Capitalism Is Good for the Poor

Markets Beat Back Poverty.

Critics frequently accuse markets and capitalism of making life worse for the poor. This refrain is certainly common in the halls of left-leaning academia as well as in broader intellectual circles. But like so many other criticisms of capitalism, this one ignores the very real, and very available, facts of history.

Nothing has done more to lift humanity out of poverty than the market economy. This claim is true whether we are looking at a time span of decades or of centuries. The number of people worldwide living on less than about two dollars per day today is less than half of what it was in 1990. The biggest gains in the fight against poverty have occurred in countries that have opened up their markets, such as China and India.

If we look over the longer historical period, we can see that the trends today are just the continuation of capitalism’s victories in beating back poverty. For most of human history, we lived in a world of a few haves and lots of have-nots. That slowly began to change with the advent of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. As economic growth took off and spread throughout the population, it created our own world in the West in which there are a whole bunch of haves and a few have-more-and-betters.

For example, the percentage of American households below the poverty line who have basic appliances has grown steadily over the last few decades, with poor families in 2005 being more likely to own things like a clothes dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, or air conditioner than the average household was in 1971. And consumer items that didn’t even exist back then, such as cell phones, were owned by half of poor households in 2005 and are owned by a substantial majority of them today.

Capitalism has also made poor people’s lives far better by reducing infant and child mortality rates, not to mention maternal death rates during childbirth, and by extending life expectancies by decades.

Consider, too, the way capitalism’s engine of growth has enabled the planet to sustain almost 7 billion people, compared to 1 billion in 1800. As Deirdre McCloskey has noted, if you multiply the gains in consumption to the average human by the gain in life expectancy worldwide by 7 (for 7 billion as compared to 1 billion people), humanity as a whole is better off by a factor of around 120. That’s not 120 percent better off, but 120 timesbetter off since 1800.

The competitive market process has also made education, art, and culture available to more and more people. Even the poorest of Americans, not to mention many of the global poor, have access through the Internet and TV to concerts, books, and works of art that were exclusively the province of the wealthy for centuries.

And in the wealthiest countries, the dynamics of capitalism have begun to change the very nature of work. Where once humans toiled for 14 hours per day at backbreaking outdoor labor, now an increasing number of us work inside in climate-controlled comfort. Our workday and workweek have shrunk thanks to the much higher value of labor that comes from working with productive capital. We spend a much smaller percentage of our lives working for pay, whether we’re rich or poor. And even with economic change, the incomes of the poor are much less variable, as they are not linked to the unpredictable changes in weather that are part and parcel of a predominantly agricultural economy long since disappeared.

Think of it this way: the fabulously wealthy kings of old had servants attending to their every need, but an impacted tooth would likely kill them. The poor in largely capitalist countries have access to a quality of medical care and a variety and quality of food that the ancient kings could only dream of.

Consider, too, that the working poor of London 100 years ago were, at best, able to split a pound of meat per week among all of their children, which were greater in number than the two or three of today. In addition, the whole family ate meat once a week on Sunday, the one day the man of the household was home for dinner. That was meat for a week.

Compare that to today, when we worry that poor Americans are too easily able to afford a meal with a quarter pound of meat in it every single day for less than an hour’s labor. Even if you think that capitalism has made poor people overweight, that’s a major accomplishment compared to the precapitalist norm of constant malnutrition and the struggle even 100 years ago for the working poor to get enough calories.

The reality is that the rich have always lived well historically, as for centuries they could commandeer human labor to attend to their every need. In a precapitalist world, the poor had no hope of upward mobility or of relief from the endless physical drudgery that barely kept them alive.

Today, the poor in capitalist countries live like kings, thanks mostly to the freeing of labor and the ability to accumulate capital that makes that labor more productive and enriches even the poorest. The falling cost of what were once luxuries and are now necessities, driven by the competitive market and its profit and loss signals, has brought labor-saving machines to the masses. When profit-seeking and innovation became acceptable behavior for the bourgeoisie, the horn of plenty brought forth its bounty, and even the poorest shared in that wealth.

Once people no longer needed permission to innovate, and once the value of new inventions was judged by the improvements they made to the lives of the masses in the form of profit and loss, the poor began to live lives of comfort and dignity.

These changes are not, as some would say, about technology. After all, the Soviets had great scientists but could not channel that knowledge into material comfort for their poor. And it’s not about natural resources, which is obvious today as resource-poor Hong Kong is among the richest countries in the world thanks to capitalism, while Venezuelan socialism has destroyed that resource-rich country.

Inventions only become innovations when the right institutions exist to make them improve the lives of the masses. That is what capitalism did and continues to do every single day. And that’s why capitalism has been so good for the poor.

Consider, finally, what happened when the Soviets decided to show the film version of The Grapes of Wrath as anticapitalist propaganda. In the novel and film, a poor American family is driven from their Depression-era home by the Dust Bowl. They get in their old car and make a horrifying journey in search of a better life in California. The Soviets had to stop showing the film after a short period because the Russian audiences were astonished that poor Americans were able to own a car.

Even anticapitalist propaganda can’t help but provide evidence that contradicts its own argument. The historical truth is clear: nothing has done more for the poor than capitalism.

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Distinguished Professor of Free Enterprise in the Department of Economics at Ball State University, where he also is Director of the Institute for the Study of Political Economy. He is the author of Austrian Economics: An Introduction.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Resurrection of Christ Was a Game-Changer

Every week the whole world is reminded of what happened on the first Easter 2000 years ago. Jesus Christ, who was crucified by the Roman Empire, rose from the dead. The atheist who sleeps in each Sunday morning pays indirect homage to the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead that first Easter.

Through His atoning death on Friday and His bodily resurrection on Sunday, Jesus solved the two biggest problems we have as human beings:

  1. How can we, as sinful people, be accepted by a holy, perfect God?
  2. How do we deal with life’s biggest threat, which is death?

It’s common among skeptics to believe that Christianity is not based on actual history. But is that view based on actual history?

Dr. Sam Lamerson of Knox Theological Seminary once told me, “Many assume that Christianity is a historical myth much like Apollos or some of the Greek myths, but Christianity is based on historical events that can be verified both archeologically and literarily.”

Several years ago, Newsweek had a cover story, in which they said of the Gospels in general: “These are books that meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts.”

I asked Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor emeritus of ancient history from Western Michigan University, about the idea of separating “religious truths” from “historical facts.” Henoted, “You cannot separate the two. If you do, it’s no longer spiritual or religious truth that has any value. Rather, [the Biblical accounts] must be an honest case of reporting of what happened in the case of Jesus.”

