Transcript

When you take a stand for traditional values like marriage being the union of a man and a woman, liberals often accuse you of being on the wrong side of history.

The president of the United States and the United States of America have stood on the right side of history.

They say you should just give up or else society is gonna move on, and you'll just be remembered like the bigoted losers of the past who opposed things like interracial marriage.

However, I only care about being on the right side of truth, not the right side of history, because God is the lord of history and He knows the final ending.

Besides, the Catholic Church was correct when it fought against interracial marriage bans in the mid-20th century, and the Church is still correct in its refusal to acknowledge so-called same-sex marriage.

And you are correct, by the way, when you acknowledge our channel by hitting the subscribe button and by acknowledging us through your support at trenthornpodcast.com.

This is what allows us to boldly and publicly advocate for the right side of truth in the public forum.

So please head over there if you like our channel and support us, once again, at trenthornpodcast.com.

But in today's episode, I wanna show you three times that liberals defended horrible ideas and now they try to forget those times that they were on the wrong side of history.

Number one, eugenics and forced sterilizations.

Liberals often praise Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. for his dissent in the 1905 case of Lochner versus New York and other cases that forbade states from passing minimum wage laws or capping work days at 10 hours.

But in 1922, Holmes joined seven other justices to uphold mandatory sterilization laws in the case of Buck versus Bell, which upheld the right of the state to forcibly sterilize people that the state deemed feebleminded, people like Carrie Buck.

Holmes delivered the Court's opinion, writing in part, It is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

The only judge on the court who dissented against the mandatory sterilization rule was Pierce Butler, a conservative Catholic whose nomination was opposed by liberal senators and magazines as well as the Ku Klux Klan.

America Magazine, founded by the Jesuits in 1909, wrote in an editorial after Bell that, quote, Fundamentally, our objection is based on the fact that every man, even a lunatic, is an image of God, not a mere animal, that he is a human being and not a mere social factor.

Other early progressives that supported eugenics included Teddy Roosevelt, W.E.B.

Du Bois, and of course Margaret Sanger, the founder of what would later be called Planned Parenthood.

By the way, there are a lot of fake quotes attributed to Sanger like Colored people are like human weeds and need to be exterminated, so don't share memes of these fake quotes.

Instead, her uncontested writings show she believed that contraception could be used to promote good breeding among people like it's done with animals, or as her magazine banner headline put it, Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds.

Here is Sanger in 1947 saying women should stop having babies for the next 10 years.

Don't you think such a theory, such a radical theory, is antisocial?

On the contrary, it seems to me that it is more practical and humane.

From my view, I believe that there should be no more babies.

In 2020, Planned Parenthood issued a public apology, saying, Margaret Sanger's eugenicist ideas were wrong in 1916, and they're wrong now.

In the early 20th century, the most vocal group to oppose eugenics were Catholics because they were some of the biggest targets of this program.

Sharon Leone points out in her book An Image of God: The Catholic Struggle with Eugenics that eugenic policies were often aimed at largely Catholic Italian, Polish, and Slavic immigrants who were considered to be an inferior race in comparison to White Protestants.

Even as support for eugenics in the US waned by the mid-20th century, liberals still supported mandatory birth control policies, but in support of other ideologies like China's one-child policy.

Many of them supported this because of their pet environmental cause of stopping overpopulation.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb, The battle to feed all of humanity is over.

Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.

The 1973 film Soylent Green depicted a hellish New York City of 2022 with a population of 40 million people in it, about five times as many as live there today.

Liberals believed the only feasible solution to the population crisis was contraception, including forcing people to be sterilized if they wouldn't go along with the program.

This 1967 LA Times article profiling Ehrlich said, The population of the United States is already too big.

Birth control may have to be accompanied by making it involuntary and by putting sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water, and that the Roman Catholic Church should be pressured into going along with routine measures of population control.

This reminds me of the following line from Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato Si.

Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate.

At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of reproductive health.

But even today, there are still people who push for this nonsense.

Philosophy professor Sarah Conley wrote in 2015 in favor of China's now defunct one-child policy and proposed a worldwide one-child policy.

She wrote, We don't have a right to have so many children.

We can live happy, fulfilled lives with just one child, and one child per couple will keep the human race going.

And speaking of China and totalitarianism, here's the second time liberals were on the wrong side of history.

Number two communism.

There's a common cycle when it comes to liberals and communism.

First, liberals praise communism as being the solution to problems like poverty and inequality.

Then they cover up the crimes that communists commit against innocent people in order to keep its reputation pristine.

