Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #254 Vouch For This!

MP3 One Seg­ment

1. One of the prin­ci­pal issues in the 2000 cam­paign has been “edu­ca­tion.” In Cal­i­for­nia, a bal­lot ini­tia­tive was placed before vot­ers that offered to pay fam­i­lies to send chil­dren to pri­vate school. This vouch­er ini­tia­tive, “Propo­si­tion 38,” was the brain­child of Tim Drap­er, a Cal­i­for­nia Repub­li­can. (The San Jose Mer­cury News; 10/19/2000; p.1A.) Although Mr. Emory does not impugn Drap­er’s char­ac­ter, it is impor­tant to note that (appear­ances to the con­trary notwith­stand­ing) Drap­er is the heir to a lega­cy that is the oppo­site of the image pro­ject­ed in the arti­cle about Propo­si­tion 38.

2. The arti­cle stress­es Drap­er’s alleged enthu­si­asm for mul­ti-cul­tur­al­ism, the fabled “melt­ing pot” and a “lev­el play­ing field” for all. (Ibid.; p. 22A.)

3. Excerpt­ing FTR-102, the broad­cast points out that the Drap­er fam­i­ly has a deep his­tor­i­cal involve­ment with fas­cism and doc­tri­naire racism. Drap­er’s grand­fa­ther, William H. Drap­er Jr., was heav­i­ly involved with pro­mot­ing invest­ment in Ger­many between the World Wars. (The Splen­did Blonde Beast: Mon­ey, Law and Geno­cide in the 20th Cen­tu­ry; Christo­pher Simp­son; soft­cov­er edi­tion Com­mon Courage Press; copy­right 1995.)

4. W.H. Drap­er Jr.‘s work on behalf of Ger­many was done while work­ing for a sub­sidiary of the invest­ment firm of Dil­lon, Read & Com­pa­ny. (Idem.)

5. After the war, Drap­er (as a brigadier gen­er­al) was one of the prin­ci­pal fig­ures in charge of the eco­nom­ic recon­struc­tion of Ger­many. (Idem.)

6. In that capac­i­ty, he saw to it that the same indus­tri­al­ists and financiers who had backed Hitler were retained in posi­tions of eco­nom­ic respon­si­bil­i­ty in the “new” Ger­many. (Idem.)

7. Next, the pro­gram dis­cuss­es the Pio­neer Fund, a pro-eugen­ics orga­ni­za­tion that was a major influ­ence on the eugen­ics think­ing and leg­is­la­tion of that peri­od. (The Nazi Con­nec­tion: Eugen­ics, Amer­i­can Racism and Ger­man Nation­al Social­ism; Ste­fan Kuhl; hard­cov­er copy­right 1994; Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press.)

8. Wyck­liffe Drap­er (the cousin of William H. Drap­er Jr.) was the prin­ci­pal finan­cial backer of the Pio­neer Fund. (Idem.) As not­ed in oth­er pro­grams, Amer­i­can eugeni­cists wield­ed a pro­found influ­ence on their Ger­man col­leagues and, in turn, the devel­op­ment of the Third Reich’s racial leg­is­la­tion.

9. The Pio­neer Fund was a major influ­ence on the racist best­seller The Bell Curve.
(“The Fund­ing of the Sci­ence,” by Bar­ry Mehler; The Search­light; 7/1998.)

10. The broad­cast con­cludes with a look at the col­lab­o­ra­tion of William H. Drap­er Jr. and George H.W. Bush in for­mu­lat­ing a pol­i­cy of “pop­u­la­tion con­trol” in the Third World. (Emerg­ing Viruses–AIDS & Ebo­la: Nature, Acci­dent or Inten­tion­al?; Dr. Leonard Horowitz; hard­cov­er copy­right 1996; Tetra­he­dron.)


4 comments for “FTR #254 Vouch For This!”

