp owned approximately 3.06% of Corecivic worth $88,269,000 at the end of the most recent reporting period.”
A principle heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune was Richard Mellon Scaife, a financial father of numerous right wing organizations and one of the patriarchs of the Counter-Jihad movement which has, for years, been using the subject of immigration as a way to promote nationalism and even eugenics. Mellon Scaife bankrolled the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which has been backing both the Counter-Jihad and eugenic ideas. Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch is ran by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, led by David Horowitz. There is a financial report that shows that the David Horowitz Freedom Center received over a quarter of a million dollars from the eugenist organization, the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
Scaife also served as the vice-chairman for the Heritage Foundation where Robert Spencer began his career as a counter-jihadist. Scaife, while supporting the Heritage Foundation, donated millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations. What this proves is that a eugenist Nazi was the financier behind these think-tanks, and by this, behind the institutions that would direct the formation of the Counterjihad.
In 2011, Scaife wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled: “Why Conservatives Should Oppose Efforts To Defund Planned Parenthood”, in which he recounts how he met Margaret Sanger, a major eugenist and anti-Catholic who founded Planned Parenthood to slaughter Blacks, Italians and other non-Anglo races through abortion. Scaife wrote:
“I met Sanger several times before her death in 1966 and was impressed by her intellect and her commitment to many issues, not the least of which was enabling every woman to be ‘the absolute mistress of her own body,’ as she put it.”
Scaife was a major donor to Project Prevention, an American organization that pays drug addicts to get sterilized. According to a 2010 report, which reveals that Scaife was a major donor to this eugenist organization, 3,500 Americans agreed to be sterilized in exchange for money. Such actions are not done to truly fight drug addiction: its to desensitize us to the idea of sterilization.
Cordelia Scaife May, Richard Mellon Scaife’s sister, inherited her brother’s fortunes and continued funding the eugenist cause. In between 1983 and 1989, Cordelia donated $5,800,000 to Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) (See Juan F. Perea, Immigrants Out!, p.123) a major eugenist organization founded and ran by the anti-immigration Darwinist John Tanton, who is also a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and even founded a Planned Parenthood chapter. In 1997, Tanton told the press that “the United States should make greater efforts to encourage population control.” According to the AP, Mellon Scaife was “the billionaire heir to the Mellon banking and oil fortune”.
Mellon Scaife also financially backed the founding of major neoconservative groups like the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Security Policy. The entire Counterjihad movement and the neoconservative network has its root — to some extent or another — in Richard Mellon Scaife. So central was Mellon Scaife’s financial role in the creation of these groups, that Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, once wrote:
“Those policy research organizations – including the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the American Enterprise Institute, and my own Center for Security Policy – would almost certainly not have come into being, let alone made the sort of contribution they have to public policy, had it not been for the visionary and sustained support of Scaife-sponsored foundations.
…
Over the past twenty-six years, I had the privilege of interacting with Dick Scaife on a number of occasions. There was nothing he enjoyed more than “blue-sky” conversations, in which the exchange of ideas and the development of initiatives to operationalize them would be discussed. He and his dedicated foundation staff would then set about helping to actualize such plans. The rest, as they say, is history.”
The Center for Security Policy is also linked with the former CIA director, William Casey.
In the 1990s, a new branch of the Center for Security Policy called the William J. Casey Institute, was established. In an article on the institute, Frank Gaffney writes that it “was formally launched on 13 March 1996 with the mission of exploring the nexus between international financial, energy, trade and technology flows and traditional U.S. national security policy concerns.”
Gaffney goes on to write that the “national stature” of the William Casey Institute “has been achieved in no small measure thanks to the Institute’s former Chairman, Hon. Roger W. Robinson, Jr.” Gaffney further recounts that Robinson was “Senior Director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, where he worked closely with Bill Casey in formulating the policies that helped destroy the Soviet Union.” Gaffney then writes about how, “Prior to his government service, Mr. Robinson was a Vice President in the International Department of the Chase Manhattan Bank with responsibility for the Bank’s loan portfolios in the former Soviet Union, Eastern and Central Europe and Yugoslavia.”
