The Eugenic Impulse in Psychiatry

A prominent Texas doctor’s claim that many foster children come from “bad gene pools” is “a frightening throwback to some of the darkest chapters of American history” according to a national non-profit child advocacy organization.

But Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform said the comments by Dr. Joseph Burkett, medical director of the mental health and mental retardation agency for Tarrant County (Fort Worth), Texas, “do serve one useful purpose: He said out loud what too many in child welfare really think. In the process he helped expose the racism and class bias that permeate child welfare agencies all over the country.”

In addition to denouncing Burkett’s remarks, Wexler called on one of the state’s leading child advocates, former Judge Scott McCown, to condemn Burkett’s comments and reconsider his own calls for taking away far more children.

In addition to his job in Tarrant County, Burkett served on a Child Protective Services advisory committee which called for increasing the number of psychotropic drugs that could be given to foster children.

Burkett made his remarks before a committee of the Texas Legislature, on behalf of the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians. According to news accounts, he said: “I should stretch and give you a little more medical perspective on mental illness. A lot of these kids come from bad gene pools. They don’t have stable parents making good decisions or else many of them, most of them, would not be in foster care.”

Burkett later said he was “not alluding to race,” but Wexler noted that all over the country, minorities are significantly overrepresented in the foster-care system.

Burkett went on to explain he meant only that “there are pretty strong genetic factors in mental illness. The comment … was really a comment about the fact that these children are in the foster care system because they don’t have normal parents making good decisions. … That’s really the connection I’m making with genetics.”

“But that’s wrong, too,” Wexler said. “It is absolutely not true that just because a child is in foster care, the parents must be mentally ill. Thousands of children are trapped in foster care for reasons that have nothing to do with a parent or other caretaker’s mental state. Often, the parent’s poverty is confused with ‘neglect.'”

Wexler cited several cases from Texas:

– In Fort Worth, in Burkett’s home county, Child Protective Services took five children from their grandmother solely because her home was in such terrible disrepair it was hazardous for the children. Volunteers had to do what CPS would not. They donated $35,000 in time and labor to fix the house – which undoubtedly is less than CPS paid to keep the five children in foster care for a year.

– In Wichita Falls, a mother lost her children, including a newborn infant, for smoking marijuana to ease the pain of labor.

– In Corpus Christi, children were taken from their mother because she has a seizure disorder and was too poor to hire home health aides.

“These cases have nothing to do with mental illness, much less anybody’s gene pool,” Wexler said. “They represent the take-the-child-and-run mindset that permeates child protection agencies in much of the country.”

“It is true, however, that if you take a child away from everyone loving and familiar and send him on a forced march through one foster home after another, you can indeed induce mental illness in that child. Burkett’s comments encourage exactly that approach.”

Wexler said that “Burkett’s comments are the latest in long, tragic history. For more than 150 years, there have been attempts to suggest that poverty itself is an `illness’ with genetic roots.”

Wexler noted that the modern American child welfare system dates back roughly to 1853, and a Protestant minister in New York City named Charles Loring Brace.

Brace founded the Children’s Aid Society, an agency that still exists. He is best known for the “orphan trains.” Between 1853 and 1929, more than 100,000 New York City children were forced onto these trains and shipped out to the south and Midwest, where they were lined up at train stations and handed to anyone who wanted them. “But many of them were not orphans,” Wexler said. “They were torn from their impoverished parents, because those parents were Catholic immigrants whom Brace hated and feared. And what made these parents so loathsome? According to Brace, they were genetically inferior.”

Such thinking did not die out in the 19th Century, Wexler said, “and neither did the idea of using the child welfare system to deal with alleged genetic inferiors. Before writing his notorious book `The Bell Curve,’ an attempt to claim that certain races are genetically inferior, Charles Murray called for using the child welfare system to warehouse poor people’s children in orphanages.” …

Even Wexler seems unaware that, according to Michael B. First, M.D., a Director/Editor of the research agenda for DSM-V, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA):

it can be concluded that the field of psychiatry has thus far failed to identify a single neurobiological phenotypic marker or gene that is useful in making a diagnosis of a major psychiatric disorder or for predicting response to psychopharmacologic treatment.

But that doesn’t keep psychiatrists from attributing kids’ emotional reactions to their historical narratives to inferior genetics and “chemical imbalances”, and prescribing toxic chemicals.   Can you see the financial conflict of interest here?  Who hires child psychiatrists and for what purpose?  There is one glaringly obvious subgroup which has long utilized psychiatry to control their children and spouses.  Children need protection from these people, as well as their hired mercenaries.