  1. Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 21, 2014, 11:01 am
  2. Woah, large num­bers of well paid work­ers aren’t jump­ing at the chance to cre­ate a wealthy tech­no-enclave? Bizarre:

    Ven­ture Cap­i­tal­ist shocked that not every­one is a self­ish jack­ass like him
    Wednes­day, March 26, 2014
    by David Atkins

    The ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist who wants to turn Cal­i­for­nia into six dif­fer­ent states is shocked that the wealth­i­est, most lib­er­al parts of the state want noth­ing to do with his plan:

    Ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist Tim Drap­er says he is get­ting “close” to col­lect­ing the nec­es­sary 800,000 sig­na­tures need­ed to get his “Six Cal­i­for­nias” mea­sure before state vot­ers in 2014 — but he acknowl­edges his own inter­nal polling shows Sil­i­con Val­ley is most opposed to the idea of split­ting the state into six parts.

    “You’d think that Sil­i­con Val­ley would ben­e­fit” great­est from the plan, said Drap­er, whose plan calls for the foun­da­tion of a state of Sil­i­con Val­ley, which econ­o­mists sug­gest would like­ly be the rich­est state in the nation. But “Sil­i­con Val­ley is the least like­ly to vote for this,” Drap­er acknowl­edged Tues­day. “It’s bizarre.”

    Drap­er made the state­ments at a salon before a crowd of tech insid­ers, jour­nal­ists and San Fran­cis­co busi­ness insid­ers Tues­day night. The evening of dis­cus­sion to explore the idea of Cal­i­for­nia seces­sion was host­ed in the San Fran­cis­co home of pub­lic rela­tions guru Susan Mac­Tavish, founder of the Liv­ing Mac­tavish fash­ion, food and design web­site...

    Drap­er on Tues­day would not reveal his inter­nal polling — oth­er than to say gen­er­al­ly that num­bers in Sil­i­con Val­ley are strong­ly opposed to the plan and oth­er more con­ser­v­a­tive parts of the state, like the Cen­tral Val­ley, are in favor. “This is not going to hap­pen overnight,” he said.

    It’s always a big shock to self­ish rich peo­ple that most oth­er well-to-do peo­ple aren’t as self­ish as they are. It’s impor­tant to remem­ber that many of the very wealthy are like War­ren Buf­fett, peo­ple who vote pri­mar­i­ly for Democ­rats and aren’t afraid to pay a lit­tle more in tax­es to have a fruit­ful, sta­ble and fair­er soci­ety. It’s not even the 1% that are ruin­ing things for the rest of us; it’s a very socio­path­ic, very ener­getic frac­tion of that 1%. And they’re real­ly shocked when oth­er peo­ple don’t behave as asinine­ly as they do.

    Mean­while, it’s no sur­prise that the most conservative–and poorest–parts of the state are in favor this guy’s plan. The rubes who get the most from gov­ern­ment ser­vices always believe that some poor­er, dark­er city dweller is get­ting their hard-earned mon­ey. It’s the old­est con in the book, and they buy into it every time.

    Mud­dled schem­ing usu­al­ly works in pol­i­tics, and it seems to be res­onat­ing with parts of the state, but not Sil­i­con Val­ley. What’s going wrong this time? Could it be too mud­dled:

    Los Ange­les Times
    Tim Drap­er’s argu­ment for split­ting Cal­i­for­nia into six states makes zero sense

    By Ted Rall

    Feb­ru­ary 27, 2014, 6:00 a.m.

    Grandios­i­ty comes stan­dard when you’re a third-gen­er­a­tion one per­center like ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist Tim Drap­er.

    Among oth­er things, the 55-year-old claims that viral mar­ket­ing is his “orig­i­nal sug­ges­tion.” (What­ev­er.) He found­ed the nonac­cred­it­ed Drap­er Uni­ver­si­ty of Heroes for aspir­ing entre­pre­neurs, based in part on Har­ry Potter’s Hog­warts. He’s been called “George W.’s point man in Sil­i­con Val­ley,” but he vot­ed for Barack Oba­ma in 2008.

    Draper’s lat­est for­ay into the polit­i­cal are­na is a pro­posed bal­lot ini­tia­tive that, if he gar­ners the required 807,000 sig­na­tures, will ask vot­ers in Novem­ber to do for the Gold­en State what the 1990s did to Yugoslavia — split Cal­i­for­nia into six states. (This is his sec­ond dance. Vot­ers reject­ed his manda­to­ry school vouch­ers propo­si­tion in 2000.)