And finally, when they can't cover up those crimes anymore, they say the regime in question wasn't true communism, and the game starts all over again with a new case of how real communism works.

In the 1920s, the Soviet Union implemented the communist policy of overproduction in order to make goods more plentiful, but they focused on heavy machinery instead of food.

To fix this, Soviet troops seized food from Ukrainian farmers and Soviet propaganda blamed the ensuing famine on those same farmers, who they called kulaks, which means tight fists.

The famine that lasted from 1932 to 1933 is called the Holodomor, a Ukrainian word that means to murder by starvation.

And millions of people were indeed murdered in this way.

In an area that once produced the most grain in all of Europe, hunger drove desperate people to cook shoes, bones, and finally, as one observer described, There were people who cut up corpses, who killed their own children and ate them.

I saw one.

Even more appalling, some western intellectuals at the time who supported the Soviets' policies denied the very existence of the famine.

George Bernard Shaw wrote to the Manchester Guardian after visiting the Soviet Union in 1933, Everywhere we saw hopeful and enthusiastic working class that provided an example of industry and conduct which would greatly enrich us if our system supplied our workers with any incentives to follow it.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Walter Duranty wrote in the New York Times that, quote, Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.

When Catholic Cardinal Theodore Innitzer pleaded for Western relief efforts for Ukrainians who were resorting to infanticide and cannibalism, The Times uncritically published the Soviet Union's chilling response.

They wrote, In the Soviet Union, we have neither cannibals nor cardinals.

John Stossel also recently covered this topic on his channel.

Soviet officials lauded the New York Times for its coverage until, as the movie Mr. Jones explains, independent reporter, Gareth Jones, saw people starving and told the truth.

The Soviet Union is not the worker's paradise that was promised.

The New York Times made it a point to denounce him as a liar and a fraud.

The Times star reporter claimed the famine was a scare story, that Jones' judgment was hasty.

Why would he do that?

I mean, I assume he doesn't want people to starve.

I, I think he doesn't care.

When you're the biggest guy in the most interesting country on Earth, that's status.

And when that's the most important thing to you, everything else can fall by the wayside.

The same whitewashing of communist history can be seen on TikTok and RedNote today, communist China's competing social media platforms that are named after the Little Red Book of Mao Zedong.

His communist policies caused the worst famine in human recorded history, one that killed nearly 30 million people in the 1950s.

Half the victims were under 10 years old.

And like Walter Duranty before them, western intellectuals denied the existence of the famine and praised Mao as a revolutionary figure who fought for the poor.

The feminist philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir said in 1958 that, quote, Life in China today is exceptionally pleasant.

And American journalist Hans Koenig wrote in 1966 that China was almost as painstakingly careful about human lives as New Zealand.

The same whitewashing can be seen in liberal pleading for brutal dictator states like North Korea.

Margaret Chan, a director general of the World Health Organization, said in 2010 that the oppressive policies of North Korea aren't all that bad because at least there were no signs of obesity in North Korea.

Now, that's not surprising given that the country had experienced government-caused famines that killed 12% of the population.

In fact, a nighttime satellite image of North and South Korea will always be the perfect example of why capitalism works and communism sucks.

Although the worst things that liberals do when they defend communism is to make nauseating actually qualifications when it comes to their brutal crimes against humanity.

Here's one article defending the communist party in Peru's People's War in the 1980s.

It says, The Communist Party of Peru did not boil children alive.

I have seen nothing like this written anywhere.

They did apparently use scalding water as a method of execution along with stones and machetes.

They did also engage in the act of killing infants, elderly people, and pregnant women at the village of Luquinamarca in 1983.

This act was ostensibly retaliation for the murder of PCP cadre Oleherya Karimov by villagers.

Oh, well, nevermind.

Sorry for the misunderstanding about the mass murder, my comrade.

The Soviet Union often referred to non-communist liberals who defended them as useful idiots or polzhniy duraki, useful fools.

It's an apt description as can be seen in cases of people like Malcolm Caldwell, a Scottish Marxist who opposed capitalism and did everything he could to defend Pol Pot's genocidal Khmer Rouge regime.

In December of 1978, Maxwell finally got the chance to meet Pol Pot in Cambodia and the dear leader had him executed a few days later.

The cycle is complete though in modern liberals who cannot ignore early 20th century communist atrocities like Walter Duranty or other liberals did and will say, Yes, that was bad, but that wasn't true communism.

