May 26, 2026 • 56 mins
It's often said there's a great crime at the heart of every great fortune, but what about institutions, inventions and other noble pursuits? In today's episode, Ben and Matt take a closer look at the deeply disturbing origins of some of the world's most lauded endeavors, from the world of medicine to environmentalism, academia and more. Get an up-close look at the skeletons in the closets of these generally good things.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Fellow conspiracy realist, we are returning to you with a
classic episode that is weirdly evergreen. In a lot of
our research we learn hidden origin stories, and this is
a compilation of those. Guys. We call this the disturbing
origin of generally good things. Yay, let's ruin good things.
(00:21):
This is that we can't have nice things.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Hey, and this remember this is before the origins of
AI and Sam Altman's and all those folks in the world,
so we didn't get to talk about those, but there
are quite a few companies in here.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
We ruin this Sierra Club. Yeah, for sure, it might
surprise you. Let's jump right in.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt
Our colleague nol is off on an adventure that I'm
sure you'll hear about soon.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Paul. Mission control decands, most importantly, you are you.
You are here, and that makes this stuff they don't
want you to know this is a bit of a
grab bag episode. Let's see, Matt, Are we hearing this
(01:37):
in twenty twenty one? Are you and I recording in
twenty twenty for an episode that comes out next year?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Gee? Let me think, yes, yes, this comes out. This
is an early episode in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Well, congratulations everyone listening to this. You've made it what
strange horizon?
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Wait? Yeah, you made it past that arbitrary line in
the sand that we drew between years. Uh.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
I think about that all the time, the way that
calendars evolved, you know historically, like there have always been
New Year's celebrations, but in many ancient civilizations the new
year was something closer to what we in the modern
day would call March. And there was this just this intense,
(02:27):
cartoonish series of events that led to January first becoming
the day. So shout out to uh, oh, I can't
remember which pope it was, but shout out to.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Them, Oh, Gregory, I'm just kidding. No, the Gregorian calendars
one referring to, but it is not a man named Gregory.
It is cartoonish that we wouldn't start the new year
in the spring, when life begins again. Why not why
did we know? Okay, in the middle of winter. Okay,
cool that, let's do that. Let's do that at least again.
(03:01):
That's my that's my North American centric mind when I'm
talking about seasons.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Well, you and I have talked off air before about
how arbitrary the current calendar is. And we've also talked before.
I can't remember whether this made it on air, but
we we had some pretty great conversations about different calendars
around the world. You know, it is literally a different
(03:30):
year and a different era in various regions, various countries
across this planet. We are still going to celebrate, though,
who does you know what I think at this point,
everybody is thankful for a win. So let's all moderately
congratulate ourselves and let's stick together for twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Yeah, and it doesn't matter if you're not going to celebrate.
If you live anywhere near a major city, you will
hear the new year rung in by the sound of
your dog whimpering somewhere in your house, right because all
the boom booms ben before we jump in. Yes, we've
I've been listening to a lot of voicemails lately and
(04:14):
A lot of people reached out to us in early December,
late November asking about a particular book that we mentioned
on an episode past about behavioral not manipulation, weaponized psychology.
Do we do? You remember it all? The title of
(04:35):
that that book that we were referring to. I couldn't.
I couldn't recall it.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I do. I was looking at it earlier this weekend,
in fact, and I hate to be the party cooper here,
but I will not recommend that book on air, nor
will I propagate its title. I will propose an alternative
book that can give you a lot of the same
information or a good primer, good intro. It's called You
(05:01):
Say More Than You Think. This is a book by
Janine Driver, and it studies well it's somewhat of an
applied approach to using body language in a mindful way
force to accomplish certain desires, goals, and so on. The
(05:23):
book You Say More Than You Think It centers around
a seven day plan for inculcating yourself with new habits
body language wise, and then sticking with them, maintaining them,
and growing them. For instance, if you are listening to
today's podcast and you are sitting down, do us a favor,
(05:48):
do yourself a favor. Don't move, don't move your body,
but think of your feet. Be aware of your feet.
Where are they? Are they splayed out? Are they crossed
maybe slightly beneath your chair? Which foot is the closest
to the back of the chair, Or if they're not crossed,
(06:11):
which direction are your feet pointing in? And what's in
that direction? Things like that. They're very small things. They're
things that we don't often notice consciously unless we are
trained to do so, such as you know, like if
you are an FBI agent, or you're someone who conducts
(06:33):
various types of interviews or interrogations, or you're perhaps a
trial lawyer. Right, So that's the book I would recommend
in lieu of this. Again, I'm sorry to be a
party pooper, but just I think you say more than
you think is a great and in a more wholesome
(06:54):
way to get involved with the analysis of body language.
But do keep in mind, Segue that many wholesome things
have disturbing origins, and that's what today's show is about.
It's often said that a great crime is that the
origin of every great fortune, and to a degree this
(07:14):
cliche rings true. So In this episode today, toward the
very end of a very arbitrary calendar, we are diving
into skeletons of some beloved or at least accepted and
lauded institutions to uncover their strange, often troubled, very disturbing beginnings.
(07:40):
Spoiler alert, conspiracy realist, this does get crazy, very very quickly. Matt,
how would you what would you say on a one
to nine? Where are we at with that segue?
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Let's see one to nine? Hold on, let me check
my out. Okay, my legs are crisscross apple sauce and
looking at my screen, I would say that was a
pretty good segue there, Ben, Let's give it a seven
too kind? Too kinds Oh wait is a seven good? Or? Okay?
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Yeah? Sure?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
All right? So so let's let's segue even harder here
into something that I know nothing about outside of the
experience of the people around me. Gynecology. It's not even
something that I really have any right to talk about.
But I'm just gonna tell you, and you probably already
(08:36):
know this, hopefully, that the origins of gynecology are pretty horrific.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Here are the facts.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
And the first thing you need to know if you
don't already, is that the origins of gynecology begin with slavery. Yes,
there is a man, a man who is considered to
be the father of gynecology. He is hailed in this way,
and his name is James Mary and Sims. There are
(09:04):
statues erected in this man's honor. And you know, in
overall concept, at least in the modern day, gynecology is
a tremendously helpful and fantastic thing. Overall, it you know,
enhances the health of women across the globe. However, this man, James,
(09:27):
he practiced medicine. When treating women was considered perhaps distasteful,
which is a terrible thing to even think, but it
was also rarely done. He invented something called the vaginal speculum,
which is a tool used for examination, a very helpful tool.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yes, Sims also high ineered surgical techniques. One technique was
to repair what's known as a vescovaginal fistula. This was
a common complication of childbirth in the nineteenth century. It's
when a tear occurs between the uterus and the bladder
(10:07):
and it causes constant pain. It causes problems with urination.
It is overall a good thing in the world that
techniques exist to address this issue. But while Simms was
doing this, he was conducting as you said, Matt, he
(10:30):
was conducting all of his experimentation. That's really what it was.
It was human experimentation. It was conducting it on enslaved women,
and some of these people went on to be his assistance,
and doubtlessly, even in this, even in this horrific, unclean origin,
(10:56):
I would say it is doubtless that his assistance probably
pioneered some of the techniques that are credited to him today. Because,
as you said at the top of this discussion, we're dudes,
so we only we're dudes, we're not obgyn so we
know this from an outsider or an intellectual rather than
(11:18):
an experiential perspective. It's incredibly misleading to characterize his experiments,
these acts of cruelty as research. This experimentation was done
without anesthesia, and he didn't like the idea of informed
(11:39):
consent or the idea of therapeutic treatment is not something
that occurs to Sims. He caused untold suffering of a
great magnitude by operating under a racist notion that still
persists in Western medicine today, the idea that someone based
(12:00):
on their skin color may have a different experience with pain.
SIMS believed, or SIMS seemed to believe that black people
did not feel pain, which which is ridiculous. And you
have to look at the you have to look at
the studies of modern medicine. Right in in Western Europe
(12:21):
as well as in the United States, you will see
medical professionals who do not believe their patients when they're
saying I have this condition, I am in tremendous pain.
It echoes today, there is there is a terrible ripple effect.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
I just want to add. I want to add to that.