Also listen to the podcasts with Bonnie Burstow, and the interview with Peter Breggin here.

Tarpley: The Global Elite’s Plan For Mass Depopulation

A detached analysis of the mass media’s programming and resultant popular opinion, let alone the empire’s need for unfettered access to natural resources everywhere, makes it clear that depopulation is high on the global elite’s agenda. It’s already happening right here at home, via government-endorsed pseudo-food and toxic medicine specifically targetted at kids, especially poor kids.  Shall we deny it because it’s disturbing?

TSA: State-sanctioned Child Abuse on Display

Of course this pales in comparison to what goes on in our obstetrical dungeons, but it’s worth pointing out how the TSA values the dignity and human rights of its “wards.” Note the father wasn’t even complaining about his baby being subjected to carcinogenic radiation at the time when it’s most vulnerable to it. He just wanted a little token indulgence from his false-flag terrorist masters. Just how much insult and injury can a human being tolerate before you call him a slave?


National Anti-TSA Campaign: Opt Out And Film Week

This Thanksgiving, is giving thanks for the First Amendment, by getting back in the faces of those who are attempting to abuse their authority to silence free speech and in turn conceal flagrant abuses of our rights and our basic dignity – with the launch of the national Opt Out and Film campaign.

Of course, every week should be First Amendment week, but we’re picking one week in particular as part of a grass roots outreach that we hope will contribute towards putting an end to what has come to represent the face of big government tyranny – the Transportation Security Administration.

In November 2010, the national opt out day was a huge success that generated massive media attention. The TSA was forced to mothball most of its radiation-firing body scanners for that one day in a desperate attempt to avoid embarrassment – a political act that proved the naked scanners had nothing whatsoever to do with genuine security concerns.

Now it has been confirmed that the TSA punishes people who opt out of the scanners by subjecting them to more invasive grope downs, it’s time to re-assert our dignity, and we’re going to do it using the First Amendment.

The TSA’s own website admits that it is not illegal to film TSA agents, just as it is not illegal to film police officers. However, there are innumerable examples of the TSA threatening travelers who either film them or who simply dare to display a “bad attitude” while they are being harassed.

So that’s precisely what we’re going to do. Every invasive pat down, every overbearing rude TSA screener, every act of humiliation metered out against the elderly and the disabled, every attempt to intimidate and coerce Americans into a form of obedience that strips them of their basic human dignity will be caught on camera. …

It’s really a choice between gambling with radiation induced cancer in the long run, or standing up to the state’s fraud, corruption and cruelty in the so-called “war on terror” now.  Do you really want your kids to live in the desolation of a morally, financially and intellectually bankrupt ruin of a looted country?

The 9/11 and financial terrorist aristocrats are parading around in public every day.   Prosecute them now.

The Hoax of the “Fiscal Cliff”

… The main purpose of the media propaganda about the impending “cliff” is to create a sense of financial emergency and override popular opposition to measures the Obama administration and congressional Democrats and Republicans will put forward to avert it, including sweeping cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

This is bolstered by the reaction in the financial markets, where a sharp sell-off could well serve as a political club to ensure that the policies demanded by Wall Street are adopted in Washington.

Far from an emergency that requires dramatic action to slash the federal deficit, the various components of the “fiscal cliff” are all consequences of legislation passed at various times during the Obama administration and can be averted by the passage of further legislation by Congress, regardless of whether that legislation adds to or subtracts from the deficit.

Deficit reduction is not a requirement of any previous legislation, but a political mandate from the financial aristocracy, which is demanding that its two political parties take joint action to make working people pay for a fiscal crisis that is the product of the 2008 Wall Street crash and the trillions expended to bail out the banks and corporations. …

The author overlooks the real game changer here.  The legislation that’s really needed, the liberation of the economic power of the american people, seems to be off most people’s radar.  The idea is simple, fair and elegant.   From

Monetary reform is achieved with three elements which must be enacted together for it to work. Any one or any two of them alone won’t do it, but would further harm the reform process. The reform has its best chance of passage in this severe monetary crisis created by the privatized money system. Considering that the same establishment controls our weapons systems, this may be humanities only chance for reform, to stop the now obvious slide of our middle class into slavery or some form of “Disney Fascism.”

First, incorporate the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury where all new money would be created by government as money, not interest-bearing debt; and be spent into circulation to promote the general welfare. The monetary system would be monitored to be neither inflationary nor deflationary.