Maier said that historians cannot prove things like Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (how can you prove a miracle?), but they can validate the facts that point to it, such as the empty tomb. Even sources hostile to the message of Jesus and His resurrection testify that His heavily-guarded tomb was empty that first Easter morning.

Like Maier and Lamerson, there are many conservative, well-informed Bible scholars today, who hold to the veracity of Christ’s resurrection. But what about the genuine Bible scholars who do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Ultimately, they chafe at the idea of miracles.

As one legal scholar wrote:

“Miracles, say the objectors, are impossible; and therefore the evangelists [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] were either deceivers or deceived; and in either case their narratives are unworthy of belief….The argument supposes that the creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put it out of his own power to change them.”

Who is this—some backwoods rube? No, it was the eminent Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), professor at Harvard Law School, who contributed a great deal to the school, expanding it, including its library.

Greenleaf wrote the book on legal evidence. Literally. His 3-volume textbook, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, set the standard for decades and was reprinted through 16 editions. Later, he applied these legal principles to the Biblical Gospels.

Some people have mistakenly claimed that Greenleaf was converted to Christianity by his examination of the evidence. That is not accurate—he was already a committed Episcopalian—but his investigation of the Gospels and the resurrection from an evidentiary standpoint was still a landmark.

That investigation was his 1846 book, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospel Examined by the Rules of Evidence. The evangelists, of course, are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. As he applied the rules of evidence to the Gospels, he found them reliable.

Greenleaf notes what hurdles the apostles had before them in proclaiming a crucified and risen Jesus:

“The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they enduring dismayed, nay, rejoicing…one after another was put to a miserable death.”

He adds,

“The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted…It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.” [Emphasis added]

As Biblical scholar Dr. Mike Licona said recently in our D. James Kennedy Ministries-television special, Who Is This Jesus:

“If Jesus rose from the dead, it’s game, set, match. Christianity is true.”

By Christ’s rising from the dead, He proved He is who He said He is.

He is risen indeed.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

AMERICA’S CULTURE WAR: Pro-Groomer Democrats vs Anti-Groomer Parents

There has been a cultural war going on in America between Democrats who want to groom children into sexual objects to be used and sexually abused and parents who want their children to be raised with wholesome values, healthy morals and live in a land of liberty and freedom.

Biden, his administration, the Democrat Party and those who support grooming children (e.g. Disney, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, the legacy media) are all focused on fundamentally transforming the nuclear family.

This “cultural war” is designed to destroy the traditional family of a father, mother and their biological children. But parents are fighting back.

There are three agenda’s supported by the Democrat Party that are designed to eliminate fathers and mothers and replace them with big government groomers. These key Democrat Party agendas are:

  1. Democrats focus on putting Critical Race Theory in every classroom in America, in our federal departments and even in our military forces.
  2. The LGBTQAI+ curriculum taught in public schools from K-12 which is quietly dismantling norms while fundamentally changing America’s education system.
  3. The Biden/Harris/Democrat Party’s focus on the three myths of diversity, equity and inclusion. This is the promotion of Wokeism by Democrats, corporations, Hollywood and federal government agencies that target traditional children and families.

Critical Race Theory

Here is a video of a father who takes down Critical Race Theory (CRT), which is being taught in many public schools in minority communities. This father, in a heartwarming conversation with his little daughter, tells the truth about CRT:

This father understands that we judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skins.


If you want a close look at the madness of critical race theory, look at what’s going on in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Maryland’s largest school system. Little of this is connected to reality, and it’s no wonder parents everywhere are objecting.

We received two sets of records related to the teaching of critical race theory, including a training course with information about a book titled “Antiracist Baby” that introduces the youngest readers to “the concept and power of antiracism,” and says it’s the “perfect gift” for “ages baby to age 3.”

The documents also include information from a course titled, “Digital Literacy 3” at Thomas Pyle Middle School. The course’s curriculum includes activities where the children discuss the identification of their gender, religion, and sexual orientation. The course also includes the children using “propaganda” to lead social justice movements.

America’s schools are all into CRT. They’re building the next generation of haters of those different than themselves.

WATCH: Critical race theory ‘buzzwords’ list released, then deleted by Texas policy organization

Diversity, Inclusion, Equity (DIE)

The three Democrat Party myths of diversity, inclusion and equity (DIE) in reality produce conformity, inequality and exclusion. They’re designed to kill individual free thought and force young people into opposing groups for a political agenda. Democrats are grooming the next generation!

In a column titled “How we are being diversified into uniformity” David Gibney wrote:

But individual, not group, diversity is my concern. Diversity in its multiple incarnations turns hollow if the individuals are becoming not less, but more alike. And this is happening.”

“Diversity” has unequivocally entered the popular lexicon in recent years, with companies, government agencies, and educational institutions promoting events and awareness campaigns under its banner. Jacoby makes a persuasive case that this is essentially superficial. Those who emphasise their diversity are not really seeking to live out this diversity in a materially or culturally distinct way — but to mainstream it. He argues:

“The legitimate demand here — and of most outside groups clamouring for representation — is to join the mainstream and enjoy its benefits.”

In contrast, those who are genuinely diverse would rather live according to their own rules, even if that means living outside the mainstream.

We are each unique and as we mature we are impacted by both nature and nurture. Equity demands sameness but we’re not the same. We are naturally diverse from our own unique DNA, to our physical features and abilities. Inclusion involves how we make friends, find work partners and marry and raise our children.

Government has no role in dictating our life choices. When government defines us we become automatons and lose our humanity and with it our freedoms to choose what’s best for us as unique individuals.


In an August 19th, 2019 article The Daily Caller warned:

Virtually every week, there seems to be another issue that preoccupies the country.

But while our attention is focused on President Donald Trump, Google, Charlottesville, Russia, impeachment, Jeffrey Epstein, the next elections, racism, a trade war with China, the #MeToo movement, or something else, LGBTQ organizations are quietly going about their work dismantling ethical norms, making a mockery of education, ruining innocent people’s lives, and destroying children’s innocence.