My wife is Cuban and very recently she has gone
to the doctor on numerous occasions requesting assistance in the
form of either medication or further, you know, studies on
her just to see what is wrong, and she has
been met with essentially, take some tyl and all you'll
(13:02):
be fine, or you just need more sleep, take some melotonin,
you'll be fine. And like, just hearing it from her
and knowing what she's going through and how she's feeling,
it's baffling to me that that is the way she
is being treated and it took several attempts basically for
(13:22):
her to actually get help from a medical professional. And
it's just very, very disturbing that it continues.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, you know, the worst part, Matt is this is
going to be familiar to a lot of our fellow
listeners today. Right listening to this, you may have experienced
this firsthand. And I've always I've always had a problem
with the stereotype when they say, oh, you know, certain
(13:54):
people don't trust doctors, because I think that's an incorrect
way to frame it. The more accurate way to frame
that idea is that doctors don't trust certain people statistically,
and this is not a ding on the excellent medical
professionals we have listening to the show today. This is
based on some fairly robust studies over time. Maybe it's
(14:20):
an episode in the future, but we wanted to use
guide Incology as just one example of something that has
saved lives, undeniably saved millions of lives, but has its
origins in a terrible, unforgivable thing. And this is only
(14:41):
the beginning, right. We know German and US companies helped
the Nazis during World War Two, for example, and you
can read these corporations, various public statements about this, which
we've talked about in the past, and there are all
something along the lines of we didn't know, it was
a different time, it was a subsidiary we acquired later,
(15:05):
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But save it, miss
me with that guide. Ecology is one of the most
well known examples of a horrifying origin story, but it
is by no means the only story of this kind. Many,
many great institutions that do good things for the world
around us have at their heart great crimes in their origin,
(15:30):
and they remain active and they remain profitable in the
modern day. What are we talking about, we'll tell you
after a word from our sponsor. Here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Well, let's start with something we can all agree on, Shelley. Yes,
the environment. You know, the air we breathe, the water
we drink. Oh yeah, the flora and fauna, all the
things that make up lay environment. Well, that's a good thing,
I think, right, It's a good thing to have around probably, yeah.
And it seems as though we humans the ones with
(16:10):
the capacity to fully alter our surroundings and the environment,
we should probably take care of it as best we can. Right,
the world is our responsibility in no small part, and
you know we owe it to future generations. You owe
it to my son, So listen up. I'm just joking.
I'm justo. I owe it to your daughter and your
(16:32):
son too. We all owe it to each other to
take care of it as best that we can. And
there are many countless groups out there, organizations and goos,
small companies that have this as their aim. How do
we best take care of the environment. And one of
those groups is known as the Sierra Club. You may
(16:54):
have heard of.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
It, absolutely and you know it's so it's so weird
that caring about the world around you somehow became a
topic that was up for debate. It's true that nefarious
things have been conducted under the banner of environmentalism, but
actually caring about the environment should not. There's not a
(17:18):
political thing about it. We need the world more than
the world needs us. If every human being on the planet,
we're like, what, twenty something minutes into this podcast, If
every human being on the planet vanished twenty five minutes
into this show, the rest of the world would be fine.
You know what I mean. We're really just like we're
(17:40):
just we should just clean up after ourselves. If a
microcosmic example is helpful here, and don't worry about the
politicization of all this stuff. Think about the last time
you had a roommate who didn't clean up after they
know we're in the rest in the kitchen. Screw them, right,
(18:02):
that's stuff.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Fisticuffs all day, fisticuffs about the dishes come on.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
And we looked into several of these groups numerous times
in the past, and we found various noble things. We
found various unethical things, because people are still people right
for the most part, we learned some weird stuff about
(18:27):
the Sierra Club. As you said, Matt, it's one of
the best known environmental groups in the United States. It's
very old. It's a storied institution, was founded back in
eighteen ninety two, and today it has around two million members.
It has this innocent, ambitious motto that people of all creeds, nations,
(18:52):
socioeconomic status, etc. Can get behind. It's simply this, and
I love it. Explore, enjoy, protect the planet.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
That's cool, Yes, Captain planet you unite?
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Yeah. Rings the rings I hate. I hate jewelry, but
I would wear a ring for Captain Planet.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Sure, absolutely, that's that sounds amazing. Yes, like you said,
we can all get behind that. But there's there's some
there's some issues, like we said, with its origins. Now,
when we're talking about these groups, generally, we don't mean
every member, right we we certainly don't mean every member
(19:32):
of the Sierra Club. When we're talking about this, we're
talking about the foundations. So very key players who are
involved in any of these organizations, those are the folks
we're focusing on. So here's the issue with this Ero Club.
A couple of key members of this thing were known racists,
is the best way to put it, I suppose. And
(19:56):
you know, when they were talking about saving the world,
they aren't necessarily talking about saving it for everyone. They
were talking about saving it for a very specific group
of people, generally, the more pasty ones, the.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
White ones, which you can say, which I.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Can say as like, you know.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
As the yeah, yeah, you're right, you're right. One of
the best phrases would be like virulent avowed racist.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Okay, I thought you were gonna say very virulent lee
white or something.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Okay, cool, maybe that I mean, there's there's nothing wrong
with being who you are, and you can't change the
circumstances of your birth or your DNA yet.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
But I say that's to myself in the mirror every morning. Continue.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
But but some of these key members, some of these founders,
were hyper racist, like beyond beyond prejudice, you know, like
racist to the point where other people would say, well,
I you know, I agree with racism, but we could
talk about other stuff like what do you what do
(21:09):
you think of oatmeal? And they're like, no, no, no,
we're sticking with a racist thing. So I know, I
know that's unfair, but it's somewhat true. So the Sierra
Club's founder, one John Mure, often talked in explicit, documented
terms about non white people, words that frankly, we decided
(21:33):
we're we're not going to give space to on air.
In nineteen oh one, he said that white people shouldn't
be afraid to visit national parks because the well, we're
gonna have to paraphrase here, the native population are going
to be mostly dead or civilized into useless innocence.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Wow, we're choosing not to say these words. I do
want to point out one of one of his phrase,
one of the phrases that he used, or terms that
he used was up until very recently, the name of
a extremely large restaurant chain that you can look up
(22:17):
if you're interested, which has since changed its name, by
the way, And.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Of course this we see a similar pattern in the
world of sports. Right major league teams have are changing
or will change their names. So this line of thinking,
for your is is it unfair to hold the current
(22:44):
the current leaders of the Sierra Club responsible for things
that happened before they were born that they could not
in any way control. No, it's it's not fair in
that regard. You know, you have to acknowledge that and
be transparent about the institution. But the thing is, this
line of thinking didn't stop with John Muir. It appeared
(23:11):
to carry on into recent years. As recently is nineteen
eighty eight, John Tanton, who was a formerly the National
Population Committee chairman of the Sierra Club asked, and this
is on record, quote, what will happen when the white
population goes into minority status and the groups that comprise
(23:35):
the new coalition majorities don't share the same environmental values?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
That's Niche just wonder where where even gets that thinking,
and wonder where it comes from.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
It's very us versus them, which seems strange because of
the enormous amount of cooperation inherent in like saving, preserving,
or repairing the environment. These conservational values were often tied
up and I know we're dunking on the Sierra clip here,
(24:10):
which it's an organization that does good work. That's the
weird thing about this episode. All the organizations we're talking about,
they do good stuff. But the environmentalist conservational values were
often tied up in prejudicial, discriminatory beliefs that would be
(24:30):
astounding in the modern day. And they were like, so
there's environmentalism, right, make national parks, try to preserve wildlife
and ecosystems. But another solution that was very popular was
this idea of limiting the quote unquote wrong kind of immigration.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Yeah, the wrong kind of immigration. Okay, so let's unpack
this a little bit. Back in the nineteen sixties, there
was a popular theory amongst the Sierra Club that immigration
to a large extent drives unsustainable population growth. So in
(25:13):
one area, more humans in equals too many humans. I
mean that to a rational mind. Maybe, Okay, well that
does make sense. You're adding to the population. There's population growth. Sure,
The unsustainable part is a bit arguable depending on the place,
but you can see where the logic existed, right. The
(25:39):
problem is that the perspective shifted to a hard line
against immigration pretty much at all in the nineteen eighties. Yeah,
and again, like it means they're more insular, right, they
are taking a very hard stance on population growth. Right,
in general, we're going to be talking a lot about
(26:01):
population growth in this episode. But luckily, as you know,
the Sierra Club continued to mature after you know, one
hundred and twelve years or something, since John Muir was
in there. They did seem to very much write the
course here.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Yeah, you're right. Yeah. In twenty thirteen, the Sierra Club
announced its support for some immigration policies. It was a
unanimous decision amid the group's board of directors, and it
does mark a definitive break with their troubled, complicated history
(26:41):
on immigration. However, not everyone took it well. One response
from a Sierra Club member said the following quote, This
divisive present stance has no place in the purpose of
the club to state that those voluntarily violating our laws
should be reward with citizenship because they voluntarily came to
(27:03):
our polluted country. And must be protected as such is
illogical in the scheme of environmentalism in the United States.
The Club has lost my support. So in there we
see in just that snapshot, in that response, we see
we see the perspective of someone who prioritizes protecting the environment,
(27:28):
does not want more people around. Right to your earlier
statement about just the sheer math of it, right.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Yeah, but ultimately they're taking issue with the illegal way
in which a person entered this country, right, that's what
they're saying exactly.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
They're not It's kind of like how Oregon was founded
as a white supremacist utopia, which is true. I hate
to say it, but it's true. The thing is, the
logic is not consistent across this kind of viewpoint. It's
not it's not keep everybody out, it's keep some people out.
(28:07):
Another response is even even more explicit.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Yeah, here's another quote. Like most environmental groups, the Sierra
Club continues to ignore all the problems stemming from over
population in the United States and many other countries. This
is nothing more than a call for amnesty for millions
of welfare dependent, overbreeding, illegal aliens who can't speak English
(28:32):
and don't know what condoms are jesus.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Wow, tell us how you really feel, you know it?