Second, halt the bank’s privilege to create money by ending the fractional reserve system in a gentle and elegant way. All the past monetized private credit would be converted into U.S. government money. Banks would then act as intermediaries accepting savings deposits and loaning them out to borrowers. They would do what people think they do now. This Act nationalizes the money system, not the banking system. Banking is not a proper function of government, but providing the nation’s money supply is a government prerogative!

Third, spend new money into circulation on 21st century eco-friendly infrastructure and energy sources, including the education and healthcare needed for a growing and improving society, starting with the $2.2 trillion that the Civil Engineers estimate is needed over the next 5 years, for infrastructure repair; creating good jobs across our nation, re-invigorating local economies and re-funding local government at all levels.

What would this do?  Take banks out of the casino business, remove most of the systemic tendencies for for boom and bust cycles and wealth concentration, bring transparency and accountability to monetary policy by taking it out of the hands of those who profit from mass misery, and last but not least, it would eliminate the national “debt” and the profit incentive for the debt aristocrats to bribe, blackmail and murder this country into perpetual war.

“The Congress shall have the Power . . . To Coin Money.”
(Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8.)

Some people believe this phrase only pertains to metal coins.  But “coin”  is used as a verb here, as in to “coin a phrase”, i.e. “invent” or “create”.   I have to wonder at the motivations of people who compulsively shoehorn constitutional interpretations into the current status quo, as if the second amendment only pertains to hunting rifles and the first amendment only protects the free speech of corporate media.  How much imagination or historical perspective does it take to understand the intended meaning of the words?   Debt-free money was used by colonial america (until britain started counterfeiting it), Abraham Lincoln (greenbacks) and numerous other times and places in history with spectacular success.  Why not now?


The revolution that we so desperately need is already written into law.  All we need to do is be worthy of the legacy of the founders.  Real freedom from centuries of debt bondage is at hand, if you want it.

The Suspension of Habeas Corpus in America

Far from having broken with his Republican predecessor, Democratic President Barack Obama has now reinforced the law of exception that he criticised when he was a senator. It is now possible to deprive United States citizens of their fundamental rights because they have taken part in armed action against their own country, but also when they take a political position favourable to those who use military action to resist the Empire. Worse – Barack Obama has added to the law John Yoo’s “Unitary Executive theory,” which puts an end to the principles of the separation of powers as defined by Montesquieu. The security policy of the United States President now escapes all control.

The Presidential elections, and the game of a possible changeover between Democrats and Republicans, cannot hide a marked tendency towards mutation in the form of the United States executive, regardless of the colour of the Presidential ticket. And it seems that the most significant change in the law has taken place under President Obama.

Barack Obama was elected by evoking a future based on respect for the fundamental rights of individuals and nations. But assessment of his presidency reveals an entirely different picture. The visible aspects of this, such as the failure to close down Guantánamo Bay, the maintenance of exceptional military tribunals or the practice of torture in Afghanistan, are only the tip of the iceberg. These elements only allow us to note the continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations. However, there has been such reinforcement of the previous political structure that the form of the state has now changed, creating a hitherto unseen modification of the relation between the authorities and the citizens of the United States.

The possibility of treating US citizens as foreign ’terrorists’ has been a constant objective of the government executive since the attacks of 9/11. By the new prerogative which has been awarded him by the National Defense Authorization Act – that of being able to nullify Habeas Corpus for US citizens and not just for foreign nationals – the Obama administration has achieved what the previous government had only planned but never instituted. …

Failing to Break Up the Big Banks is Destroying America

The Size of the Big Banks Is – Literally – Destroying the Rule of Law

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind quotes Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as saying:

The confidence in the system is so fragile still… a disclosure of a fraud… could result in a run, just like Lehman.

In other words, Geitnher said that the big bankers are “too big to jail”, because disclosing any portion of their massive fraud would cause bank runs.

Former IMF economist Simon Johnson notes:

The main motivation behind the administration’s indulgence of serious criminality evidently is fear of the consequences of taking tough action on individual bankers.


The message to bank executives today is simple: build your bank to be as big as possible – and then keep growing. If you manage to become big enough, you and your employees are not just too big to fail, but also too big to jail.

Glenn Greenwald notes:

To justify this lack of accountability for the nation’s wealthiest lawbreakers, the all-too-familiar excuses long used to shield the politically powerful are trotted out on cue. Once again, we are told that prosecutions are too disruptive; that it’s more important to fix the system than to seek retribution for the past; that because the wrongdoers’ reputation is in tatters, they have already suffered enough; that we need the goodwill of financial titans to ensure our common prosperity; and so on.

Indeed, the Obama administration has made it official policynot to prosecute fraud. …


Transparency in all things