Here’s some examples of how this LGBTQ agenda works:

  1. A transgender weightlifter won multiple gold medals at the 2019 Pacific Games in Samoa. Laurel Hubbard of New Zealand won two gold medals and a silver in the three heavyweight categories for women weighing more than 87 kilograms, or 192 pounds. Hubbard is physically male.
  2. As reported by the Associated Press: “Parents also can choose (gender) ‘X’ for newborns. New York City is joining California, Oregon, and Washington state in allowing an undesignated gender option on birth certificates. A similar provision takes effect in New Jersey in February.”
  3. The Associated Press also recently reported that “California has overhauled its sex education guidance for public school teachers, encouraging them to talk about gender identity with kindergartners.” Tatyana Dzyubak, an elementary school teacher in the Sacramento area, objected: “I shouldn’t be teaching that stuff. That’s for parents to do.” But parents and parental authority have always been a thorn in the side of totalitarian movements. Therefore, dismantling parental authority is one of the primary goals of the left, of which LGBTQ organizations are a major component.
  4. Libraries in major urban centers now feature Drag Queen Story Hour—drag queens reading stories to preschool-age children. (Read, for example, the laudatory New York Times article “Drag Queen Story Hour Puts the Rainbow in Reading” from May 19, 2017.)
  5. David Zirin, sports editor of The Nation: “There is another argument against allowing trans athletes to compete with cis-gender athletes that suggests that their presence hurts cis-women and cis-girls. But this line of thought doesn’t acknowledge that trans women are in fact women” (italics added).
  6. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in a letter to USA Powerlifting: “The myth that trans women have a ‘direct competitive advantage’ is not supported by medical science.”

Of course these policies, statements and political positions are all false and absurd.

The Bottom Line 

The Democrat Party is officially the Grooming Party.

Their support for the cultural war against parents, our culture and society is open for public view.

Democrats nominated a pro-pedophile nominee for the Supreme Court and she is now judging from the bench of the highest court in our nation.

This alone proves our point.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

New Harvard Study: Homeschoolers Turn Out Happy, Well-Adjusted, and Engaged

Homeschooled children fared better than children who attended public schools in many categories.

Researchers at Harvard University just released findings from their new study showing positive outcomes for homeschooled students. Writing in The Wall Street Journal last week, Brendan Case and Ying Chen of the Harvard Human Flourishing Program concluded that public school students “were less forgiving and less apt to volunteer or attend religious services than their home-schooled peers.”

The scholars analyzed data of over 12,000 children of nurses who participated in surveys between 1999 and 2010 and found that homeschooled children were about one-third more likely to engage in volunteerism and have higher levels of forgiveness in early adulthood than those children who attended public schools. Homeschooled children were also more likely to attend religious services in adulthood than children educated in public schools, which the researchers noted is correlated with “lower risks of alcohol and drug abuse, depression and suicide.”

The new findings offer a stark contrast to the portrayal of homeschoolers by Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet, who notoriously called for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling last year—just before the US homeschool population ballooned to more than 11 percent of the overall school-age population, or more than five million students, in the wake of the coronavirus response.

In their Journal Op-Ed, Case and Chen challenged their colleague.

“The picture of the home-schooled student that emerges from the data doesn’t resemble the socially awkward and ignorant stereotype to which Ms. Bartholet and others appeal. Rather, home-schooled children generally develop into well-adjusted, responsible and socially engaged young adults,” they wrote.

The Harvard researchers also discovered that homeschooled students were less likely to attend college than their public school peers. Some media outlets latched onto this finding in their headlines, while ignoring the Harvard scholars’ speculation that this could be due to a variety of factors. Homeschoolers could be choosing alternatives to college as a pathway to adulthood, and college admissions practices may create barriers for homeschooled students.

I reached out to Case and Chen for additional comments on their study’s findings, including how they think the homeschooling data and outcomes might have changed since 2010, when their data set ended.

“We are also glad to see that some colleges, including some top-tier colleges, have become more flexible in their admission policies for homeschoolers over the past years,” Chen responded.

Indeed, more colleges and universities have implemented clearer guidelines and policies for homeschooled students in recent years, and many are now eager to attract homeschooled applicants. In 2015, Business Insider noted that homeschooling is the “new path to Harvard,” and in 2018 the university profiled several of its homeschooled students.

The researchers also suspect that the well-being gap between homeschoolers and public school students has widened over the past decade, with homeschoolers faring even better.

“For instance, social media apps have come to smartphones over the past few years, leading to their widespread adoption by teenagers and even younger children,” Chen told me this week. “Some prior studies suggested that such increasing smartphone use may have contributed to the recent huge spikes in adolescent depression, anxiety, and school loneliness. Cyberbullying, sexting and ‘phubbing’ have also become more common in children’s daily lives, especially in school settings. We might expect that these issues may be less common among homeschoolers than their public school peers.”

As more families experimented with homeschooling last year, and many of them decided to continue this fall, the new Harvard data should help them to feel confident about their education choice. In terms of human flourishing, homeschoolers are doing well—perhaps even better than their schooled peers.

“Many parents opted to try homeschooling during the COVID pandemic,” said Chen. “Hopefully, the public awareness about homeschooling and the related practices and support for homeschoolers will be improved in the long run.”


Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and host of the weekly LiberatED podcast. She is also the author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019), an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.

RELATED VIDEO: Dad Takes Down Critical Race Theory In Heartwarming Conversation With Little Daughter

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Batwa paid the ultimate price to save gorillas. Do environmentalists care?

Which is more important: human beings or exotic species?

The Batwa are a group of pygmy people who have lived in central Africa for millennia. Their homeland spreads across what is now Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shorter in stature than other Africans, they dwell in highland rainforests, where they survive by hunting small game and foraging for plants.

They are among the last Africans to adopt Western customs. Hence they are often unfairly portrayed as primitive and uncultured. Worse, in many of the countries in which they live, in each of which they are a tiny minority, they have been systematically mistreated and underserved by governments.

One wrenching example of such mistreatment is the misery of the Batwa in Uganda. In this country, the Batwa used to live in three large forests in the southwest of the country: Bwindi, Mgahinga and Echuuya.

In 1991, nearly all of them were forcefully evicted, often at gunpoint by rangers from the Uganda Wildlife Authority. The three forests were designated as national parks to protect the endangered mountain gorillas who shared them with the Batwa. Never mind that the Batwa weren’t a direct threat to the gorillas or other endangered species.

Having never adopted formal systems of land ownership, the Batwa lacked title to their forests. Clearly taking advantage of this, the government of Uganda did not compensate them and abandoned them on the edges of the forests, with neither land nor the skills with which to make a living outside the forest.

In the years that followed, many of the Batwa died, threatening the survival of the tribe itself. Of those that survived, many fell into drug abuse, begging and prostitution. They soon had the highest HIV prevalence rate of any ethnic group in Uganda. This is exacerbated by limited access to healthcare and education. Only 10 percent of Batwa children in Uganda are in formal education.

Alongside these losses must be added the greater loss of contact with the home and legacy of their ancestors, which for most of the younger generation is now alien. The only legal way for a Mtwa (singular for Batwa) to enter the forest now is as a guide, on the so-called Batwa Experience at the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park, in which they re-enact the ways of their ancestors for curious tourists.

The mountain gorillas of Uganda, on the other hand, have gone on to multiply. They now number over 400, accounting for nearly half of the over 1,000 now living in the wild. The species is no longer listed as critically endangered. The sacrifice of the Batwa people to the cause of great ape conservation has paid off.

