Full Context on Mr. Skees and Eugenics: It Gets Worse

This evening, I wrote a brief post in which I criticized Derek Skees for a somewhat unorthodox position on the issue of eugenics. Shortly after, I received a complaint from a Skees fan, who suggested that I had maliciously taken his remarks out of context for political purposes. So I watched the video.

I think it’s actually worse in full context. Mr. Skees was asked, apparently by someone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, if he would support legislation banning eugenics in Montana. Here’s his response:


Mr. Skees said that “eugenics is how some of us are trying to solve the population problem of the Earth. And so there are some of us..uh…China specifically that would love to sterilize all of us.”

Unsatisfied with that terrifying response, he continued to say, “The best way to solve the eugenics situation—and I have read this in numerous books—is it’s a problem with the lower class.”

Now, I certainly don’t know what kind of books Mr. Skees has read, but I do know a few that discuss eugenics and the “lower class.”

Derek Skees: too extreme for Montana.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Subscribe to our posts

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba has been writing about Montana politics since 2005 and teaching high school English since 2000. He's a former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.
His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.
In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • A little out of context, as I see it.

    Me. Skees said nothing radical. You subtly inferred it, suggesting that because he correctly says that poorer families tend to have more children, that Mr. Skees wants to eliminate the lower classes, leaving the thought for us to finish. In fact, he is saying that elimination of poverty, not people, will eliminate the overpopulation problem, quite a different point.

    He doesn’t have any answers, as he is apparently trapped in free market economics as a solution, and so is deluded in quite another fashion. But he is not talking about depopulation. Surely you know this.

    • Why doesn’t it surprise me that you’d play the contrarian again?

      Skees was asked an idiotic question about eugenics. He could have acknowledged it was an idiotic question. He could have argued that eugenics has a vile history, both in the US and abroad.

      Instead, he explicitly defends the concept before launching into a diatribe about people in the “lower class.” I suspect you know as well as I do what kind of “books” make the arguments he’s making.

      Your little sideshow act about how political parties don’t matter is occasionally amusing, but I think at the point when you’re defending people like Mr. Skees, you ought rethink how you spend your time.


    • There’s another chance to show what a champion of the indefensible you are, just below this. I look forward to your independent, post-partisan defense of the dog-killing Republican candidate for Legislature.

      • Another means of remedying this problem is empowerment of women, giving them assess to birth control and abortion. I doubt Mr. Skees sees that as a viable solution, but your own inferences about his position are indefensible.

        • It’s not an inference. He said, and I quote, “eugenics is how some of us are trying to solve the population problem of the Earth.”

          You’re choosing to infer that his words don’t mean what they literally do. That’s an inference.

          • He said that the solution is to raise us all up to the middle class. His initial response is to address the buzzword nature of the term eugenics. But he distances himself from attempts to control birth numbers, and that is the entire context.

            I happen to know that Mr Skees buys into neoclassical Economics, Chicago style, as advocated by both parties, and so consider him unrealistic to the point of irrationality, but give him credit – he merely wants an economic miracle. I would not vote for him if I could, but not because of your inferences.

          • I should say “forcibly” control birth numbers, as I advocate widespread availability of contraception and abortion on a strictly voluntary basis, so that it is me, and not him, that wants to control birth numbers. He thinks that it will happen by osmosis via introduction of his miraculous economic ideas.

  • Mark maybe you should come up here to montana and attend one of General Robert E. Skees’ lectures on Constitutional Law. He is scheduled to be lecturing at exclusive Perkins and JBs locations across the state.

    • Maybe I should. But on the outside looking it, it’s just finger pointing, each party at the other in a manner that merely distracts from the failings of their own party. So yes, Skees is an extremist, but let’s talk about Democrats. What do you offer besides “We’re not Skees!”? Not much that I can see. Voting for you does not bring about change.

      • Actually in this particular instance you are incorrect. The current democratic candidate for the post of insurance commissioner does a very credible job. Derek Skees is an actual and certifiable loon. He will not admit but he tacitly supports nullification of federal civil rights laws even if that has nothing to do with the post he is seeking. If you are looking for a race to make a point about there being no difference between a republican and democratic candidate you really have picked the absolute worst one here to do so.

Send this to a friend