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Let me levels that here are these prominent members or
is this like a YouTube comments.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Section for kind of like a YouTube comment section. Okay,
I'll be hon I picked the hot takes.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Okay, okay. So so we just need to point out
there this does not mean that these statements represent this
Sierra Club. It not at all that supporters, certain supporters
of this year club feel this way.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Picture Smoky the Bear. Everybody from the US knows Smoky,
I think everybody not in the US. We have a
mascot that is dedicated to like convincing people not to
set the forest on fire. That's his whole job. So
picture this guy. He's great. His name's Smoky the Bear.
I think in the UK it's a frog or something.
(29:29):
But pictures Smoky the Bear in the distance just shaking
his head in slow, painful disapproval.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Yeah. Yeah, And again like the just to continue here,
the comments of a member, someone who pays member status
rather than a founder or you know, a board member
or something like that. It's very it's very different. It's
a very different thing, and it doesn't hold as much weight,
but it is troubling still to read that, though, I
think you could probably find the organization to treat people
(30:03):
nicely and not murder. Anyone would also have comments similar
to this.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Oh sure, yeah, you know, I've got a great comparison here. Well,
I've got to let's see what you think. Tell me
whether this comparison is on the level. I was thinking
about any large organization of people, right, the leaders and
the civilians, or the members or the constituents, or whatever
you want to call them. I think one of the
(30:29):
best examples of this would be senators or congress people,
because some person may vote for a senator right or
a congress person, and then they may have views that
this member of Congress completely disagrees with. You know what
I mean. They're like, I voted for you because I
(30:52):
like your policy on snowplows. Also, I think you should
consider you x And the senator is like, thanks for
voting for me.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
I guess nah, nah, we're good. Have a good one.
The snowplow was on the way.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
The snowplow is on the way. So that's so. Now
we've got one example from the world of medicine. We've
got another example from the world of nonprofits. Right, and
again both in both of these examples, there are genuinely
good things, like objectively good things. Let's make it safer
(31:32):
to be alive. That's what both of those things ultimately
equate to. Right. But let's go, let's let's shift a little, or,
as they say in corporate America, let's pivot to the
world of academia.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Ah, we're gonna find some more synergies here.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
Yes, yes, yes, it's it's our wheelhouse. Oh gosh, uh pek.
We probably mentioned it before, but for for years Matt
and I have been like compiling and collecting these various
corporate corporate terms. What were some of your favorites? Can
we just stop for a second to just talk about this.
(32:10):
I love cadence. I love when people say cadence.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Yeah, you know, I've actually that comes up a lot
with us because we talk about episode count and when
it comes out all the time. So we talk about it.
You know, it feels like a good cadence to have
Tuesday and Thursday or whatever.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
In signal signal is a relatively newer one. It's like
we have signaled the blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Oh god, I've been using that a lot too. Ew.
Speaker 1 (32:38):
It goes around, man, it goes around. Don't beat yourself up.
The other one, the one that still mystidvised me, though,
is somewhere along the line in the past few years,
a specific kind of question just became an ask.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
Mmmm, that's a big ask.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
That's a big, big ask.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Yeah, geez, well, let's yeah. Well, speaking of, let's get
into yeah, academia, because my vocabulary certainly stems in the
beginning from stem. I'm just sure, hey there, but from
my education, that's where it begins, and it was furthered
when I went to college. College is a fantastic thing,
(33:18):
in my opinion, and it should be available to every
human being on the planet, if you know, however possible,
especially if you live in the United States, it should be.
It should be paid for by the government. I think, oh, oh, man,
hot take sorry, oh, don't get mad at me. I
think that would be smart if we pulled our money
and sent all of our you know, younger kids to college.
(33:39):
I think they'll be smart.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
I would say, you know, I'm with you there. I
would take it a little further. I would say a
higher education in general is a good thing because you know,
look for the past decade or so, well more than
the past decade. There there's been this narrative perpetrate on
(34:02):
the American people which says that one must attend a university,
one must attend to college, and that that is simply
not true. We have a great need for the trades,
we have a in that and that is absolutely higher education.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
You know what I mean. I think we're I think
we're thinking about it incorrectly. I think the trades should
be college is a part of a college, like it
should be seen as an equal pursuit because if you
could become a master of you can become a master
of really anything. And like you said, those trades are
highly necessary and needed right now. We just need to
(34:43):
think about them as though it is truly higher education
and something to be lauded.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
Yeah, absolutely agreed. And with that being said, let's visit
the Ivory Tower. Let's travel, you know what, Let's go
to Georgetown University specifically, that place is one of the
country's most well known, prestigious centers of higher learning. This
(35:11):
is a place where if you if you attend there,
you have massive advantages after your education simply because of
the name. The networking, the association with this institution.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
The family members that probably went there, perhaps yeah, perhaps
not probably well.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
I mean, they're definitely legacy hires. And it's a difficult
school to get into. It has very high standards. Not
for nothing is it considered a world class institution today.
It's known for churning out students, shooting them straight from
the lecture hall to some of the highest positions in
(35:52):
the world of nonprofits and Wall Street private industries, the
US government. If it were a business, then we could
say that business is booming. And you're right, Matt. Many
of these alumni go on to send their kids to Georgetown,
or they participate in the feedback loop and they keep
(36:13):
the money in the influence spinning in a circular fashion.
They donate large amounts of money, or they assist with
construction for the school. Things are looking pretty great for Georgetown.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
You No, yeah, they are. I'm just gonna put forward
here that you know, all those donations we're talking about
probably have a lot to do with why the kids
get in. Eh, that's my opinion. Anyway, Moving on the
thing is Georgetown University. This thing wasn't always an organization
of this high esteem. It was built it had to
(36:44):
be created. It had to do good and have students
who were successful to have that reputation. To build that reputation.
Here's the deal. The school didn't have a bunch of money,
and it didn't have it was lacking a lot of things,
and it almost got shut down in eighteen thirty eight.
Like we said, it's been around for a long time.
(37:05):
And you know, let's say you're a university in college.
What do you do to get extra funds? Have some
kind of fundraiser, you know, call up those alumni and say, hey,
I know you're you're in Congress now, it would be
great to get a little something something for the university
for the generations. Next. Well, what Georgetown University unfortunately did
(37:26):
in eighteen thirty eight when they were in trouble is
they sold human beings to stay afloat.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Yeah. So Georgetown was founded in January of seventeen eighty nine.
And the thing, the road to success was rocky for
the institution. They did participate in the slave trade, and
they did it more than once. It wasn't just eighteen
(37:53):
thirty eight. We're on such a here's where it gets
worse mission today. Man. So they had conducted individual slave
trade transactions before. And it turns out that more than
a dozen universities, including Ivy League players like Harvard and Columbia,
have publicly recognized their ties to slavery and to the
(38:17):
slave trade. But the eighteen thirty eight transaction from the
people who were running Georgetown, it stands out due to
the sheer number of human beings involved.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
Ben, did you mention already that the group the Jesuits
helped out in this pursuit?
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Oh no, yes, very good point, speaking of another institution
with some skeletons in the closet. Yes, the Jesuit Order
ran Georgetown at the time of this transaction, this crime,
and they were instrumental in the series of events.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
And just so you know, we have a whole episode
on this group the Jesuits called the Jesuits. Fact in fiction.
You can find it, I believe in many places. It
came out a long time ago in ooh Goodness twenty fourteen,
so what Wow. So you may have to you may
have to wait for the classic to come out if
(39:22):
you're an Apple podcast only listener, but otherwise you can
find it on other podcast outlets like Iheartradios, app Okay
all right. It didn't mean to derail us there.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
No, no, no, it was perfect. I've just I have
in awe. I think you win this the if I
did if I did a seven on the segue, you
my friend just did an eight point five ooh on
the on the mentions on.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
The call out, iHeart app on the call out.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
So yeah, so so we are you know, we do
want to be on a with you, folks. We're working
to inject a little bit of levity in this episode
because these are truly, these are unclean things. So here's
what happened. In a desperate bid to survive and become
(40:19):
the amazing institution it is today, Georgetown sold off two
hundred and seventy two people in eighteen thirty eight. They
shipped these people to the Deep South. They can signed
them to a life of horror on plantations in Cotton Country.
(40:42):
And the thing is at Georgetown in this time, slavery
and scholarship were inextricably linked.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
Yeah, well, it wasn't just selling the slaves. It was
then using slaves to make money and then using that
money to make the institute just function on a regular basis.
They relied on these Jesuit plantations, and most a lot
of them were in Maryland. These things would finance everything
(41:14):
in the operations. It's so weird. There were even people
at Georgetown who were working with Georgetown who quote unquote
donated slaves to this pursuit.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
And this eighteen thirty eight transaction netted the college more
than a little more than three million dollars in today's time.
So this was massively profitable. No what you're thinking, The
people doing this are members of a spiritual order, one
(41:48):
that believes in good and noble things. So shortly some
priests objected, right, that's correct. Fortunately, yes, some pre did
object vocally, reciferously, and they tried their best to prevent
the sale of human beings. That sounds good to hear
(42:12):
until you understand why they had a problem with it. Exactly.