The government of Uganda charges tourists up to US$700 to observe the gorillas in their habitat. Practically none of this money ends up in Batwa hands.

The Batwa of Uganda are conservation refugees, silent victims of a global movement to save biodiversity at all costs. So silent is their suffering that it rarely even makes the footnotes when the recovery of the mountain gorilla is celebrated. Betrayed by their government and activists, their only hope now rests in the pity and goodwill of their neighbours and some NGOs.

With such support, the Batwa filed a case against the government in 2011. Ten years later, in August 2021, a five-judge bench of Uganda’s constitutional court unanimously ruled that the evictions had been illegal and that the Batwa had been treated inhumanely. It ordered the government to pay the Batwa “fair and just compensation” within 12 months.

The government intends to appeal the ruling.

This was no small victory. It marked the first substantial recognition of the unjust suffering of the Batwa. However, it is not obvious what “fair and just compensation” would look like for a people evicted from their forest home more than 30 years ago. The only fair and just compensation would be to have never been evicted at all.

So many years later, many of those who were directly wronged no longer live. Even in the best of circumstances, temporal distance from the injustice would complicate any attempt at optimal redress. Further delays, including the appeal by the government, only make things worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.

What’s more, the restoration of the Batwa’s forest home seems to be out of the question. Many older Batwa seem to be reconciled to this. This is not only because of their despair at the intransigence of the government, but also because the younger generations are unlikely to adopt the ways of their ancestors. Their alienation cannot be undone.

In any case, whatever happens from here on, the suffering of the Batwa should be a lesson for the environmental movement. The solutions we propose for the preservation of biodiversity often seem neat and well-considered, but they rarely are.

Unless we realise that future generations aren’t the only ones for whom we should protect the environment, we risk grievously harming present generations in the process.


Mathew Otieno

Mathew Otieno writes from Kisumu, Kenya. More by Mathew Otieno

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Report: Chinese doctors executed prisoners for their organs

Another in a series of damning reports.

Shocking allegations about Chinese organ donation have been made in a leading medical journal, the American Journal of Transplantation. An Australian researcher and an Israeli transplant surgeon claim that “physicians in the People’s Republic of China have participated in executions by organ removal”.

Mathew Robertson, of the Australian National University in Canberra, and Professor Jacob Lavee, of Tel Aviv University, scanned 2,838 papers drawn from a dataset of 124,770 Chinese-language transplant publications from 1980 to 2015. In 71 of these, from medical centres around the country, they found evidence that brain death had not been properly declared and that “the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the proximate cause of the donor’s death”.

In other words, doctors trained to save lives, doctors whose creed is “do no harm”, stood in as executioners for the Chinese government so that so that they could harvest organs from prisoners. Who were the prisoners? We don’t know, but they could have been murderers and rapists. Or they could have been Falun Gong supporters, Uyghurs, or political dissidents.

Although this atrocity is impossible to prove definitively because of the secrecy surrounding most government statistics in China, activists have accumulated mountains of indirect evidence. Two Canadians, David Matas and the late David Kilgour, wrote Bloody Harvest in 2007. An American researcher, Ethan Gutmann, wrote  The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China’s Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem in 2014. In 2019 the China Tribunal, an independent investigation into these allegations, released yet another report in the form of a legal ruling. It concluded that:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

The article in the American Journal of Transplantation, then, is further confirmation of years of rumours and scholarly reports.

“There were two criteria by which we claimed a problematic brain death declaration,” Robertson, who translated the Chinese papers, told WebMD News. “One was where the patient was not ventilated and was only intubated after they were declared brain dead, the other was that the intubation took place immediately prior to the surgery beginning.”

This damning assertion has been flatly denied by Chinese authorities. “While some anti-China forces fabricate and spread rumours on China’s organ transplantation, their true, malicious intentions are becoming increasingly clear to and rejected by the international community,” the Chinese embassy in Israel told the newspaper Haaretz.

The authors have produced no evidence from eyewitnesses, but they discovered that the authors of these 71 papers unwittingly disclosed, albeit indirectly, that they had ignored the dead donor rule when removing hearts and lungs from the donors. And since most of the donors between 1980 and 2015 were prisoners, this implies that the transplant operation must have been the means of executing them.

“Transplanting organs from a person who has been executed, is brain dead and whose heart is still beating, requires complex and delicate coordination between the executioners and the doctors salvaging the organ,” Lavee told Haaretz. “The papers analysed in the study show that Chinese physicians have essentially joined the execution procedure to avoid losing the organ due to a lack of coordination.”

In 2015 China agreed to stop using prisoners for transplant operations and declared that it would rely upon voluntary donations. However, the number of organs available for transplant never stopped growing. Next year the Chinese have predicted that there will be 50,000 transplants, all from voluntary donors, with waiting times in weeks or even days. In the West, waiting times are months or years.

There are credible allegations that Uighur prisoners, Falun Gong prisoners, and other prisoners have been “organ donors”. Is this continuing? The authors of the paper believe that it is:

“While more voluntary donations are taking place in China than ever before, there are as yet no reliable data on the true scale of the reforms. It is also unclear whether and to what degree death row prisoners and prisoners of conscience are still being utilized as organ sources. Given the lack of sanctions and accountability for procurement of prisoner organs in the past, the strong financial incentives to continue such activity, and the difficulty of external observers of detecting it, it is unclear why Chinese hospitals would cease engaging in this profitable trade.

Dr Lavee told Haaretz that the participation of doctors in executions is a crime against humanity:

“As the son of a Holocaust survivor who was in a Nazi concentration camp, I cannot stand aside and remain silent when my professional colleagues, Chinese transplant surgeons, have for years been partners to a crime against humanity by cooperating with the authorities and serving as the operational arm for mass executions,” he says.

China is doing its best to divert attention from these allegations. On the annual celebration of Tomb Sweeping Day in Chongqing, a city of 31 million in central China, China Daily recently reported that “Organ donation and transplantation have been gaining steam in China in recent years, with data from the China Organ Donation Administrative Center showing that more than 4.62 million people have signed up for organ donation”.

At an event attended by families of organ donors, recipients, and coordinators, one man expressed his gratitude: “It was after hearing that one life was saved because of my father’s donation that I realized the greatness of his heart and the true meaning of life. It feels like his life was extended in another way. He never actually left me.”

There are two very different explanations for China’s booming organ transplant industry. Which is correct?


Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook

RELATED ARTICLE: The Batwa paid the ultimate price to save gorillas. Do environmentalists care?

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How we are being diversified into uniformity

Russell Jacoby’s book is a fascinating account of how people across the world have come to conform to a particular mode of behaviour and thought, despite claims to the contrary.