    “Cal­i­for­nia as it is ungovern­able,” Drap­er says. “It is more and more dif­fi­cult for Sacra­men­to to keep up with the social issues from the var­i­ous regions of Cal­i­for­nia. With six Cal­i­for­nias, peo­ple will be clos­er to their state gov­ern­ments, and states can get a refresh.”

    Actu­al­ly, the result wouldn’t be six Cal­i­for­nias. It would be six pieces of what used to be Cal­i­for­nia:

    San Diego + Orange Coun­ty = South Cal­i­for­nia

    L.A. + San­ta Bar­bara = West Cal­i­for­nia

    Bak­ers­field + Fres­no + Stock­ton = Cen­tral Cal­i­for­nia

    San Fran­cis­co + San Jose = Sil­i­con Val­ley

    Sacra­men­to = North Cal­i­for­nia

    Eure­ka + Red­ding metro = the awe­some, total­ly not broke, state of Jef­fer­son

    Is Draper’s mea­sure a good idea? I don’t know. What I do know is that the argu­ments Drap­er makes in favor of balka­niza­tion make zero sense. What­ev­er the mer­its of his splitsville scheme, it’s scary to endorse any­thing ginned up by such a messy mind.

    Con­sid­er these excerpts from Drap­er’s recent inter­view with Time. They make fel­low right-wing mul­ti­mil­lion­aire Don­ald Trump look lev­el­head­ed in com­par­i­son:

    “We now spend the most and get the least. We spend among the most for edu­ca­tion and we’re 46th in edu­ca­tion. We spend among the most for pris­ons, and we are among the high­est recidi­vism rates.... So the sta­tus quo is fail­ing. And there have been some very good peo­ple run­ning Cal­i­for­nia, gov­ern­ing Cal­i­for­nia. So it must be sys­temic. At best, the sys­tem seems to be on a spi­ral down. At worst it’s a monop­oly, and in a monop­oly, they can charge what­ev­er they want and pro­vide what­ev­er ser­vice they want. In a com­pet­i­tive envi­ron­ment, peo­ple get good ser­vice and they pay fair prices.”


    Drap­er says the state is a monop­oly that “can charge what­ev­er they want and pro­vide what­ev­er ser­vice they want.” To the extent that that’s true, it’s true of all gov­ern­ments. It’s not as if dri­vers in West Cal­i­for­nia will be able to pay low­er fees for their driver’s licens­es by get­ting them in South Cal­i­for­nia, or that South Cal­i­for­nia would have any incen­tive to offer low­er fees, i.e., com­pete.


    We don’t have to look far for exam­ples of states whose cap­i­tals are clos­er to their cit­i­zen­ry. New Eng­land is divvied into tiny states. “Our gov­ern­ment will be more in touch with our indi­vid­ual con­stituents” if Cal­i­for­nia breaks into small­er parts, says Drap­er. If he’s right, the New Eng­land states should be a shin­ing bea­con of gov­er­nance. But they’re not. They’re just aver­age.

    There is just no evi­dence that effi­cient or respon­sive ser­vice is relat­ed to a state’s size. His­to­ry, resources and luck are the real deter­mi­nants.

    By most stan­dards, Ver­mont and Mass­a­chu­setts offer bet­ter ser­vices to their cit­i­zens than Maine or New Hamp­shire (not to men­tion live­li­er job mar­kets). But they’re not com­pet­ing against each oth­er. Why don’t we see an exo­dus of for­mer Main­ers to Ver­mont? Peo­ple who stay in Maine stay there because they like it. They grew up there. Their fam­i­lies are there. They dig the lob­ster rolls. What­ev­er. They’re not going to move to Mass­a­chu­setts just to get Rom­n­ey­care.

