I just recently started following you and have found your writing on many subjects that also interest me. I learn different aspects I hadn't explored, and appreciate that.
I'd like to share with you some interesting historical writings that I believe integrate well with what you share in this work, and add context, help weave together a set of common threads. That if one were predisposed to certain conspiracy theories would make infinite sense, even portend to be "Aha" moments.
I'll break this up into multiple comments to keep the subjects organized, but you'll quickly begin to notice how they all come together. I'll start with the oldest writing first. It's been one of the most interesting finds to date I've met. A New York Times story from 1913. With many familiar names and characters from history, who's subsequent work in many fields, primarily medicine, banking, propaganda, industry, clergy, politics and academia are bound together by their underlying core belief in and support of eugenics.
Choosing Audience for Brieux Play
J. D. Rockefeller Suggests Those Who Have Aided White Slave Investigation
It's a story about a play that develops notions of eugenics, social control by elites needing to protect their gene pools. It introduces germ theory as it was first coming into vogue
It describes a play that was shown to the powerful and connected, "Damaged Goods." Prominent attendees who also just so happened to be eugenicists. About men of high society who sleep around with prostitutes and lesser women, bringing back disease like syphilis to families, deforming children, etc. It uses the term "White Slavery" to describe the sex trade. It advances the idea of infectious disease as it was still a relatively novel understanding of them at the time. The article describes attendees from the American Society of Medical Sociology, an organization and movement that you'll discover is in concert with "Marxist conflict theory," that medical sociologists adhere to which explains hows how the ruling classes can assert their power through medicine. I discovered that when looking up the term after I read it in the NYT article.
The names listed as invitees and on the hosting committee are a veritable who's who of the early 20th century. Including:
- John D. Rockefeller, father of allopathic western medicine, based in petrochemicals, products of his Standard Oil.
- Edward Bernays, who you mention in your "About" section as the father of propaganda, advertising, marketing. And who coined the term "quacks" to describe natural healers like homeopaths, while helping allopathic medicine educational and practice secure monopolies by outlawing and replacing natural healing, substituting petrochemical-based allopathy as the business model for health care.
- Simon and Abraham Flexner, who's Flexner Report was the notorious #FakeScience used to outlaw natural healers for Rockefeller's petrochemical business model of medicine.
- State Senator Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A network of prominent socialists, communists with ties to Karl Marx, names like
- William Jay Schleffilin, descendant of the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, ran the largest pharmaceutical company giant and Big Pharma trade association head for decades
- Abraham Jacobl, the first leading pediatrician, president of the American Medical Association.
And a great many more names that when you search out you'll find were leaders across many industries and disciplines, all aligned with socialism/humanism values. And all eugenicists.
And it also mentions how six unnamed students from the Yale University Civics Club would be attending. Note: Prescott Bush (patriarch to the Bush political dynasty and who went on to become known as "Hitler's Banker" while he did business with that regime for two years after the US entered WWII before the Trading With the Enemies Act shut him down) was a politically connected student at Yale in 1913. I don't have enough info to know if Prescott Bush was one of the six, but considering his support of Hitler, eugenics and his son's infamous "New World Order" speech that echos the Fascists and Marxists of the era, I wouldn't be surprised if he was there, too.
And I wouldn't be surprised if many of those names in the NYT story went on to be a part of the formation of the American Council on Foreign Relations in 1919, just six years later. An organization my next comment will discuss as being the source for the book I'll be focusing on, about "Disease Politics" in Mao's China.