On Diversity: The Eclipse of the Individual in a Global Era by Russell Jacoby, Seven Stories Press, 2020, 152 pp

In a recent article for the online magazine UnHerd, Irish commentator Conor Fitzgerald uncovered some uncomfortable truths about Ireland’s non-profit industrial complex. This small island nation, population roughly five million, boasts no fewer than 33,000 NGOs. And the Irish taxpayer funds them to the tune of €5 billion every year.

Admittedly some of the these NGOs pursue worthy and practical causes, supplying essential health and social services that the Irish government has not taken responsibility for managing itself. However, many others merit further questioning.

Dampening democracy

Fitzgerald focuses on the National Women’s Council, whose latest annual report for 2020 reveals that it received over €800,000 in funding from various government agencies. This contrasts strongly with the mere €40,000 it received in private donations.

Holding strongly partisan views on contemporary social issues, the National Women’s Council was very vocal during the 2018 abortion referendum and in the campaigns leading up to it.

An NGO is meant to be a non-governmental organisation — that’s what the letters stand for. But is an NGO still worthy of the name when the funding it receives from government is twenty times greater than its private income?

This is about more than one NGO, though. The issue raises troubling questions about the health of public discourse in Ireland which our commentariat have been reluctant to explore.

In February, an editorial in The Irish Times weakly pondered whether such NGOs “can… be regarded as truly independent if the Government they lobby happens to provide the bulk of their funding.” Unfortunately it probed no further, uncritically concluding that organisations such the National Women’s Council “contribute to a vibrant civil society and help bring about positive change.”

The possibility that Ireland’s parliamentary democracy and associated web of NGOs are a mere tax-funded social construct has produced no further probing or introspection from our intelligentsia. The editorial’s cowardly attempt to lift the veil on a troubling matter for the nation’s intellectual, political, and cultural life saw it submissively return it to its place once more.

Yet the fine weave of messaging and action produced by this parasitic symbiosis of government, media, and tax-funded NGOs on significant political, social, and cultural issues in recent years should make one think twice about the existence of a genuinely diverse “vibrant civil society” in Ireland in 2022.

Global conformity

Although based on American cultural life, Russell Jacoby’s On Diversity: The Eclipse of the Individual in a Global Era offers fertile material for observers of Ireland’s monochrome official social, cultural, and intellectual landscape.

Jacoby problematises our contemporary self-concept as “diverse” when the penetrative effects of globalisation in capital and culture are actually leading to greater homogeneity in how many people around the world dress, speak, consume, and think. Positing the “diversity idea” as mere “rhetoric or jargon”, Jacoby argues that “the world is not becoming more but less diverse.”

An American intellectual historian, Jacoby is Emeritus Professor of history at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He has published widely on aspects of intellectual and cultural history, and in recent years has focused his critical gaze on the increasingly monolithic culture of the modern university. The book is not a simplistic tirade against the global ubiquity of jeans and T-shirts, soft drinks and hamburgers, or the English language — although it does explore some of these tokens of cultural hegemony in its early chapters.

Jacoby’s point is more subtle, and the book’s subtitle is important here. His concern is the eclipse of the individual amid global movements toward material, cultural, and intellectual homogeneity. Jacoby argues that as individuals become less diverse, the distinguishing features of groups of individuals will fade:

“But individual, not group, diversity is my concern. Diversity in its multiple incarnations turns hollow if the individuals are becoming not less, but more alike. And this is happening.”

“Diversity” has unequivocally entered the popular lexicon in recent years, with companies, government agencies, and educational institutions promoting events and awareness campaigns under its banner. Jacoby makes a persuasive case that this is essentially superficial. Those who emphasise their diversity are not really seeking to live out this diversity in a materially or culturally distinct way — but to mainstream it. He argues:

“The legitimate demand here — and of most outside groups clamouring for representation — is to join the mainstream and enjoy its benefits.”

In contrast, those who are genuinely diverse would rather live according to their own rules, even if that means living outside the mainstream. Jacoby cites the Amish and Hasidic Jews as examples: “The Amish and Hasids do not want to ‘blend in.’ They incarnate a diversity that gives lie to its current form, whose adherents only desire to be let in, not left out.” Thus when diversity becomes about fitting in and entering the mainstream, the idea begins to ring hollow.

For Jacoby, “as people become less culturally different, they fetishize their differences.” Irish readers may appreciate this in the context of the St Patrick’s Day celebrations of a few weeks ago, when people around the world donned green hats or orange wigs, ostensibly emphasising diversity and difference (their Irishness, however tenuous). By 18 March, however, those external signifiers of difference had been cast aside, and the indistinctness of the masses returned.

Mainstream diversity (as paradoxical as the phrase sounds) can be worn lightly, at little cost, and cast off when its moment passes. Moreover when so many are wearing leprechaun hats and proclaiming their Celtic roots, is diversity really evident here in the first place? For Jacoby, such diversity is no more than superficial when, underneath the external differences, most people think and dress the same. Ultimately today’s corporate and institutional campaigns to promote diversity are “a façade” and in fact monotonously mainstream.

The book comprises two parts. The opening three chapters consider historical manifestations of diversity in material culture. The final two chapters attempt to trace the history of the idea, particularly through the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill, although Jacoby’s evident wide reading draws amply on the writings of lesser known figures, too — revolutionaries, reactionaries, eccentrics, and romantics — from the lively intellectual circles of eighteenth and nineteenth century France, Germany, Switzerland, and Russia.

Crushing childhood

An interesting exploration of diversity’s material dimension occurs in the third chapter, “Playing with Diversity.” Jacoby explores threads of diversity, and its retreat, through the fascinating, entwined histories of childhood play and boredom.

A circumscribed period of time when children can live and engage in activities specific to their age, childhood is largely a modern, post-industrial development. Improved nutrition, sanitation, mandatory schooling, and limits on child labour have “opened a space between infancy and adulthood” which was previously “strangled” by the “realities of poverty and work.” However as childhood has become more formalised and regulated, Jacoby argues, it has also become less diverse.

What does he mean by “diverse” here? Jacoby evaluates modern attitudes to free time and play. Contemporary children’s games, from organised sports to computer games, are designed by adults. Well-meaning though they are, “as adult-run activities, organized sports, and computer games occupy this space [i.e. childhood], the capacity for diversity shrinks,” Jacoby suggests.

The bleak vista of contemporary “dull playgrounds” have seen sandboxes, seesaws, monkey bars, and high-pitched slides disappear in favour of modular, easy to maintain, colourful tubes, low platforms, and shallower slides. A fatal mix of health-and-safety-ism and fears about litigation have deadened the spirit of adventure and risk in playgrounds. Jacoby notes a remark by the author of one study of childhood play that some playgrounds are now “too safe.”