    Here’s Drap­er again in Time: “The strongest argu­ment for six Cal­i­for­nias is that we are not well rep­re­sent­ed. The peo­ple down south are very con­cerned with things like immi­gra­tion law, and the peo­ple way up north are frus­trat­ed by tax­a­tion with­out rep­re­sen­ta­tion. And the peo­ple in coastal Cal­i­for­nia are frus­trat­ed because of water rights. And the peo­ple in Sil­i­con Val­ley are frus­trat­ed because the gov­ern­ment doesn’t keep up with tech­nol­o­gy. And in Los Ange­les, their issues revolve around copy­right law.

    Copy­right law. Yep, that’s what all Ange­lenos care about. Who could ever for­get the Intel­lec­tu­al Prop­er­ty Riots of 1992? Broth­er against broth­er, PC vs. Mac, VHS vs. Beta.

    Seri­ous­ly, though, doesn’t Drap­er know that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, not the state, has juris­dic­tion over bor­der con­trol? Tech reg­u­la­tions, the Inter­net — that is the feds too. And copy­right.

    If the strongest argu­ment in favor of break­ing up Cal­i­for­nia is to address issues that states don’t con­trol — well, don’t make me say it.

    Drap­er adds: “I’ve noticed that the peo­ple most adamant about cre­at­ing their own state or being a part of their own state are the poor­est regions, and in the cur­rent sys­tem, they are not hap­py, because it is not work­ing for them. So if they had their own state, I believe all of those states would become wealth­i­er.”

    By Draper’s rea­son­ing, Mis­sis­sip­pi and Alaba­ma — the nation’s poor­est states — should split apart too. They’d all become wealth­i­er, right?


    It might seem like there’s no such thing as a too-mud­dled argu­ment in Amer­i­ca pol­i­tics, but that was a pret­ty con­fus­ing mess of argu­ments put forth by Drap­er. The cen­tral idea behind his argu­ment — the idea that divid­ing states up to cre­ate “com­pet­i­tive” gov­ern­ments that com­pete for ser­vices improves life for every­one — just does­n’t make any sense. Why? Because Mov­ing to a new state isn’t some casu­al trans­ac­tion. Sure, the wealthy might be able to afford to do, but for the rest of us any tweaks in states ser­vices prob­a­bly isn’t going to make mov­ing worth it. It’s not a real com­pe­ti­tion.

    Now, if states behaved like busi­ness and actu­al­ly went out of their way to recruit indi­vid­u­als to their states, includ­ing pay­ing the costs of the relo­ca­tion and oth­er guar­an­teed ben­e­fits or sub­si­dies, well that could be a kind of com­pet­i­tive gov­ern­ment sit­u­a­tion. But, of course, states aren’t about to start recruit­ing indi­vid­ual peo­ple with com­pen­sa­tion pack­ages because that would be absurd. So it’ll be inter­est­ing to see if Drap­er ends up unmud­dling this mess, or just remud­dles it.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 26, 2014, 12:07 pm
  3. The future states of Droughtis­tan (Droughtis­tan 1–6), are one step clos­er to becom­ing a real­i­ty. The drought is here. Now a vote is required:

    TPM Livewire
    Tech Investor Says Plan To Split Cal­i­for­nia Head­ed For 2016 Bal­lot

    Cather­ine Thomp­son – July 15, 2014, 9:18 AM EDT

    The wealthy Sil­i­con Val­ley investor who wants to split Cal­i­for­nia into six sep­a­rate states says he’s gath­ered enough sig­na­tures to put the effort to the bal­lot in 2016.

    Ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist Tim­o­thy Drap­er’s Six Cal­i­for­nias ini­tia­tive tweet­ed Mon­day that he planned to file the sig­na­tures Tues­day in Sacra­men­to.

    #Six­Cal­i­for­nias will be sub­mit­ting sig­na­tures in Sacra­men­to tomor­row for place­ment on the Novem­ber 2016 bal­lot. Stay tuned for cov­er­age!— Six Cal­i­for­nias (@SixCalifornias) July 14, 2014

    A spokesman for the cam­paign, Roger Salazar, told Reuters that that the ini­tia­tive had gath­ered more than the rough­ly 808,000 sig­na­tures need­ed to place it on the Novem­ber 2016 bal­lot.