It's not quite what you think.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
Yeah, please join me in throwing up in your mouth
a little bit as we go through this. They weren't
objecting to the physical dangers they were putting these people
in by you know, trading them to force them to
go and work. They weren't even objecting to the concept
of selling human beings at all. What they were worried
about is religion. They were worried about the Southern owners
(42:41):
of these plantations forcing the slaves, the people that they
were selling, to practice Protestantism instead of Catholicism, because that
would have been really, really bad.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Yeah, that was the line. You know. One thing, one
fantastic thing that Georgetown has done, however, is to agnot
college and address this and study this and learn from it.
There's a historian at Georgetown named Adam Rothman who noted,
quote the university itself owes its existence to this history,
(43:13):
and Georgetown has been taking steps to evolve. In twenty nineteen,
just last year, oh two years ago now, the college
announced it would launch a new fundraising effort to assist
the living descendants of the two hundred and seventy two
enslaved people who were sold by the school's founders, which
(43:35):
I think is you know, I think that speaks highly
to the institution.
Speaker 2 (43:41):
Yeah, no, it really does. Some of it is so
counterintuitive when you think about it, because you hear fundraising effort. Oh,
they're going to raise other people's money to pay for
their thing that they did. But you know, it is
a it is a college, and it does cost a
lot of money for one of these things to function,
(44:05):
So you can't just pull all of the money out
unless you're going to risk closing the school down or
forcing it to shut down for a bit. But goodness,
something like that just gives me mixed feelings, I suppose.
But here's the great thing. It Georgetown changed its tune
and a lot of this was occurring because of internal
(44:26):
pressure from students they are educating, which is actually a
great It's a fantastic sign, right that the organization itself
maybe is evolving alongside its students.
Speaker 1 (44:39):
Yeah, the students Georgetown voted six months before that announcement.
In twenty nineteen, the students Georgetown voted to institute a
twenty seven dollar and twenty cents student fee that would
go entirely to supporting the descendants of the victims of
(45:03):
this crime. And honestly, it is it is an amazing step.
I know it's there's no way you can change the past,
but this is an important step in the right direction.
So we have some light at the end of the
tunnel with Georgetown. Right, we've explored medicine, we've explored the environment,
we've explored academia. Now we're going to pause for word
(45:26):
from our sponsor, and we'll return with one more and
it is a doozy.
Speaker 2 (45:39):
And we're back. Hey. Remember at the top of this
episode when I mentioned we're going to talk about population
control again. Well we're here. Let's introduce a little organization
called Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
You know what, you've heard of it. Regardless of your
personal values, your personal beliefs, you are familiar in some
way with this organization. It was founded by Margaret Sanger,
who opened her first birth control clinic in nineteen sixteen.
Then she went on to form the American Birth Control
(46:13):
League in nineteen twenty one. In nineteen forty two, the
name was changed to Planned Parenthood. Today, the organization is
active in some capacity in multiple countries. It operates over
six hundred health clinics through its affiliate network in the
US alone. It's best known, of course, for reproductive health
(46:35):
services for sex ed sexual education. It is the largest
single provider of these services in the US, and it
also works to prevent the spread of disease. It also
offers cancer screenings. It is for many people, a life
saving institution.
Speaker 2 (46:55):
Make no mistake, this organization has done so much good
in the world. It truly has, and if you cannot
acknowledge that or see that. I urge you to re
examine or rethink the good parts, because there truly has
(47:17):
been great things that this organization has done.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
Pretty cool. Not to have cancer, that's one, well.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
Yeah, and just reproductive health in general for women and
to be able to take control of their lives and
their bodies. This, I mean, this is this institution is
instrumental in just empowering women.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
Yeah, that's objectively true. But the thing about this life
saving institution is that the founder didn't want to save
everybody's life. Sanger wanted to save the right kind of
lives as she saw it, because she was a eugenicist.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
Yes, eugenics was this discipline, I would say, from back
in the day, but unfortunately it still exists in twenty
twenty one. It was championed by a lot of people,
prominent people, scientists who existed in the world, who were
at the top of their fields. It is now widely debunked.
(48:18):
But it promoted good breeding. This is in quotes good
breeding and aimed to prevent poor breeding. Now good and
poor breeding. It sounds a little subjective. That's because it is.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Yeah, that's the thing. It's not a good scientific basis
for eugenics as described desired and practiced by people in
Sanger's time. Sanger the basic idea is that the overall
human species can be improved through encouraging reproduction in people
(48:55):
with traits like well, to their mind, it was stuff
like intelligence, hard work, and cleanliness. We don't have a
full scientific understanding of intelligence, and hard work and cleanliness
are pretty much opinions, pretty much opinions. So the most
(49:18):
terrifying example of eugenics motivated crimes are acts of genocide.
That is one ultimate destination for that line of thinking.
Sanger thought that poverty and what she described as unwantedness
(49:39):
were the main reasons children might grow up to be
in some way, to her opinion, morally or physically defective,
and so Sanger came up with a solution.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
There is an idea where if someone exhibited birth defects
of one kind or another, Sanger would advocate that they
be sent away literally sent away to a farm somewhere
very very far away and segregating from the rest of
the population to make sure that they're unable to even
physically have relations with someone and therefore children and if
(50:16):
they were going to mingle within all the other people
in society, they would need to be sterilized.
Speaker 1 (50:23):
Right, Yeah, So what is a defect to Sanger? A defect?
It could be anything, a physical deformity, even if it's
one that is not genetically reproducible, right, a physical deformity,
or a perceived lack of moral fiber, whatever the hell
that is. So there was huge potential for people to
(50:46):
be carted off just because their behavior did not fit
into social norms of the time. This bit of history
had a dubious moment in the spotlight when the politician
Benkar claimed that Sanger was racist in part of a
larger attack on planned parenthood to support Carson's aim of
(51:10):
making abortion illegal in the United States. So, if you
check with primary sources, by which we mean things written
by Sanger herself about her views, her attitudes on race
are doubtlessly problematic and paternalistic today, but at the time
they might have been seen as somewhat progressive. For example,
(51:33):
in nineteen forty six, she wrote that all women, regardless
of their ostensible race, should have a voice in how
many children they have. I feel like there's a very
reasonable thing, right, Like, if you're if you're listening and
you have or you plan to have children, then doesn't
(51:56):
it feel like the number of children you have should
be kind of up to you?
Speaker 2 (51:59):
Yeah? Yeah, absolutely, uh yeah, one hundred percent. We're mentioning
some things that Margaret Sanger said. There are lots of
places you can go online to do further research. I
would recommend an opinion piece from USA Today. It is
called removed statuses of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder tied
to eugenics and racism. Again, this is an opinion piece
(52:22):
on USA Today, so keep that in mind if you
do choose to read it. What I would recommend is
look at the supporting links that are in the article,
because that is the kind of thing that Ben is
referring to. Here. These are actual words that you can
find that we're spoken by Margaret Singer.
Speaker 1 (52:39):
Yeah, and this with this, we're drawing our episode to
a close. We have just scratched the tip of the
iceberg here, and again there's a dilemma. The conundrum is
the following the institutions. Every institution that we have mentioned
in today's show has inarguably objectively done awesome, amazing things
(53:03):
for the world and the people within it. Today, and
we can't. We cannot discount this work, this tremendously good
work for the world. But we also cannot be blind
to the to the origins of some of these movements,
(53:26):
and we know that there are many many more out there.
We would like to hear from you. In our examples today,
the institutions have all made or attempted to make amends
for their past. But what other stories are out there are?
What are some more strange, disturbing origin stories that you're
(53:49):
aware of? What would you like to share with our
fellow listeners? Let us know. You can find us on
the internet. We're on Facebook, We're on Instagram, We're on Twitter.
We like to recommend Here's where it gets crazy, where
you can hang out, see some very weird stuff, see
some news. It's been rated the best page on the
internet five times in a row by us arbitrarily at
(54:11):
the end of some of our shows.
Speaker 2 (54:13):
Yeah, definitely not Forbes magazine. They had nothing to do
with it. Before you do that, I want to recommend
one more piece to read. I'm so sorry we didn't
get to spend a lot of time on Margaret Sanger.
I want to recommend a piece from the Atlantic called
abortions racial gap. This is another just important piece of
information that you could add into the puzzle that is
(54:36):
your mind when thinking about all of this stuff. It's
worth it. Check it out. If you don't want to
find us on social media, because that's not your thing,
you can always give us a call. Our number is
one eight three three std WYTK. Leave a message. It
may go into one of our listener mail episodes. Please
(54:56):
let us know what you'd like to be called, as
well as if you give us permission to use your
voice on the show, that would be fantastic. And do
know and be aware. If you call in, the number
from which you call gets logged, so I can see it,
Ben can see it. We can see the number that
you call in from. If you wish to obfuscate that,
(55:18):
you can use a different number, like a Google Voice
number or something like that. Otherwise you might get a
call back on yourself from me. So good luck to.
Speaker 1 (55:27):
You somewhat ominous there. Man.
Speaker 2 (55:29):
Well, if you get a call from me, it's like
it's game over, man, We're gonna talk.
Speaker 1 (55:34):
So, if you don't care for social media, if you
don't care for telephones, but you have a story, you
need to share, or even better, a suggestion for a
topic we can cover in the future. There's always one
other way to contact us. It is our good old
fashioned email address where we.