This erosion of diversity and vibrancy in childhood play is contrasted with boredom. This existentially unpleasant condition is sure to leave many a conscientious reader uneasy. Nevertheless, careful to distinguish boredom from melancholy or sloth, Jacoby provocatively argues that this condition ought to be appreciated as a privilege rather than a nuisance.

We ought to cherish our fleeting moments of boredom since it was once “a marginal phenomenon, reserved for monks and the nobility.” Permitting boredom in childhood, opening up a space for limited, temporal and existential lack of structure or organisation, can foster creativity, flexibility, and resilience — conditions necessary for diversity to flourish. Nowadays, Jacoby writes, “we worry if our kids are not occupied — and they have lost the ability to do nothing.”

Philosophical underpinnings

The final two chapters of the book progress from brief histories of everyday manifestations of diversity and plunge us into the history of the idea itself. The writings of Mill and Tocqueville feature prominently here, although they percolate the entire book too. Both men were concerned about “the ability of the individual to stand up against society — against social homogenization and conformity.”

Tocqueville’s influential Democracy in America queried how “the rise of commercial society based on money and equality undermines the individual.” According to Jacoby, “Tocqueville saw the advance of democracy and equality as irreversible, but worried about its consequences — uniformity, greyness, and even a new despotism.”

Tocqueville wrote of his fears for modern democracies whose leadership “inhibits, represses, saps, stifles, and stultifies, and in the end […] reduces each nation to nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals” — a remarkably durable and prescient assertion even today among the West’s machinery of capital and opaque managerial bureaucracy.

Assessing the new-born United States, Tocqueville found society there both “agitated” and “monotonous.” Tocqueville, according to Jacoby, identified in the burgeoning post-Enlightenment and post-revolutionary democratic nation state the “twin movements of individual emancipation and individual conformity.”

Mill was heavily influenced by Tocqueville, with one caveat — Tocqueville, according to Mill, mistakenly “attributed to democracy the ills of capitalism.” Mill’s philosophical classic On Liberty argues for “the importance, to man and society, of a large variety of types of character” and the importance of “giving full freedom to [society to] expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions.”

Mill was concerned that the growth of commercial activity entailed “the growing insignificance of individuals.” Genuine diversity requires a tolerance for an individual’s own agency and responsibility. Jacoby points out that “unlike today’s diversity boosters, Mill saw diversity not simply as choices or inherited characteristics, but was something deeper, modes of living.” Jacoby regrets that Mill’s pleas for greater tolerance of variety, even eccentricity, in living and doing, for going against the tide, “barely elicit a nod from current academics who write on him.”

Readers expecting a laboured and predictable critique of current political and cultural movements carried out in the name of diversity will be disappointed. This is not the book for them. Jacoby studiously avoids highly current matters. The book attempts to walk a tightrope — between the progressives who ostensibly promote the concept of diversity yet implicitly demand ideological conformity, on the one hand, and the reactionaries who critique progressive notions of diversity because they work against their own interests and values, yet implicitly demand similar conformity to their own worldviews, on the other. Jacoby considers himself a friend of neither camp. Nevertheless, the target for much of his book is the progressive consensus that prevails from campus to corporation today.

Jacoby is a historian, not a philosopher, and “diversity” is not an abstract ontological peculiarity, but manifests itself in real ways that people think and behave. Occasionally the book’s argument in these final chapters is hard to follow. This is understandable given the ephemeral nature of the concept. However, at times one feels that Jacoby could have slowed down his frantic and exhaustive aggregation of source material in order to remind the reader of how they fit the book’s overarching argument regarding the decay of the dignity of the individual amid totalising narratives of diversity. This pitfall is understandable for someone who has spent their career in academia. The highly distilled and at times opaque train of thought in these final chapters neglects to bear in mind the average reader whom it is presumably trying to convince, and to pace its argument for them. However this criticism is, in another sense, a compliment to Jacoby, whose reading and knowledge is as wide-ranging as it is deep, and whose message grows ever more relevant.


David Gibney

David Gibney is a school teacher in Dublin. He holds a PhD in English literature. More by David Gibney

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

RED TIDAL WAVE: Republican Wallops Dem 2:1 in New York District with 20% More Dems than Republicans

No free people supports an illegal regime bent on destroying the country it hijacked.

Red Wave Rising: Republican Wallops Dem 2:1 in NY District With 20% More Dems Than Republicans

By Warner Todd Huston, April 10, 2022:

In another election that may signal a red wave coming in November, a Republican defeated a Democrat in a special election in a normally deep blue New York district. During last week’s election, Republican Eric “Ari” Brown defeated Democrat David Lobl in the election held to fill the vacant Assembly seat representing southwest Nassau’s 20th District.

It was reported that there weren’t enough outstanding absentee ballots for Democrat Lobl to recover the 2,254 votes he would need to overcome Brown’s lead.

Brown’s campaign is not quite over, though, as he will have to run for a full term of his own in November. But in the meantime, he will be filling out the term of Republican Melissa “Missy” Miller, who resigned to serve as a Hempstead Town Board councilwoman. Miller was the first Republican elected to the district in decades………


Hunter Biden’s text messages ‘tie in the entire family’

Biden Job Approval Sinks to New Low: CBS Poll

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Disney Stock Plummets -30%: Boycott Child Grooming

Dump your stock. Take the kids to Dollywood. Unsubscribe to Disney plus. These cretins are sexually grooming your kids. Protect the children. Do not support sexualizing children.

In recent weeks, Disney has been emerging as an increasingly vocal activist for the LGBTQ+ agenda.

Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek has argued that Disney is simply seeking more diversity because it is good for business.

In that light, Chapek apologized to the LGBTQ+ community “for not being the ally you needed me to be,” and pledged to be a better ally, in a new video that journalist Christopher Rufo tweeted.

Chapek said that he is working with the “LGBTQIA+ Advisory Council” to discern different suggestions about how to take action to help the LGBTQ+ community.

He added that “words are not enough so we are taking some actions now.”

“I want you to know that your words have made a real impact on me,” he said. “I understand that we have made mistakes, and the pain that those mistakes have caused.”

“I and the leadership team are determined to use this moment as a catalyst for meaningful and lasting change,” Chapek added.

Disney has continued to insist that there is a growing queerness in our culture that now must be catered to in entertainment.

Karey Burke, head of entertainment, said that her son had told her: “Gen-Z is 30-40 percent queerer than the other generations Mom, so Disney better get with it,” the Daily Mail reported.

Disney keeps pushing the envelope beyond just verbal support of the LGBTQ+ agenda, though, as Chapek said they would.