This book published in China in 2013 explains exactly how communist China under Mao used "Disease Politics" to transform China from a nationalistic nation into a communist nation. Remember, Taiwan is the nationalist government of China in exile. Disease politics used as a weapon to collectivize the culture and nature of previously independent people, in ways that led to the Cultural Revolution, turning family against family in a murderous frenzy. This book is a literal "How to." Long, but filled with descriptions of what we've experienced in the west since 2020:
Rural Health Care Delivery
Modern China from the Perspective of Disease Politics
"Diseases are everyday, ordinary occurrences intimately related to people’s daily lives. However, as the metaphor of the “Sick Man of East Asia” emerged against the backdrop of a weak modern China, health care and the curing of diseases were turned into grand state politics with far-reaching implications. This book, starting with the argument for diseases being metaphors, describes and interprets such incidents in China’s history as the Abolishment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the Patriotic Hygiene Campaign and the Cooperative Medical Services. In an effort to reveal the internal logic of disease politics in the transformation of the state-people relationship, the book analyzes key aspects including the politicization and inclusion of diseases in state governance, the double disciplining of hygiene, legitimacy construction of the state, the remaking of the nationals, and the expansion of the “publicness” of the state. The book argues that disease politics in modern China has developed following the path from nationals to the people, and then to citizens, or from crisis politics and mobilization politics to life politics. In addition, a marked change has occurred in China’s state building: increasingly standard, rationalized and institutionalized means have been employed while the non-standard means, such as large-scale mobilization and ideological coercion, had been historically used in China."
This is not an obscure book I came across without significance. This book was cited, linked to in an article that was published in Foreign Affairs in March, 2020 - the types of material I was reading in March, 2020 when it was decided to treat infectious disease with political science instead of medical science. Foreign Affairs is the most influential international affairs magazine in the world, official communiques of the Council on Foreign Relations. The US/UK Military-Industrial-Scientific-Propaganda Machine mouthpiece:
The politics of infectious disease. Following a tried and true plan. Foster division and strife, amplify hatred among a population, friends, family, to fundamentally transform a nation into collectivist authoritarianism, obedience. I wrote a Stack on the book earlier this year containing some of the highlights and most relevant, prescient information in it. It's a long book to get into, but my Stack gives a roadmap to some short cuts that may be of the most interest to you:
It is largely a critique of the emerging totalitarianism under Hitler in Germany and under Stalin in the USSR. But it does equivocate, discussing the pros and cons of totalitarianism vs. democracy before settling in on democracy. I share some selected excerpts in my stack on the article:
Fwiw, while I don't know your background in propaganda to write so extensively on it I'm merely a hobbyist in understanding it. Though I did take a course on persuasion in mass media (propaganda) under one of the co-founders of Factcheck.org, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, many decades ago. She's now at the Annenberg School at UPenn and a prominent talking head at forums and on TV. I'm quite certain she and Kate Starbird are very chummy. And while she still teaches, it's much more lucrative to do propaganda than merely teach it. I did get to learn some of the magician's tricks under her, though. So there's that.
And I took an interest in the study of deception as far back as grade school. So much that I still have an old newspaper clipping describing "The Credibility of Three" that I also shared on an earlier Stack of mine. Relating a story about how the OSS (predecessor of the CIA) taught spies to lie if they were under suspicion to avoid capture. It was from a clipping of an old feature columnist I regularly read when I was young, over forty years ago. Presented humorously in that format. But interesting enough to me that I clipped and saved it for all these years. Something inside my young mind told me I needed to protect it in a very deceitful world, to learn how to discern deception:
So I think I'll enjoy reading your shares and I thank you for reading mine in this long comment thread. Knowledge is power. We're both doing our best to help share that power with other minds open to learning and gaining more for themselves.
Many thanks for your detailed in interesting comments. If you are interested in contributing material to Propaganda in Focus, we would be happy to consider and review any submission from you, regards, The Editors
I just recently started following you and have found your writing on many subjects that also interest me. I learn different aspects I hadn't explored, and appreciate that.
I'd like to share with you some interesting historical writings that I believe integrate well with what you share in this work, and add context, help weave together a set of common threads. That if one were predisposed to certain conspiracy theories would make infinite sense, even portend to be "Aha" moments.