Speaker 2 (55:54):
Are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. Stuff they Don't want
(56:17):
you to know is a production of iHeartRadio. For more
podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Fellow conspiracy realist, we are returning to you with a
classic episode that is weirdly evergreen. In a lot of
our research we learn hidden origin stories, and this is
a compilation of those. Guys. We call this the disturbing
origin of generally good things. Yay, let's ruin good things.
(00:21):
This is that we can't have nice things.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Hey, and this remember this is before the origins of
AI and Sam Altman's and all those folks in the world,
so we didn't get to talk about those, but there
are quite a few companies in here.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
We ruin this Sierra Club. Yeah, for sure, it might
surprise you. Let's jump right in.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt
Our colleague nol is off on an adventure that I'm
sure you'll hear about soon.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Paul. Mission control decands, most importantly, you are you.
You are here, and that makes this stuff they don't
want you to know this is a bit of a
grab bag episode. Let's see, Matt, Are we hearing this
(01:37):
in twenty twenty one? Are you and I recording in
twenty twenty for an episode that comes out next year?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Gee? Let me think, yes, yes, this comes out. This
is an early episode in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Well, congratulations everyone listening to this. You've made it what
strange horizon?
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Wait? Yeah, you made it past that arbitrary line in
the sand that we drew between years. Uh.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
I think about that all the time, the way that
calendars evolved, you know historically, like there have always been
New Year's celebrations, but in many ancient civilizations the new
year was something closer to what we in the modern
day would call March. And there was this just this intense,
(02:27):
cartoonish series of events that led to January first becoming
the day. So shout out to uh, oh, I can't
remember which pope it was, but shout out to.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Them, Oh, Gregory, I'm just kidding. No, the Gregorian calendars
one referring to, but it is not a man named Gregory.
It is cartoonish that we wouldn't start the new year
in the spring, when life begins again. Why not why
did we know? Okay, in the middle of winter. Okay,
cool that, let's do that. Let's do that at least again.
(03:01):
That's my that's my North American centric mind when I'm
talking about seasons.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Well, you and I have talked off air before about
how arbitrary the current calendar is. And we've also talked before.
I can't remember whether this made it on air, but
we we had some pretty great conversations about different calendars
around the world. You know, it is literally a different
(03:30):
year and a different era in various regions, various countries
across this planet. We are still going to celebrate, though,
who does you know what I think at this point,
everybody is thankful for a win. So let's all moderately
congratulate ourselves and let's stick together for twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Yeah, and it doesn't matter if you're not going to celebrate.
If you live anywhere near a major city, you will
hear the new year rung in by the sound of
your dog whimpering somewhere in your house, right because all
the boom booms ben before we jump in. Yes, we've
I've been listening to a lot of voicemails lately and
(04:14):
A lot of people reached out to us in early December,
late November asking about a particular book that we mentioned
on an episode past about behavioral not manipulation, weaponized psychology.
Do we do? You remember it all? The title of
(04:35):
that that book that we were referring to. I couldn't.
I couldn't recall it.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I do. I was looking at it earlier this weekend,
in fact, and I hate to be the party cooper here,
but I will not recommend that book on air, nor
will I propagate its title. I will propose an alternative
book that can give you a lot of the same
information or a good primer, good intro. It's called You
(05:01):
Say More Than You Think. This is a book by
Janine Driver, and it studies well it's somewhat of an
applied approach to using body language in a mindful way
force to accomplish certain desires, goals, and so on. The
(05:23):
book You Say More Than You Think It centers around
a seven day plan for inculcating yourself with new habits
body language wise, and then sticking with them, maintaining them,
and growing them. For instance, if you are listening to
today's podcast and you are sitting down, do us a favor,
(05:48):
do yourself a favor. Don't move, don't move your body,
but think of your feet. Be aware of your feet.
Where are they? Are they splayed out? Are they crossed
maybe slightly beneath your chair? Which foot is the closest
to the back of the chair, Or if they're not crossed,
(06:11):
which direction are your feet pointing in? And what's in
that direction? Things like that. They're very small things. They're
things that we don't often notice consciously unless we are
trained to do so, such as you know, like if
you are an FBI agent, or you're someone who conducts
(06:33):
various types of interviews or interrogations, or you're perhaps a
trial lawyer. Right, So that's the book I would recommend
in lieu of this. Again, I'm sorry to be a
party pooper, but just I think you say more than
you think is a great and in a more wholesome
(06:54):
way to get involved with the analysis of body language.
But do keep in mind, Segue that many wholesome things
have disturbing origins, and that's what today's show is about.
It's often said that a great crime is that the
origin of every great fortune, and to a degree this
(07:14):
cliche rings true. So In this episode today, toward the
very end of a very arbitrary calendar, we are diving
into skeletons of some beloved or at least accepted and
lauded institutions to uncover their strange, often troubled, very disturbing beginnings.
(07:40):
Spoiler alert, conspiracy realist, this does get crazy, very very quickly. Matt,
how would you what would you say on a one
to nine? Where are we at with that segue?
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Let's see one to nine? Hold on, let me check
my out. Okay, my legs are crisscross apple sauce and
looking at my screen, I would say that was a
pretty good segue there, Ben, Let's give it a seven
too kind? Too kinds Oh wait is a seven good? Or? Okay?
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Yeah? Sure?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
All right? So so let's let's segue even harder here
into something that I know nothing about outside of the
experience of the people around me. Gynecology. It's not even
something that I really have any right to talk about.
But I'm just gonna tell you, and you probably already
(08:36):
know this, hopefully, that the origins of gynecology are pretty horrific.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Here are the facts.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
And the first thing you need to know if you
don't already, is that the origins of gynecology begin with slavery. Yes,
there is a man, a man who is considered to
be the father of gynecology. He is hailed in this way,
and his name is James Mary and Sims. There are
(09:04):
statues erected in this man's honor. And you know, in
overall concept, at least in the modern day, gynecology is
a tremendously helpful and fantastic thing. Overall, it you know,
enhances the health of women across the globe. However, this man, James,
(09:27):
he practiced medicine. When treating women was considered perhaps distasteful,
which is a terrible thing to even think, but it
was also rarely done. He invented something called the vaginal speculum,
which is a tool used for examination, a very helpful tool.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yes, Sims also high ineered surgical techniques. One technique was
to repair what's known as a vescovaginal fistula. This was
a common complication of childbirth in the nineteenth century. It's
when a tear occurs between the uterus and the bladder
(10:07):
and it causes constant pain. It causes problems with urination.
It is overall a good thing in the world that
techniques exist to address this issue. But while Simms was
doing this, he was conducting as you said, Matt, he
(10:30):
was conducting all of his experimentation. That's really what it was.
It was human experimentation. It was conducting it on enslaved women,
and some of these people went on to be his assistance,
and doubtlessly, even in this, even in this horrific, unclean origin,
(10:56):
I would say it is doubtless that his assistance probably
pioneered some of the techniques that are credited to him today. Because,
as you said at the top of this discussion, we're dudes,
so we only we're dudes, we're not obgyn so we
know this from an outsider or an intellectual rather than
(11:18):
an experiential perspective. It's incredibly misleading to characterize his experiments,
these acts of cruelty as research. This experimentation was done
without anesthesia, and he didn't like the idea of informed
(11:39):
consent or the idea of therapeutic treatment is not something
that occurs to Sims. He caused untold suffering of a
great magnitude by operating under a racist notion that still
persists in Western medicine today, the idea that someone based
(12:00):
on their skin color may have a different experience with pain.
SIMS believed, or SIMS seemed to believe that black people
did not feel pain, which which is ridiculous. And you
have to look at the you have to look at
the studies of modern medicine. Right in in Western Europe
(12:21):
as well as in the United States, you will see
medical professionals who do not believe their patients when they're
saying I have this condition, I am in tremendous pain.
It echoes today, there is there is a terrible ripple effect.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
I just want to add. I want to add to that.
My wife is Cuban and very recently she has gone
to the doctor on numerous occasions requesting assistance in the
form of either medication or further, you know, studies on
her just to see what is wrong, and she has
been met with essentially, take some tyl and all you'll
(13:02):
be fine, or you just need more sleep, take some melotonin,
you'll be fine. And like, just hearing it from her
and knowing what she's going through and how she's feeling,
it's baffling to me that that is the way she
is being treated and it took several attempts basically for
(13:22):
her to actually get help from a medical professional. And
it's just very, very disturbing that it continues.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, you know, the worst part, Matt is this is
going to be familiar to a lot of our fellow
listeners today. Right listening to this, you may have experienced
this firsthand. And I've always I've always had a problem
with the stereotype when they say, oh, you know, certain
(13:54):
people don't trust doctors, because I think that's an incorrect
way to frame it. The more accurate way to frame
that idea is that doctors don't trust certain people statistically,
and this is not a ding on the excellent medical
professionals we have listening to the show today. This is
based on some fairly robust studies over time. Maybe it's
(14:20):
an episode in the future, but we wanted to use
guide Incology as just one example of something that has
saved lives, undeniably saved millions of lives, but has its
origins in a terrible, unforgivable thing. And this is only
(14:41):
the beginning, right. We know German and US companies helped
the Nazis during World War Two, for example, and you
can read these corporations, various public statements about this, which
we've talked about in the past, and there are all
something along the lines of we didn't know, it was
a different time, it was a subsidiary we acquired later,
(15:05):
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But save it, miss
me with that guide. Ecology is one of the most
well known examples of a horrifying origin story, but it
is by no means the only story of this kind. Many,
many great institutions that do good things for the world
around us have at their heart great crimes in their origin,
(15:30):
and they remain active and they remain profitable in the
modern day. What are we talking about, we'll tell you
after a word from our sponsor. Here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Well, let's start with something we can all agree on, Shelley. Yes,
the environment. You know, the air we breathe, the water
we drink. Oh yeah, the flora and fauna, all the
things that make up lay environment. Well, that's a good thing,
I think, right, It's a good thing to have around probably, yeah.