In the early 2000s when Venezuela was thriving on lucrative oil sales, liberals praised Venezuela as true socialism and academics like Noam Chomsky and activists like Michael Moore praised Venezuela's authoritarian leader, Hugo Chavez.

Chavez was lionized in Oliver Stone's 2009 film South of the Border.

He had promised far-reaching reforms to raise the living standards of the poor, enhance democracy, and share the oil wealth of the country with those who had never benefited from it in the past.

Over the next three years, Chavez proclaimed Venezuela a Bolivarian rep-

Although nowadays Chavez will be remembered for causing one of the largest migrations in human history in response to the humanitarian nightmare that followed Venezuela's economic collapse in the 2010s.

All of this confirms the original warnings the Catholic Church made regarding the dangers of communism.

Pope Leo XIII called socialism, A deadly plague that reaps a harvest of misery.

And 30 years later, Pope Pius XI said, Communism is intrinsically wrong and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.

So here we see that liberals were on the wrong side of history and Catholics were on the right side the entire time.

Number three, failing to protect children.

After no-fault divorce became legal in the United States in the 1970s, liberals promised that it would be great for society, kids are resilient, they'll bounce back from divorce.

But now the data overwhelmingly shows that children living with their married biological parents in low-conflict homes do better than children in any other household arrangement.

One study even showed that divorce causes more trauma to a child than the death of a parent.

Liberals in the 1970s and '80s also downplayed the dangers of sexualizing children, and some of them supported child liberation, the normalization of, let's call it kidophilia.

I can't say the real word because I don't want YouTube to ban me.

Now, in the 1940s and the 1950s, Hollywood was constrained by the Hays Code, which censored what could be allowed in films.

Will Hays, the code's founder was a Presbyterian, but everyone agrees the code was guided by Catholic principles.

And while the code was overreaching in some aspects, it had some good parts, like as it said, it prohibited the depiction of child sex organs.

Directors like Stanley Kubrick pushed the limits of the code with his 1962 adaptation of Lolita using 14-year-old actress, Sue Lyon, that makes a comedy out of a novel about child molestation.

Lyon has also said the film's 31-year-old producer, James B. Harris, molested her and that Lolita ruined her life.

But after the code's demise in 1968, you see Hollywood using nude underaged girls in sexual roles, like 16-year-old Olivia Hussey in Romeo and Juliet, 11-year-old Brooke Shields in 1978's Pretty Baby, and 17-year-old Michelle Johnson, who appears nude in the 1984 alleged comedy, Blame It on Rio, which features a teenage Johnson seducing a 50-year-old Michael Caine.

I'm glad at least that Roger Ebert honestly said of the film at the time that it has the mind of a 1940s bongo comedy and the heart of a porno film.

Shields also starred at the age of 14 in the 1980s film, The Blue Lagoon, where the production team, along with filming her nude, encouraged her and her 18-year-old co-star to have a romantic relationship to help the scenes feel more authentic.

And things were even more brazen in Europe where Eva Lynne Secco was published nude in Playboy at the age of 11, and nude in Germany's Der Spiegel newspaper at the age of 12, exploits which inspired the plot of the 2011 film, My Little Princess.

Most shockingly, between 1969 and 1980, pornography that involved minors was legal in countries like Denmark and Sweden.

And it wasn't just Hollywood or the entertainment industry, academic elites also promoted the lie of child sexual liberation.

Philosopher Michael Foucault, feminist Simone de Beauvoir, and many others argued for the decriminalization of kidophilia.

In England, the Ped Information Exchange worked with the National Council of Civil Liberties to lower the age of consent.

The Campaign for Homosexual Equality voted overwhelmingly to condemn the, quote, Harassment of the Ped Information Exchange by the press.

In the US, academics like Allen Ginsberg, founder of the Beatniks movement, and Camille Paglia argued in favor of decriminalizing this.

And academics still peddle this as I noted in my previous episode, How Our Culture Grooms Children, which covered articles where the author says he wanted his kids to see sexual kinks at gay pride parades.

I'm confident that in 50 years, and hopefully much sooner, people will look back at drag queen story hours for children, pornographic books in elementary school libraries, and gender reassignment surgeries for children the same way we look back at the widespread use of lobotomies in the 1950s and they will ask the same question: What the hell were they thinking?

Thank you so much for watching, and if you'd like to learn more about some of the issues discussed in today's episode, check out my book, Can a Catholic Be a Socialist?: The Answer is No, Here's Why, as well as the book I co-authored with Laila Miller, Made This Way.

Thank you for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day.