The entertainment giant also announced to its employees that they have a new benefits program that will allow employees and their families to access gender reassignment surgeries or hormone usage, the Post Millennial reported.

“The other big area is gender identity and expression. So doing all of this work to ensure that our employees and cast can express their gender here authentically and proudly at the company. So, you know, coming up with guides on how to change your photo information about pronouns, working with our benefits team to give information about gender affirmation procedures, both for our employees who are transitioning and trans, but also our employees who have kids who are transitioning,” a man explained in a video of a Disney internal meeting, that journalist Christopher Rufo then tweeted.

Disney’s strong stance has come particularly to light after Florida passed the Parental Rights in Education bill (which critics inaccurately call the “Don’t Say Gay” bill). The bill prohibits Florida teachers from teaching about sexual orientation to children in kindergarten through third grade.

Disney blatantly declared that they opposed this bill and would try to overturn it, CNBC News reported.

Since then, Disney has grown bolder in its stance of allying with the LGBTQ+ community and more evidence has been published about just how the corporation is planning to do that.

Either through catering to LGBTQ+ employees, or featuring more trans and gay characters in its content, Disney is acting on its promise.

For instance, Disney, alongside three other media corporations, announced that it will air a new public service announcement from GLAAD that will feature a transgender teen and will call for nationwide support for LGBTQ+ youth, CNBC News reported.

Chapek was serious when he announced that Disney would be taking more action.

“By now, I hope you have all read my most recent note in which I pledged to be a better ally for the LGBTQ+ community; apologized for not being the ally you needed me to be; and committed to ensuring that our company lives up to its values,” Chapek said in the video. “I meant every word.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


Flood of Families Cancel Disney Memberships over Woke Company’s Leftist Agenda: ‘Walt Would Turn over In His Grave’

Disney Corporate President Says Next Generation ‘Queerer’

CORPORATE PEDOPHILIA: Massive Protests Outside Disney Meeting Leaked Of “Gay Agenda” To Indoctrinate Children.

DeSantis broaches repeal of Disney World’s “special privileges” self-governing status in Florida

Disney Removes Use of “Girls” and “Boys” May Kill “Prince” and “Princess”

DeSantis: Disney ‘crossed the line’ for criticizing Parental Rights in Education bill

A Letter from Concerned Disney Employees….

‘This Is Huge’: FOUR Woke Disney Employees Arrested in Human Trafficking Operation

Disney Sexualizes Little Kids As “Woke” CEO Bob Chapek Advocates For Sex Ed And Transgenderism in Kindergarten

‘The Mouse Didn’t Roar’: DeSantis Praised For Getting Disney To Kill Vaccine Mandate In Florida

NOT THE ONION: Disney World Cancels ‘Boys and Girls’ Greeting to Be ‘More Inclusive’

SICK: Disney+ removes Peter Pan, Dumbo, and other movies deemed “offensive” by the Democrat-fascists

Disney’s Star Gina Carano Fired For Her Political Views

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.


New Study Reveals Florida And Republican-Led States Dominate COVID-19 Best Responses; Democrat-Led States Rank Among Worst

More crucial news that will be suppressed, censored and lied about by the criminal media.

In NYC, the large majority are still wearing masks outside. The once coolest city in the world is now the saddest. Pathetic.

New Study Reveals Florida And GOP-Led States Dominate COVID-19 Best Responses; Democrat-Led States Rank Among Worst

By Dillon Burroughs • Daily Wire • Apr 11, 2022

A new report that ranks each state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed GOP-led states, including Florida, among the top performers, with Democrat-led states dominating the bottom of the list.

The Committee To Unleash Prosperity (CUP) has released the most comprehensive analysis to date on how states handled the COVID-19 crisis. These results have also been published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

“The Report Card on the States measures and compares state performance on three metrics: the economy, education, and mortality from the virus. It answers the question: how did states do in balancing the health of their citizens, allowing their economies to remain operational and keeping job losses low, and keeping their schools open so that school-aged children did not suffer long term educational setbacks,” the committee said in a statement provided to The Daily Wire.

“Each of these three metrics were equally weighted. The states that received an F grade were New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois and Washington, D.C. These states performed poorly on every measure. They had high age-adjusted death rates; they had high unemployment and significant GDP losses, and they kept their schools shutdown much longer than almost all other states,” it added. “The top performers were Utah, Nebraska, and Vermont with Montana and Florida right behind.”

A total of 18 states received a grade of A or B. Of the top-ranking 18 states, 16 are led by Republican governors. No Democrat-led states appeared in the top five.

The “biggest mistake” observed in the study was the long-term closing of businesses and schools.

“Shutting down their economies and schools was by far the biggest mistake governors and state officials made during Covid, particularly in blue states,” said CUP Co-Founder Stephen Moore. “We hope the results of this study will persuade governors not to close schools and businesses the next time we have a new virus variant.”

States with locked down economies averaged about two points higher in unemployment than states that did not engage in more severe lockdowns, according to the study.

Despite the emphasis on Florida’s openness versus California’s restrictions, the study showed that the adjusted death rates in the two states from COVID-19 were nearly the same.

The study also offered an important insight regarding states’ rights from the study, noting “one of the wisest policy decisions was to ultimately let the 50 states and their governors and legislators make their own pandemic response policies. Federalism worked.”

A concerning takeaway from the study regarded the relationship between unemployment and social problems. For example, for each one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate, there were 920 more suicides and 650 more homicides. Increases in mental health concerns, domestic violence, and homelessness were also associated with increased unemployment rates.

The full report is available online from the CUP.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Inflation Under Biden Reaches Staggering New Heights

  • The federal government’s latest inflation indicator showed that consumer prices skyrocketed 8.5% in March, the quickest uptick in four decades.
  • “We’re seeing strong inflation momentum across the board, both for goods and services,” Blerina Uruci, a U.S. economist at T. Rowe Price Group, told The Wall Street Journal.
  • “This is a direct result of Biden’s Federal Reserve being too preoccupied with ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ and ‘climate change’ while ignoring all the warning signs on inflation for more than a year,” said E.J. Antoni, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.

A key consumer price metric used by the government to measure inflation soared 8.5% over the last 12 months — the fastest pace of inflation since December 1981 — the Department of Labor (DOL) announced Tuesday.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 1.2% between February and March, the fastest month-over-month figure since 2005, according to the Labor Department report released Tuesday morning. Economists surveyed by the Dow Jones projected that CPI would increase 1.1% last month and 8.4% over the 12-month period ending in March, CNBC reported.

“We’re seeing strong inflation momentum across the board, both for goods and services,” Blerina Uruci, a U.S. economist at T. Rowe Price Group, told The Wall Street Journal.