    Drap­er has invest­ed $750,000 of his own mon­ey in the ini­tia­tive, which would par­ti­tion Sil­i­con Val­ley off from the rest of the state. A Field Poll con­duct­ed in Feb­ru­ary found that 59 per­cent of res­i­dents opposed Drap­er’s plan, how­ev­er, and even if vot­ers were to approve the mea­sure it would still require the approval of the U.S. Con­gress.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | July 15, 2014, 7:46 am
  4. Just a heads up every­one, the Bizarro League is prob­a­bly going to get­ting some new mem­bers soon:

    Pan­do Dai­ly
    The Drap­er Uni­ver­si­ty “Super­hero Pledge”: Run, run for your life!

    By Paul Carr
    August 26, 2015

    Else­where on Pan­do today, Sarah has reviewed Episode Three of “Start­up U,” the real­i­ty show based on Tim Draper’s “Uni­ver­si­ty of Heroes.”

    For me, the most shock­ing moment of the show is one that the pro­gram­me’s mak­ers slipped in almost as an east­er egg: The dai­ly pledge that Draper’s stu­dents are forced to recite every morn­ing, like Amer­i­can school chil­dren pledg­ing alle­giance to the flag or pris­on­ers in the Philip­pines danc­ing to Thriller in the exer­cise yard.

    View­ers were treat­ed only to one line from the pledge before cam­eras cut away:

    “I will pro­mote free­dom at all costs.”

    Ho. Ly. Shit.


    Now, thanks to Drap­er U “star” and new Pan­do read­er David Kram, we have the entire text of the pledge. Cer­tain­ly the free­dom line is the most loony lib­er­tar­i­an part of it, but the whole thing beg­gars belief. Again, this is what Drap­er demands his paid stu­dents chant every morn­ing before they set to work. It’s called “The Super­hero Oath.”

    I will pro­mote free­dom at all costs.

    I will do every­thing in my pow­er to dri­ve, build and pur­sue progress and change.

    My brand, my net­work, and my rep­u­ta­tion are para­mount.

    I will set pos­i­tive exam­ples for oth­ers to emu­late.

    I will instill good habits in myself. I will take care of myself.

    I will fail and fail again until I suc­ceed.

    I will explore the world with gus­to and enthu­si­asm.

    I will treat peo­ple well.

    I will make short term sac­ri­fices for long term suc­cess.

    I will pur­sue fair­ness, open­ness, health and fun with all that I encounter. Most­ly fun.

    I will keep my word.

    I will try my best to make repa­ra­tions for my digres­sions.

    So far, these peo­ple are being groomed to mur­der us all.

    But then come the caveats. Because no one wants to be penned in by promis­es to “keep my word,” “treat peo­ple well” and “pur­sue fair­ness, open­ness, health” should those pledges get in the way of… yun­no… dis­rup­tion or free­dom.

    And so we have…

    The Black Swan Clause: I am bound to this oath unless in my trav­els I deter­mine that the oath has some­how missed some­thing impor­tant and extra­or­di­nary.

    Like geno­cide, per­haps.

    Or trav­el­ling the world, enslav­ing indige­nous pop­u­la­tions and forcibly con­vert­ing them to Draperism...

    The Evan­ge­lism Clause: I will pro­mote and add to the ongo­ing suc­cess of Drap­er Uni­ver­si­ty, its stu­dents, its fac­ul­ty, its admin­is­tra­tion, and its facil­i­ties. I will help pre­pare the next gen­er­a­tion of Super­heroes.

    (That one’s non-nego­tiable as this guy found out when he broke the pledge...

    Tim had me write out his Evan­ge­lism Clause 100 times on pub­lic walls after I post­ed about my frus­tra­tion with hav­ing per­son­al prop­er­ty stolen on social media. (I under­stood that he felt like it might dam­age his rep­u­ta­tion.)


    The Super­hero Clause: I will accept the life­long oblig­a­tion to hone my Super­hero pow­ers, and apply those Super­hero pow­ers to the good of the uni­verse.

    I’m not jok­ing. They’re going to kill us all.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 27, 2015, 6:48 pm

Post a comment