Robinson was in deep with the CIA. There are dozens of pieces of correspondence between Roger Robinson and the CIA that been opened for the public to read. The communications pertain to a range of issues, from restraining Soviet Banks in the US to Japanese commerce. In one piece of communication from 1986, the director of the CIA at the time, William J. Casey, received a note from his secretary, saying:
“Roger Robinson called, just back from two weeks
in Japan. He wanted to be sure you saw his
article in the 22 June WASHINGTON POST which
is attached, and the reaction to it from today’s
WASHINGTON POST.”
The attachment contained an article written by Robinson and published by the Washington Post, pushing for the United States to set impediments on Soviet banks in the US.
This correspondence was made in 1986, a time when Operation Gladio was still being conducted, before it was supposedly disbanded in 1990. In 1986 Roger Robinson and Norman A. Bailey wrote a letter to the Director of the CIA, William Casey, asking for support to form an organization called “Center for the Study of Economic Security” as a means to combat Soviet advancements in Western economies. In one part of the letter it says:
“We believe that in order to perpetuate this work and consolidate progress, it would be advisable to consider the establishment of a prestigious institute or center outside of government dedicated to the study of international economic security. This new field is in its infancy but already includes such crucial issues as the Soviet strategy to dominate West European gas markets, the security dimensions of the international debt crisis, and the strategy implications of East-West finance.”
The Acting Director of the CIA, Robert M. Bates, wrote a response letter back to Robinson and Bailey, stating that while the Intelligence Agency was sought “to counter Soviet subversive inroads”, the CIA could not directly fund their operations until the center was established:
“While the Director heartily endorses the ideas behind the creation of a Center for the Study of Economic Security, he feels that it would be inappropriate for Agency officials to get personally involved. As for Agency funding of your proposed Center, such financial involvement is precluded by Agency policy based on the Katzenbach Commission Report. Once the Center is operational, of course, we would be pleased to discuss the possibility of funding individual research projects or papers.”
Robinson and Bailey wrote a reply affirming that they never asked for direct funds, rather, they were asking for funds through a third party, someone who could finance their operations without any obvious indications of CIA interests. In one part of the letter it says:
“We rather had in mind talking informally and unofficially with Bill about his personal idea concerning possibly private sector contacts with a potential interest in participating in the funding of such an undertaking. In addition, we wanted to extend an invitation to Bill to assume any role he might deem indicated in such an organization, should it materialize — but only after the conclusion of his distinguished government service.”
The Director of the CIA at this time, William J. Casey, worked directly with Roger Robinson to form the William J. Casey Institute branch of the Center for Security Policy.
In accordance to the initial plan discussed in the correspondence between Robinson and the CIA, the Center for Security Policy and its William J. Casey branch was to be focused on the economic advancements of the Soviet Union. Gaffney wrote in a report:
“The William J. Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy was formally launched on 13 March 1996 with the mission of exploring the nexus between international financial, energy, trade and technology flows and traditional U.S. national security policy concerns. … In his capacity as CIA Director, in particular, Mr. Casey was at the forefront of constructing a more security-minded U.S. policy with regard to economic, financial and energy relations with potential adversaries like the former Soviet Union and China.”
Gaffney, later in the report, wrote on the collaboration between CIA Director Casey and Roger Robinson:
“Within four years of its inception the Casey Institute had become an influential voice in the public policy community. This national stature has been achieved in no small measure thanks to the Institute’s former Chairman, Hon. Roger W. Robinson, Jr. Mr. Robinson’s background was ideally suited to establishing the Institute: During the Reagan Administration he served as Senior Director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, where he worked closely with Bill Casey in formulating the policies that helped destroy the Soviet Union.”
This was the same Casey who pushed for the arming of Islamic terrorists to “destroy the Soviet Union.” When following the policy desired by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his ilk, the Americans used a major bank in Pakistan, BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International), as a conduit to funnel money to the Afghan Mujahideen. One New York Times report states that the former head of the CIA, William Casey, “found the bank quite handy in supplying the Afghan rebels with weapons at a time when American involvement had to be kept sub rosa.” In 1991 two journalists, Jonathan Beaty and SC Gwynne wrote an article for TIME entitled, B.C.C.I: The Dirtiest Bank of All, in which they reported on “a clandestine division of the bank called the ‘black network,’ which functions as a global intelligence operation and a mafia-like enforcement squad.” The two journalists also wrote on how “Casey began to use the outside — the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI — to run what they couldn’t get through Congress.”