The White House warned Monday that the CPI figures would be “extraordinarily elevated” ahead of the report, but blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin. Gasoline prices hit record highs in March after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine which disrupted global energy markets dominated by Russian supplies.

“Because of the actions we’ve taken to address Putin — the Putin price hike, we are in a better place than we were last month,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters at a press briefing. “But we expect March CPI headline inflation to be extraordinarily elevated due to Putin’s price hike.”

“We expect a large difference between core and headline inflation, reflecting the global disruptions in energy and food markets,” she added.

But core CPI, which measures prices of all goods excluding the historically-volatile energy and food categories, still rose 6.5% between April 2021 and March, the DOL said. While lower than the headline figure, the core inflation number reported Tuesday still represented its largest jump since August 1982.

Inflation has surged over the past several months: CPI surpassed the Federal Reserve’s 2% benchmark in May 2021 and has since precipitously climbed higher, according to federal data. Inflation increased a whopping 7.5% and 7.9% in January and February respectively, before Putin ever ordered troops to assault Ukraine.

Prices for new and used vehicles, rent, medical care, commodities and transportation costs like airline fares have all skyrocketed over the past year, the Tuesday report showed.

“As expected, inflation soared in March,” Joel Naroff, the chief economist of the Pennsylvania-based economic consulting firm Naroff Economics, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “But it wasn’t just energy, which continued to spike as a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Food, clothing, medical care and transportation were all up sharply as well.”

While recent jobs reports have shown strong growth, Americans are more concerned about inflation when it comes to the economy, according to a CBS News poll released Monday. Just 31% of those surveyed said they approved of President Joe Biden’s handling of inflation.

Small business owners listed inflation as the biggest issue facing them, a survey released Tuesday by the National Federation of Independent Business showed.

Critics, meanwhile, have accused the Federal Reserve of failing to properly act as prices have shot up across sectors over the last 12 months. Fed officials have turned their focus too much toward social justice issues instead of monetary policy, a recent Independent Institute report concluded.

“This is a direct result of Biden’s Federal Reserve being too preoccupied with ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ and ‘climate change’ while ignoring all the warning signs on inflation for more than a year,” E.J. Antoni, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, told the DCNF. “The Fed is laughably behind the curve and people are demonstrably poorer because of it.”

Prior to the report Tuesday, Antoni predicted the 12-month figure to reach 8.3% and the month-over-month number to surpass 1.0%. He added that, under his projections, real wages would be down over 4.0% since Biden took office in January 2021.

Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee have repeatedly slammed the Federal Reserve for its persistent push to address climate change in recent months. The lawmakers said the Fed is increasingly focusing on areas outside of its congressional mandate.



Energy and environment reporter. Follow Thomas on Twitter



Consumer Prices Soar 8.5% In March, Highest Hike Since 1981

Does Anyone Actually Believe The Fed Can Tame Inflation Without Tanking The Economy?

Oil Prices Are Falling, But It Has Nothing To Do With Biden’s Policies

How Biden Raised Gas Prices Without Anyone Noticing

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

VIDEO: The Communist Revolution Started in the Public Schools

The video titled “The Socialist Revolution via Education” below was uploaded in 2013. We have no idea when it was originally recorded. It is prophetic.

WATCH: The Socialist Revolution via Education

RELATED ARTICLE: Mississippi MassResistance parents force middle school Principal to pull graphic pornographic books from library – after months of foot-dragging by School Board.

RELATED NOVEL: Revolution via Education by Samuel Blumenfeld.

EDITORS NOTE: This column and video posted by on the Vlad Tepes Blog is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FLORIDA: Patrick Byrne, General Mike and Joe Flynn’s ‘The America Project’ Hires Bianca Gracia Co-Founder of ‘Latino’s For America’

SARASOTA, Florida /PRNewswire/ — The America Project, founded by Patrick Byrne, General Flynn and Joe Flynn, is a 501c4 non-profit dedicated to election integrity, is expanding its staff to include a key political veteran.

Bianca Gracia, Co-founder of Latinos for America First, will serve as TAP’s Chief Strategist going into the 2022 and 2024 election cycles. Gracia, a former Democrat who was inspired by President Trump’s historic campaign in 2016, left the Democrat party nearly two decades ago when she realized the party didn’t align with her America First beliefs.

Gracia is a regular commentator on Fox News and Steve Bannon’s War Room broadcast, where she continues to advocate for President Trump’s legacies and policies. As part of her role as TAP’s Chief Strategist, Gracia will focus on the Spanish conservative market in places like Florida and Texas, along with other areas in America where conservative Hispanic populations are on the rise. This will include everything from educating voters about how to document irregularities in the voting process, promoting Hispanic community involvement and media training.

“To work alongside the Flynn and Patrick Byrne is a great honor. What they have planned through The America Project to educate the American people on voter fraud and attacks on our election integrity will be crucial if we intend on saving the nation from the corruption of the political establishment on both sides of the aisle,” stated Gracia.

Latino’s For America First Co-Founder, Bianca Gracia, has been brought on as the Chief Strategist focusing on the Spanish Conservative Market

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


“Adolf Hitler would be proud of the American Medical System.” – NH 

The published the world premiere video “Watch The Water” on it’s Rumble channel.


The plandemic continues, but its origins are still a nefarious mystery. How did the world get sick, how did Covid really spread, and did the Satanic elite tell the world about this bioweapon ahead of time? Dr. Bryan Ardis ( has unveiled a shocking connection between this pandemic and the eternal battle of good and evil which began in the Garden of Eden.

In this Stew Peters Network exclusive, Director Stew Peters, award winning filmmaker Nicholas Stumphauzer and Executive Producer Lauren Witzke bring to light a truth Satan himself has fought to suppress.

Visit to learn how to protect you and your loved ones during this biological war.

©. All rights reserved.

20% of THE AMERICAN POPULATION Will Be Here ILLEGALLY by the End of Biden’s Term

20% of ALL AMERICANS will be illegal. In other words, we have no country.


“[Democrats] are allowing this year probably 2 million [immigrants], that’s who we apprehended, maybe another million, into this country,” Patrick said on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show. “At least in 18 years even if they all don’t become citizens before then and can vote, in 18 years if every one of them has two or three children, you’re talking about millions and millions and millions of new voters and they will thank the Democrats and Biden for bringing them here. Who do you think they’re going to vote for?”

He said President Joe Biden and Democrats had begun a “silent revolution” to take over the country by winning over the votes of migrants.

“This is trying to take over our country without firing a shot,” he added.

Click here to read more columns about illegal aliens and immigration policy in America.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden’s handlers giving free smartphones to illegal migrants entering the U.S.


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.