And it seems as though we humans the ones with
(16:10):
the capacity to fully alter our surroundings and the environment,
we should probably take care of it as best we can. Right,
the world is our responsibility in no small part, and
you know we owe it to future generations. You owe
it to my son, So listen up. I'm just joking.
I'm justo. I owe it to your daughter and your
(16:32):
son too. We all owe it to each other to
take care of it as best that we can. And
there are many countless groups out there, organizations and goos,
small companies that have this as their aim. How do
we best take care of the environment. And one of
those groups is known as the Sierra Club. You may
(16:54):
have heard of.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
It, absolutely and you know it's so it's so weird
that caring about the world around you somehow became a
topic that was up for debate. It's true that nefarious
things have been conducted under the banner of environmentalism, but
actually caring about the environment should not. There's not a
(17:18):
political thing about it. We need the world more than
the world needs us. If every human being on the planet,
we're like, what, twenty something minutes into this podcast, If
every human being on the planet vanished twenty five minutes
into this show, the rest of the world would be fine.
You know what I mean. We're really just like we're
(17:40):
just we should just clean up after ourselves. If a
microcosmic example is helpful here, and don't worry about the
politicization of all this stuff. Think about the last time
you had a roommate who didn't clean up after they
know we're in the rest in the kitchen. Screw them, right,
(18:02):
that's stuff.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Fisticuffs all day, fisticuffs about the dishes come on.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
And we looked into several of these groups numerous times
in the past, and we found various noble things. We
found various unethical things, because people are still people right
for the most part, we learned some weird stuff about
(18:27):
the Sierra Club. As you said, Matt, it's one of
the best known environmental groups in the United States. It's
very old. It's a storied institution, was founded back in
eighteen ninety two, and today it has around two million members.
It has this innocent, ambitious motto that people of all creeds, nations,
(18:52):
socioeconomic status, etc. Can get behind. It's simply this, and
I love it. Explore, enjoy, protect the planet.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
That's cool, Yes, Captain planet you unite?
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Yeah. Rings the rings I hate. I hate jewelry, but
I would wear a ring for Captain Planet.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Sure, absolutely, that's that sounds amazing. Yes, like you said,
we can all get behind that. But there's there's some
there's some issues, like we said, with its origins. Now,
when we're talking about these groups, generally, we don't mean
every member, right we we certainly don't mean every member
(19:32):
of the Sierra Club. When we're talking about this, we're
talking about the foundations. So very key players who are
involved in any of these organizations, those are the folks
we're focusing on. So here's the issue with this Ero Club.
A couple of key members of this thing were known racists,
is the best way to put it, I suppose. And
(19:56):
you know, when they were talking about saving the world,
they aren't necessarily talking about saving it for everyone. They
were talking about saving it for a very specific group
of people, generally, the more pasty ones, the.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
White ones, which you can say, which I.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Can say as like, you know.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
As the yeah, yeah, you're right, you're right. One of
the best phrases would be like virulent avowed racist.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Okay, I thought you were gonna say very virulent lee
white or something.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Okay, cool, maybe that I mean, there's there's nothing wrong
with being who you are, and you can't change the
circumstances of your birth or your DNA yet.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
But I say that's to myself in the mirror every morning. Continue.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
But but some of these key members, some of these founders,
were hyper racist, like beyond beyond prejudice, you know, like
racist to the point where other people would say, well,
I you know, I agree with racism, but we could
talk about other stuff like what do you what do
(21:09):
you think of oatmeal? And they're like, no, no, no,
we're sticking with a racist thing. So I know, I
know that's unfair, but it's somewhat true. So the Sierra
Club's founder, one John Mure, often talked in explicit, documented
terms about non white people, words that frankly, we decided
(21:33):
we're we're not going to give space to on air.
In nineteen oh one, he said that white people shouldn't
be afraid to visit national parks because the well, we're
gonna have to paraphrase here, the native population are going
to be mostly dead or civilized into useless innocence.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Wow, we're choosing not to say these words. I do
want to point out one of one of his phrase,
one of the phrases that he used, or terms that
he used was up until very recently, the name of
a extremely large restaurant chain that you can look up
(22:17):
if you're interested, which has since changed its name, by
the way, And.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Of course this we see a similar pattern in the
world of sports. Right major league teams have are changing
or will change their names. So this line of thinking,
for your is is it unfair to hold the current
(22:44):
the current leaders of the Sierra Club responsible for things
that happened before they were born that they could not
in any way control. No, it's it's not fair in
that regard. You know, you have to acknowledge that and
be transparent about the institution. But the thing is, this
line of thinking didn't stop with John Muir. It appeared
(23:11):
to carry on into recent years. As recently is nineteen
eighty eight, John Tanton, who was a formerly the National
Population Committee chairman of the Sierra Club asked, and this
is on record, quote, what will happen when the white
population goes into minority status and the groups that comprise
(23:35):
the new coalition majorities don't share the same environmental values?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
That's Niche just wonder where where even gets that thinking,
and wonder where it comes from.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
It's very us versus them, which seems strange because of
the enormous amount of cooperation inherent in like saving, preserving,
or repairing the environment. These conservational values were often tied
up and I know we're dunking on the Sierra clip here,
(24:10):
which it's an organization that does good work. That's the
weird thing about this episode. All the organizations we're talking about,
they do good stuff. But the environmentalist conservational values were
often tied up in prejudicial, discriminatory beliefs that would be
(24:30):
astounding in the modern day. And they were like, so
there's environmentalism, right, make national parks, try to preserve wildlife
and ecosystems. But another solution that was very popular was
this idea of limiting the quote unquote wrong kind of immigration.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Yeah, the wrong kind of immigration. Okay, so let's unpack
this a little bit. Back in the nineteen sixties, there
was a popular theory amongst the Sierra Club that immigration
to a large extent drives unsustainable population growth. So in
(25:13):
one area, more humans in equals too many humans. I
mean that to a rational mind. Maybe, Okay, well that
does make sense. You're adding to the population. There's population growth. Sure,
The unsustainable part is a bit arguable depending on the place,
but you can see where the logic existed, right. The
(25:39):
problem is that the perspective shifted to a hard line
against immigration pretty much at all in the nineteen eighties. Yeah,
and again, like it means they're more insular, right, they
are taking a very hard stance on population growth. Right,
in general, we're going to be talking a lot about
(26:01):
population growth in this episode. But luckily, as you know,
the Sierra Club continued to mature after you know, one
hundred and twelve years or something, since John Muir was
in there. They did seem to very much write the
course here.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Yeah, you're right. Yeah. In twenty thirteen, the Sierra Club
announced its support for some immigration policies. It was a
unanimous decision amid the group's board of directors, and it
does mark a definitive break with their troubled, complicated history
(26:41):
on immigration. However, not everyone took it well. One response
from a Sierra Club member said the following quote, This
divisive present stance has no place in the purpose of
the club to state that those voluntarily violating our laws
should be reward with citizenship because they voluntarily came to
(27:03):
our polluted country. And must be protected as such is
illogical in the scheme of environmentalism in the United States.
The Club has lost my support. So in there we
see in just that snapshot, in that response, we see
we see the perspective of someone who prioritizes protecting the environment,
(27:28):
does not want more people around. Right to your earlier
statement about just the sheer math of it, right.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Yeah, but ultimately they're taking issue with the illegal way
in which a person entered this country, right, that's what
they're saying exactly.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
They're not It's kind of like how Oregon was founded
as a white supremacist utopia, which is true. I hate
to say it, but it's true. The thing is, the
logic is not consistent across this kind of viewpoint. It's
not it's not keep everybody out, it's keep some people out.
(28:07):
Another response is even even more explicit.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Yeah, here's another quote. Like most environmental groups, the Sierra
Club continues to ignore all the problems stemming from over
population in the United States and many other countries. This
is nothing more than a call for amnesty for millions
of welfare dependent, overbreeding, illegal aliens who can't speak English
(28:32):
and don't know what condoms are jesus.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Wow, tell us how you really feel, you know it?
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Let me levels that here are these prominent members or
is this like a YouTube comments.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Section for kind of like a YouTube comment section. Okay,
I'll be hon I picked the hot takes.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Okay, okay. So so we just need to point out
there this does not mean that these statements represent this
Sierra Club. It not at all that supporters, certain supporters
of this year club feel this way.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Picture Smoky the Bear. Everybody from the US knows Smoky,
I think everybody not in the US. We have a
mascot that is dedicated to like convincing people not to
set the forest on fire. That's his whole job. So
picture this guy. He's great. His name's Smoky the Bear.