Just like in Operation Gladio — in which the CIA worked with European Nazis to create an anti-Soviet paramilitary force —, the CIA and other US operatives backed and armed Islamic Mujahideen fighters to destabilize the Soviet Union. William Casey did not want to keep Mujahideen fighters limited to Afghanistan, but wanted to spread them right into the Soviet Union itself. As journalist Steve Cole wrote: “Casey startled his Pakistani hosts by proposing that they take the Afghan war into enemy territory — into the Soviet Union itself. …Pakistani intelligence officers — partly inspired by Casey — began independently to train Afghans and funnel CIA supplies for scattered strikes against military installations, factories and storage depots within Soviet territory.”
Casey and secret service operatives wanted to intensify violent Islamization within Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. As Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid writes: “In 1986 the secret services of the United States, Great Britain, and Pakistan agreed on a plan to launch guerrilla attacks into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Afghan Mujahideen units crossed the Amu Darya River in March 1987 and launched rocket attacks against villages in Tajikistan. Meanwhile, hundreds of Uzbek and Tajiik Muslims clandestinely travelled to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to study in madrassahs or to train as guerrilla fighters so that they could join the Mujahedeen. This was part of a wider U.S., Pakistani, and Saudi plan to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to fight with the Afghans. Between 1982 and 1992 thirty-five thousand Muslim radicals from forty-three Islamic countries fought for the Mujahedeen.” Under the guidance of William Casey, the CIA began to print and distribute Qurans translated to the Uzbek language, with the hopes of sparking jihadist frenzy against the Soviet Union. (See Soufan and Freedman, The Black Banners, p. 28)
So the movement of the “Counterjihad” — the movement that presents itself as a bulwark against Islamization — is linked with the CIA which was backing the very Islamists who the Counterjihad claim to be fighting. These layers of movements and activities, with think-tanks and operations, work in a sinister collaboration, with operations backing the Muslims, and deception being done to the masses to have them think that they are ‘serving their country’ by fixating on the very enemy that their country helped to create. Its a circle moving from governmental entities creating a monster and then making propaganda to get the masses to fixate on the monster and put their trust on the very machine that made the monster.
Mellon Scaife, by his financial support for the Center Security Policy, was part of this circle. The man who inherited the wealth of the Mellon banking empire was also the financial patriarch of much of the neoconservative and immigration fixated movement. This fixation on immigration for eugenist ideas is reflected in the actions of Frank Gaffney.
Frank Gaffney praised a modern day American nazi, Jared Taylor, and although he boasts about being “pro-Israel,” he acted as the sycophant that he is for this agent of the very eugenist beliefs under which the Jews were slaughtered. On his radio show, Frank Gaffney introduced Talyor by praising his website, American Renaissance, which is filled with the promotion of eugenics and racism. Gaffney said:
“Jared Taylor joins us, I believe, for the first time. I’m very pleased to have him with us. He is the editor of a very wonderful online publication, American Renaissance.”
This is the same Jared Taylor who advocates for “embryo selection,” which is the process of “selecting” one embryo (based on its genetic makeup) over numerous others, and destroying the rest. Jared Taylor advocates for this process in his belief that it would produce a superior race, saying:
“I believe that an enlightened European people will begin to think in terms of improving itself genetically. I think there are positive eugenic steps that could be taken, embryo selection is one”
What is revealing is that Frank Gaffney works directly with Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), broadcasting his radio show from their building.
FAIR is interconnected with the eugenist Population Council. On the official website for FAIR it lists one Sarah G. Epstein as one of its Board of Directors and describes her resume as:
“Ms. Epstein is an art lecturer and volunteer. She serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, including Pathfinder International, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, Center for Development and Population Activities and The Population Institute.”
FAIR, one of the biggest immigration focused organizations in the United States, is connected with Planned Parenthood through Sarah Epstein and its founder John Tanton. According to one report, Tanton “organized the Planned Parenthood chapter in Petoskey, Michigan.” Tanton’s organization, NumbersUSA, is funded by Peter Thiel, the German Silicon Valley billionaire who is a huge eugenist and is revered by big American Right-wing media outlets from PJ Media to Frontpage Magazine to Breitbart.
Looking at the whole movement that is viciously focused on immigration, one can how its circles are using the situation of the border to back eugenics and Darwinist thought.
Click Here To Donate To Keep This Website Going