I'll break this up into multiple comments to keep the subjects organized, but you'll quickly begin to notice how they all come together. I'll start with the oldest writing first. It's been one of the most interesting finds to date I've met. A New York Times story from 1913. With many familiar names and characters from history, who's subsequent work in many fields, primarily medicine, banking, propaganda, industry, clergy, politics and academia are bound together by their underlying core belief in and support of eugenics.
Choosing Audience for Brieux Play
J. D. Rockefeller Suggests Those Who Have Aided White Slave Investigation
Social Workers Approve
The New York Times, page 13, February 23, 1913
https://www.newspapers.com/article/31090629/edward_l_bernays_medical_review_of/
It's a story about a play that develops notions of eugenics, social control by elites needing to protect their gene pools. It introduces germ theory as it was first coming into vogue
It describes a play that was shown to the powerful and connected, "Damaged Goods." Prominent attendees who also just so happened to be eugenicists. About men of high society who sleep around with prostitutes and lesser women, bringing back disease like syphilis to families, deforming children, etc. It uses the term "White Slavery" to describe the sex trade. It advances the idea of infectious disease as it was still a relatively novel understanding of them at the time. The article describes attendees from the American Society of Medical Sociology, an organization and movement that you'll discover is in concert with "Marxist conflict theory," that medical sociologists adhere to which explains hows how the ruling classes can assert their power through medicine. I discovered that when looking up the term after I read it in the NYT article.
The names listed as invitees and on the hosting committee are a veritable who's who of the early 20th century. Including:
- John D. Rockefeller, father of allopathic western medicine, based in petrochemicals, products of his Standard Oil.
- Edward Bernays, who you mention in your "About" section as the father of propaganda, advertising, marketing. And who coined the term "quacks" to describe natural healers like homeopaths, while helping allopathic medicine educational and practice secure monopolies by outlawing and replacing natural healing, substituting petrochemical-based allopathy as the business model for health care.
- Simon and Abraham Flexner, who's Flexner Report was the notorious #FakeScience used to outlaw natural healers for Rockefeller's petrochemical business model of medicine.
- State Senator Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A network of prominent socialists, communists with ties to Karl Marx, names like
- William Jay Schleffilin, descendant of the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, ran the largest pharmaceutical company giant and Big Pharma trade association head for decades
- Abraham Jacobl, the first leading pediatrician, president of the American Medical Association.
And a great many more names that when you search out you'll find were leaders across many industries and disciplines, all aligned with socialism/humanism values. And all eugenicists.
And it also mentions how six unnamed students from the Yale University Civics Club would be attending. Note: Prescott Bush (patriarch to the Bush political dynasty and who went on to become known as "Hitler's Banker" while he did business with that regime for two years after the US entered WWII before the Trading With the Enemies Act shut him down) was a politically connected student at Yale in 1913. I don't have enough info to know if Prescott Bush was one of the six, but considering his support of Hitler, eugenics and his son's infamous "New World Order" speech that echos the Fascists and Marxists of the era, I wouldn't be surprised if he was there, too.
And I wouldn't be surprised if many of those names in the NYT story went on to be a part of the formation of the American Council on Foreign Relations in 1919, just six years later. An organization my next comment will discuss as being the source for the book I'll be focusing on, about "Disease Politics" in Mao's China.