I think in the UK it's a frog or something.
(29:29):
But pictures Smoky the Bear in the distance just shaking
his head in slow, painful disapproval.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Yeah. Yeah, And again like the just to continue here,
the comments of a member, someone who pays member status
rather than a founder or you know, a board member
or something like that. It's very it's very different. It's
a very different thing, and it doesn't hold as much weight,
but it is troubling still to read that, though, I
think you could probably find the organization to treat people
(30:03):
nicely and not murder. Anyone would also have comments similar
to this.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Oh sure, yeah, you know, I've got a great comparison here. Well,
I've got to let's see what you think. Tell me
whether this comparison is on the level. I was thinking
about any large organization of people, right, the leaders and
the civilians, or the members or the constituents, or whatever
you want to call them. I think one of the
(30:29):
best examples of this would be senators or congress people,
because some person may vote for a senator right or
a congress person, and then they may have views that
this member of Congress completely disagrees with. You know what
I mean. They're like, I voted for you because I
(30:52):
like your policy on snowplows. Also, I think you should
consider you x And the senator is like, thanks for
voting for me.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
I guess nah, nah, we're good. Have a good one.
The snowplow was on the way.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
The snowplow is on the way. So that's so. Now
we've got one example from the world of medicine. We've
got another example from the world of nonprofits. Right, and
again both in both of these examples, there are genuinely
good things, like objectively good things. Let's make it safer
(31:32):
to be alive. That's what both of those things ultimately
equate to. Right. But let's go, let's let's shift a little, or,
as they say in corporate America, let's pivot to the
world of academia.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Ah, we're gonna find some more synergies here.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
Yes, yes, yes, it's it's our wheelhouse. Oh gosh, uh pek.
We probably mentioned it before, but for for years Matt
and I have been like compiling and collecting these various
corporate corporate terms. What were some of your favorites? Can
we just stop for a second to just talk about this.
(32:10):
I love cadence. I love when people say cadence.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Yeah, you know, I've actually that comes up a lot
with us because we talk about episode count and when
it comes out all the time. So we talk about it.
You know, it feels like a good cadence to have
Tuesday and Thursday or whatever.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
In signal signal is a relatively newer one. It's like
we have signaled the blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Oh god, I've been using that a lot too. Ew.
Speaker 1 (32:38):
It goes around, man, it goes around. Don't beat yourself up.
The other one, the one that still mystidvised me, though,
is somewhere along the line in the past few years,
a specific kind of question just became an ask.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
Mmmm, that's a big ask.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
That's a big, big ask.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Yeah, geez, well, let's yeah. Well, speaking of, let's get
into yeah, academia, because my vocabulary certainly stems in the
beginning from stem. I'm just sure, hey there, but from
my education, that's where it begins, and it was furthered
when I went to college. College is a fantastic thing,
(33:18):
in my opinion, and it should be available to every
human being on the planet, if you know, however possible,
especially if you live in the United States, it should be.
It should be paid for by the government. I think, oh, oh, man,
hot take sorry, oh, don't get mad at me. I
think that would be smart if we pulled our money
and sent all of our you know, younger kids to college.
(33:39):
I think they'll be smart.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
I would say, you know, I'm with you there. I
would take it a little further. I would say a
higher education in general is a good thing because you know,
look for the past decade or so, well more than
the past decade. There there's been this narrative perpetrate on
(34:02):
the American people which says that one must attend a university,
one must attend to college, and that that is simply
not true. We have a great need for the trades,
we have a in that and that is absolutely higher education.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
You know what I mean. I think we're I think
we're thinking about it incorrectly. I think the trades should
be college is a part of a college, like it
should be seen as an equal pursuit because if you
could become a master of you can become a master
of really anything. And like you said, those trades are
highly necessary and needed right now. We just need to
(34:43):
think about them as though it is truly higher education
and something to be lauded.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
Yeah, absolutely agreed. And with that being said, let's visit
the Ivory Tower. Let's travel, you know what, Let's go
to Georgetown University specifically, that place is one of the
country's most well known, prestigious centers of higher learning. This
(35:11):
is a place where if you if you attend there,
you have massive advantages after your education simply because of
the name. The networking, the association with this institution.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
The family members that probably went there, perhaps yeah, perhaps
not probably well.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
I mean, they're definitely legacy hires. And it's a difficult
school to get into. It has very high standards. Not
for nothing is it considered a world class institution today.
It's known for churning out students, shooting them straight from
the lecture hall to some of the highest positions in
(35:52):
the world of nonprofits and Wall Street private industries, the
US government. If it were a business, then we could
say that business is booming. And you're right, Matt. Many
of these alumni go on to send their kids to Georgetown,
or they participate in the feedback loop and they keep
(36:13):
the money in the influence spinning in a circular fashion.
They donate large amounts of money, or they assist with
construction for the school. Things are looking pretty great for Georgetown.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
You No, yeah, they are. I'm just gonna put forward
here that you know, all those donations we're talking about
probably have a lot to do with why the kids
get in. Eh, that's my opinion. Anyway, Moving on the
thing is Georgetown University. This thing wasn't always an organization
of this high esteem. It was built it had to
(36:44):
be created. It had to do good and have students
who were successful to have that reputation. To build that reputation.
Here's the deal. The school didn't have a bunch of money,
and it didn't have it was lacking a lot of things,
and it almost got shut down in eighteen thirty eight.
Like we said, it's been around for a long time.
(37:05):
And you know, let's say you're a university in college.
What do you do to get extra funds? Have some
kind of fundraiser, you know, call up those alumni and say, hey,
I know you're you're in Congress now, it would be
great to get a little something something for the university
for the generations. Next. Well, what Georgetown University unfortunately did
(37:26):
in eighteen thirty eight when they were in trouble is
they sold human beings to stay afloat.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Yeah. So Georgetown was founded in January of seventeen eighty nine.
And the thing, the road to success was rocky for
the institution. They did participate in the slave trade, and
they did it more than once. It wasn't just eighteen
(37:53):
thirty eight. We're on such a here's where it gets
worse mission today. Man. So they had conducted individual slave
trade transactions before. And it turns out that more than
a dozen universities, including Ivy League players like Harvard and Columbia,
have publicly recognized their ties to slavery and to the
(38:17):
slave trade. But the eighteen thirty eight transaction from the
people who were running Georgetown, it stands out due to
the sheer number of human beings involved.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
Ben, did you mention already that the group the Jesuits
helped out in this pursuit?
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Oh no, yes, very good point, speaking of another institution
with some skeletons in the closet. Yes, the Jesuit Order
ran Georgetown at the time of this transaction, this crime,
and they were instrumental in the series of events.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
And just so you know, we have a whole episode
on this group the Jesuits called the Jesuits. Fact in fiction.
You can find it, I believe in many places. It
came out a long time ago in ooh Goodness twenty fourteen,
so what Wow. So you may have to you may
have to wait for the classic to come out if
(39:22):
you're an Apple podcast only listener, but otherwise you can
find it on other podcast outlets like Iheartradios, app Okay
all right. It didn't mean to derail us there.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
No, no, no, it was perfect. I've just I have
in awe. I think you win this the if I
did if I did a seven on the segue, you
my friend just did an eight point five ooh on
the on the mentions on.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
The call out, iHeart app on the call out.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
So yeah, so so we are you know, we do
want to be on a with you, folks. We're working
to inject a little bit of levity in this episode
because these are truly, these are unclean things. So here's
what happened. In a desperate bid to survive and become
(40:19):
the amazing institution it is today, Georgetown sold off two
hundred and seventy two people in eighteen thirty eight. They
shipped these people to the Deep South. They can signed
them to a life of horror on plantations in Cotton Country.
(40:42):
And the thing is at Georgetown in this time, slavery
and scholarship were inextricably linked.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
Yeah, well, it wasn't just selling the slaves. It was
then using slaves to make money and then using that
money to make the institute just function on a regular basis.
They relied on these Jesuit plantations, and most a lot
of them were in Maryland. These things would finance everything
(41:14):
in the operations. It's so weird. There were even people
at Georgetown who were working with Georgetown who quote unquote
donated slaves to this pursuit.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
And this eighteen thirty eight transaction netted the college more
than a little more than three million dollars in today's time.
So this was massively profitable. No what you're thinking, The
people doing this are members of a spiritual order, one
(41:48):
that believes in good and noble things. So shortly some
priests objected, right, that's correct. Fortunately, yes, some pre did
object vocally, reciferously, and they tried their best to prevent
the sale of human beings. That sounds good to hear
(42:12):
until you understand why they had a problem with it. Exactly.
It's not quite what you think.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
Yeah, please join me in throwing up in your mouth
a little bit as we go through this. They weren't
objecting to the physical dangers they were putting these people
in by you know, trading them to force them to
go and work. They weren't even objecting to the concept
of selling human beings at all. What they were worried
about is religion. They were worried about the Southern owners
(42:41):
of these plantations forcing the slaves, the people that they
were selling, to practice Protestantism instead of Catholicism, because that
would have been really, really bad.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Yeah, that was the line. You know. One thing, one
fantastic thing that Georgetown has done, however, is to agnot
college and address this and study this and learn from it.
There's a historian at Georgetown named Adam Rothman who noted,
quote the university itself owes its existence to this history,
(43:13):
and Georgetown has been taking steps to evolve. In twenty nineteen,
just last year, oh two years ago now, the college
announced it would launch a new fundraising effort to assist
the living descendants of the two hundred and seventy two
enslaved people who were sold by the school's founders, which
(43:35):
I think is you know, I think that speaks highly
to the institution.
Speaker 2 (43:41):
Yeah, no, it really does. Some of it is so
counterintuitive when you think about it, because you hear fundraising effort. Oh,
they're going to raise other people's money to pay for
their thing that they did. But you know, it is
a it is a college, and it does cost a
lot of money for one of these things to function,
(44:05):
So you can't just pull all of the money out
unless you're going to risk closing the school down or
forcing it to shut down for a bit. But goodness,
something like that just gives me mixed feelings, I suppose.
But here's the great thing. It Georgetown changed its tune
and a lot of this was occurring because of internal
(44:26):
pressure from students they are educating, which is actually a
great It's a fantastic sign, right that the organization itself
maybe is evolving alongside its students.
Speaker 1 (44:39):
Yeah, the students Georgetown voted six months before that announcement.
In twenty nineteen, the students Georgetown voted to institute a
twenty seven dollar and twenty cents student fee that would
go entirely to supporting the descendants of the victims of
(45:03):
this crime. And honestly, it is it is an amazing step.
I know it's there's no way you can change the past,
but this is an important step in the right direction.
So we have some light at the end of the
tunnel with Georgetown. Right, we've explored medicine, we've explored the environment,
we've explored academia. Now we're going to pause for word
(45:26):
from our sponsor, and we'll return with one more and
it is a doozy.
Speaker 2 (45:39):
And we're back. Hey. Remember at the top of this
episode when I mentioned we're going to talk about population
control again. Well we're here. Let's introduce a little organization
called Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
You know what, you've heard of it. Regardless of your
personal values, your personal beliefs, you are familiar in some
way with this organization. It was founded by Margaret Sanger,
who opened her first birth control clinic in nineteen sixteen.
Then she went on to form the American Birth Control
(46:13):
League in nineteen twenty one. In nineteen forty two, the
name was changed to Planned Parenthood. Today, the organization is
active in some capacity in multiple countries. It operates over
six hundred health clinics through its affiliate network in the
US alone. It's best known, of course, for reproductive health
(46:35):
services for sex ed sexual education. It is the largest
single provider of these services in the US, and it
also works to prevent the spread of disease. It also
offers cancer screenings. It is for many people, a life
saving institution.
Speaker 2 (46:55):
Make no mistake, this organization has done so much good
in the world. It truly has, and if you cannot
acknowledge that or see that. I urge you to re
examine or rethink the good parts, because there truly has
(47:17):
been great things that this organization has done.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
Pretty cool. Not to have cancer, that's one, well.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
Yeah, and just reproductive health in general for women and
to be able to take control of their lives and
their bodies. This, I mean, this is this institution is
instrumental in just empowering women.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
Yeah, that's objectively true. But the thing about this life
saving institution is that the founder didn't want to save
everybody's life. Sanger wanted to save the right kind of
lives as she saw it, because she was a eugenicist.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
Yes, eugenics was this discipline, I would say, from back
in the day, but unfortunately it still exists in twenty
twenty one. It was championed by a lot of people,
prominent people, scientists who existed in the world, who were
at the top of their fields. It is now widely debunked.
(48:18):
But it promoted good breeding. This is in quotes good
breeding and aimed to prevent poor breeding. Now good and
poor breeding. It sounds a little subjective. That's because it is.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Yeah, that's the thing. It's not a good scientific basis
for eugenics as described desired and practiced by people in
Sanger's time. Sanger the basic idea is that the overall
human species can be improved through encouraging reproduction in people
(48:55):
with traits like well, to their mind, it was stuff
like intelligence, hard work, and cleanliness. We don't have a
full scientific understanding of intelligence, and hard work and cleanliness
are pretty much opinions, pretty much opinions. So the most
(49:18):
terrifying example of eugenics motivated crimes are acts of genocide.
That is one ultimate destination for that line of thinking.
Sanger thought that poverty and what she described as unwantedness
(49:39):
were the main reasons children might grow up to be
in some way, to her opinion, morally or physically defective,
and so Sanger came up with a solution.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
There is an idea where if someone exhibited birth defects
of one kind or another, Sanger would advocate that they
be sent away literally sent away to a farm somewhere
very very far away and segregating from the rest of
the population to make sure that they're unable to even
physically have relations with someone and therefore children and if
(50:16):
they were going to mingle within all the other people
in society, they would need to be sterilized.
Speaker 1 (50:23):
Right, Yeah, So what is a defect to Sanger? A defect?
It could be anything, a physical deformity, even if it's
one that is not genetically reproducible, right, a physical deformity,
or a perceived lack of moral fiber, whatever the hell
that is. So there was huge potential for people to
(50:46):
be carted off just because their behavior did not fit
into social norms of the time. This bit of history
had a dubious moment in the spotlight when the politician
Benkar claimed that Sanger was racist in part of a
larger attack on planned parenthood to support Carson's aim of
(51:10):
making abortion illegal in the United States. So, if you
check with primary sources, by which we mean things written
by Sanger herself about her views, her attitudes on race
are doubtlessly problematic and paternalistic today, but at the time
they might have been seen as somewhat progressive. For example,
(51:33):
in nineteen forty six, she wrote that all women, regardless
of their ostensible race, should have a voice in how
many children they have. I feel like there's a very
reasonable thing, right, Like, if you're if you're listening and
you have or you plan to have children, then doesn't
(51:56):
it feel like the number of children you have should
be kind of up to you?
Speaker 2 (51:59):
Yeah? Yeah, absolutely, uh yeah, one hundred percent. We're mentioning
some things that Margaret Sanger said. There are lots of
places you can go online to do further research. I
would recommend an opinion piece from USA Today. It is
called removed statuses of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder tied
to eugenics and racism. Again, this is an opinion piece
(52:22):
on USA Today, so keep that in mind if you
do choose to read it. What I would recommend is
look at the supporting links that are in the article,
because that is the kind of thing that Ben is
referring to. Here. These are actual words that you can
find that we're spoken by Margaret Singer.
Speaker 1 (52:39):
Yeah, and this with this, we're drawing our episode to
a close. We have just scratched the tip of the
iceberg here, and again there's a dilemma. The conundrum is
the following the institutions. Every institution that we have mentioned
in today's show has inarguably objectively done awesome, amazing things
(53:03):
for the world and the people within it. Today, and
we can't. We cannot discount this work, this tremendously good
work for the world. But we also cannot be blind
to the to the origins of some of these movements,
(53:26):
and we know that there are many many more out there.
We would like to hear from you. In our examples today,
the institutions have all made or attempted to make amends
for their past. But what other stories are out there are?
What are some more strange, disturbing origin stories that you're
(53:49):
aware of? What would you like to share with our
fellow listeners? Let us know. You can find us on
the internet. We're on Facebook, We're on Instagram, We're on Twitter.
We like to recommend Here's where it gets crazy, where
you can hang out, see some very weird stuff, see
some news. It's been rated the best page on the
internet five times in a row by us arbitrarily at
(54:11):
the end of some of our shows.
Speaker 2 (54:13):
Yeah, definitely not Forbes magazine. They had nothing to do
with it. Before you do that, I want to recommend
one more piece to read. I'm so sorry we didn't
get to spend a lot of time on Margaret Sanger.
I want to recommend a piece from the Atlantic called
abortions racial gap. This is another just important piece of
information that you could add into the puzzle that is
(54:36):
your mind when thinking about all of this stuff. It's
worth it. Check it out. If you don't want to
find us on social media, because that's not your thing,
you can always give us a call. Our number is
one eight three three std WYTK. Leave a message. It
may go into one of our listener mail episodes. Please
(54:56):
let us know what you'd like to be called, as
well as if you give us permission to use your
voice on the show, that would be fantastic. And do
know and be aware. If you call in, the number
from which you call gets logged, so I can see it,
Ben can see it. We can see the number that
you call in from. If you wish to obfuscate that,
(55:18):
you can use a different number, like a Google Voice
number or something like that. Otherwise you might get a
call back on yourself from me. So good luck to.
Speaker 1 (55:27):
You somewhat ominous there. Man.
Speaker 2 (55:29):
Well, if you get a call from me, it's like
it's game over, man, We're gonna talk.
Speaker 1 (55:34):
So, if you don't care for social media, if you
don't care for telephones, but you have a story, you
need to share, or even better, a suggestion for a
topic we can cover in the future. There's always one
other way to contact us. It is our good old
fashioned email address where we.
Speaker 2 (55:54):
Are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. Stuff they Don't want
(56:17):
you to know is a production of iHeartRadio. For more
podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.