This book published in China in 2013 explains exactly how communist China under Mao used "Disease Politics" to transform China from a nationalistic nation into a communist nation. Remember, Taiwan is the nationalist government of China in exile. Disease politics used as a weapon to collectivize the culture and nature of previously independent people, in ways that led to the Cultural Revolution, turning family against family in a murderous frenzy. This book is a literal "How to." Long, but filled with descriptions of what we've experienced in the west since 2020:
Rural Health Care Delivery
Modern China from the Perspective of Disease Politics
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2013
http://library.lol/main/DB87C08A174B849E1EB0476138787AED
('GET' .pdf download)
From the book's official description:
"Diseases are everyday, ordinary occurrences intimately related to people’s daily lives. However, as the metaphor of the “Sick Man of East Asia” emerged against the backdrop of a weak modern China, health care and the curing of diseases were turned into grand state politics with far-reaching implications. This book, starting with the argument for diseases being metaphors, describes and interprets such incidents in China’s history as the Abolishment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the Patriotic Hygiene Campaign and the Cooperative Medical Services. In an effort to reveal the internal logic of disease politics in the transformation of the state-people relationship, the book analyzes key aspects including the politicization and inclusion of diseases in state governance, the double disciplining of hygiene, legitimacy construction of the state, the remaking of the nationals, and the expansion of the “publicness” of the state. The book argues that disease politics in modern China has developed following the path from nationals to the people, and then to citizens, or from crisis politics and mobilization politics to life politics. In addition, a marked change has occurred in China’s state building: increasingly standard, rationalized and institutionalized means have been employed while the non-standard means, such as large-scale mobilization and ideological coercion, had been historically used in China."
This is not an obscure book I came across without significance. This book was cited, linked to in an article that was published in Foreign Affairs in March, 2020 - the types of material I was reading in March, 2020 when it was decided to treat infectious disease with political science instead of medical science. Foreign Affairs is the most influential international affairs magazine in the world, official communiques of the Council on Foreign Relations. The US/UK Military-Industrial-Scientific-Propaganda Machine mouthpiece:
Past Pandemics Exposed China’s Weaknesses
The Current One Highlights Its Strengths
Foreign Affairs, March 27, 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20200328050913/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-03-27/past-pandemics-exposed-chinas-weaknesses
The politics of infectious disease. Following a tried and true plan. Foster division and strife, amplify hatred among a population, friends, family, to fundamentally transform a nation into collectivist authoritarianism, obedience. I wrote a Stack on the book earlier this year containing some of the highlights and most relevant, prescient information in it. It's a long book to get into, but my Stack gives a roadmap to some short cuts that may be of the most interest to you:
https://freedomfox.substack.com/p/the-devious-use-of-infectious-disease
And since I said I'd reference interesting writings, plural, I'll share an old article published in Foreign Affairs, the CFR's official mouthpiece:
Science in the Totalitarian State
Foreign Affairs, January, 1941
https://web.archive.org/web/20181125112623/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1941-01-01/science-totalitarian-state
It is largely a critique of the emerging totalitarianism under Hitler in Germany and under Stalin in the USSR. But it does equivocate, discussing the pros and cons of totalitarianism vs. democracy before settling in on democracy. I share some selected excerpts in my stack on the article:
https://freedomfox.substack.com/p/old-journal-inside-a-fox-den-thats
Fwiw, while I don't know your background in propaganda to write so extensively on it I'm merely a hobbyist in understanding it. Though I did take a course on persuasion in mass media (propaganda) under one of the co-founders of Factcheck.org, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, many decades ago. She's now at the Annenberg School at UPenn and a prominent talking head at forums and on TV. I'm quite certain she and Kate Starbird are very chummy. And while she still teaches, it's much more lucrative to do propaganda than merely teach it. I did get to learn some of the magician's tricks under her, though. So there's that.
And I took an interest in the study of deception as far back as grade school. So much that I still have an old newspaper clipping describing "The Credibility of Three" that I also shared on an earlier Stack of mine. Relating a story about how the OSS (predecessor of the CIA) taught spies to lie if they were under suspicion to avoid capture. It was from a clipping of an old feature columnist I regularly read when I was young, over forty years ago. Presented humorously in that format. But interesting enough to me that I clipped and saved it for all these years. Something inside my young mind told me I needed to protect it in a very deceitful world, to learn how to discern deception:
https://freedomfox.substack.com/p/the-credibility-of-three
So I think I'll enjoy reading your shares and I thank you for reading mine in this long comment thread. Knowledge is power. We're both doing our best to help share that power with other minds open to learning and gaining more for themselves.
Many thanks for your detailed in interesting comments. If you are interested in contributing material to Propaganda in Focus, we would be happy to consider and review any submission from you, regards, The Editors