Posted on 07/06/2007 2:23:04 PM PDT by Diago
|
Dear Friends I have enclosed some materials I researched, and I am appending a footnote. I have copies of much of the original materials. And as hard as it is to believe, it is true. One of the main reasons I am so strongly opposed to abortion is because it is built on racial hatred. When talking to many whites in rural areas, the reason they most often say they are for it has nothing to do with women's rights. It is because they say, " I would rather pay for an abortion than for welfare." Their misconception is that there are more city blacks on welfare than rural whites, which is untrue. Their attitude betrays their racist motivations. Please feel free to make copies of enclosed articles and distribute them freely to any and all concerned. It is not copyrighted.
Abortion - A Liberal Cause?
Abortion has been numbered among the liberal causes of modern politics. Abortion is identified with women's rights just as the Civil Rights Movement was identified with equal rights for African Americans and other minorities. But is abortion really a liberal cause? A careful examination of the history of the abortion rights movement would shock even the most ardent defender of a woman's right to choose. The founders of the movement were in fact racists who despised the poor and who were searching for a way to prevent colored races from reproducing. Rather than defending the rights of the poorest of the poor, which is the tradition of liberalism, the founders advocated abortion as a means of eliminating the poor; especially Blacks, Jews, Slavs, and Italians. And rather than desiring to help the poor through welfare programs, they wanted to eliminate all charities and government aid. Today, most liberals would be shocked to know of this racist heritage. Not only is the founding of the abortion rights movement anti-liberal, but it may have been an attempt to promote racial genocide. The modern day abortion rights movement began as the American Birth Control League in 1921. Among its founding board members were Margaret Sanger, Lothrup Stoddard, and C. C. Little. The latter two people were known for their racist views, but Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926.1 Not only did she not disassociate herself from these racist views, her own writings leave little doubt as to her sympathies. In implementing a plan called the "Negro Project," that was designed to sterilize Blacks and reduce the number of Black children being born in the south, Sanger wrote: "(we propose to) hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 2 Sanger also viewed welfare as a detriment to society because it increased the number of poor blacks and foreigners. "Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease… increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 'failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success."3 The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, "an ever widening margin of biological waste."4 Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or "human waste," as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor to give birth to those "stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race…"5 Therefore, she believed the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: "More (children) from the fit, less from the unfit."6 No modern day liberal would dare question the need for some form of government aid to the poor. But Margaret Sanger wanted more for the privileged and less for the poor. How did someone who was so obviously biased and lacking in compassion become the heroine of today's liberals? It is a strange reversal of political direction. It is as if the Democratic Party suddenly turned around and supported David Duke for Supreme Court Justice. Margaret Sanger also continued to advocate for her racial prejudices in her magazine, Birth Control Review. In six successive issues of that magazine, she advocated limiting the racial quotas of immigration of "Slavs, Hebrews, and Latins,"7 because of their lower intelligence! Although Ms. Sanger was the editor of the magazine, she shared its pages with the racist co-founders of the American Birth Control League. Board member Lothrup Stoddard wrote the racist book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World- Supremacy 8, which was reviewed favorably in Birth Control Review.9 Co- founder and board member, C. C. Little, was president of the Third Race Betterment Conference. He advocated preserving the purity of "Yankee stock" through limiting the births of non-Whites.10 Margaret Sanger was also strongly anti-Semitic. She started a similar birth control organization with a man named Henry Pratt Fairchild, who wrote The Melting Pot Mistake, in which he accused "the Jews" of diluting the true American stock.11 In his book, Race and Nationality, (1947), Fairchild blamed anti-Semitism and the holocaust in part on "the Jews."12 Finally, Margaret Sanger and her organization began to be primary sponsors of eugenics during her lifetime. But because she had associated herself with Adolph Hitler, praising him for his racial politics of eugenics, she changed the name of American Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood during WWII in order to disguise her racist past.13 Today, her organization, Planned Parenthood, is still in the forefront of advocating abortion as a means of eliminating the unwanted and "unfit." Not only does the organization perform thousands abortions each year, it also receives 100's of millions of tax dollars each year through Federal and State Governments.14 And rather than being in the forefront of a woman's right to choose, International Planned Parenthood is a primary advocate for the Chinese Government's policy of forcing women to have abortions against their will, and it also advocates for the sterilization of Third World non-Whites across the globe.15 It seems that PP is "pro-choice" when trying to impress the U.S. media, but anti-choice in the actual implementation of its world-wide agenda. But has Planned Parenthood changed? It is significant to note that Planned Parenthood has never distanced itself from the vision and ideology of its founder. Successive presidents of the organization have praised her work, including Faye Wattleton, who said, "As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader… we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission… abortion is only the tip of the iceberg."16 One can only wonder how abortion rights came to be adopted by liberals in the Democratic Party, or any other party. It is difficult to image how it came to be identified with other liberal causes. Through a slick media campaign and effective sloganeering, Planned Parenthood painted abortion as a compassionate and caring alternative to childbirth. Their motivation however may be altogether different. It seems that abortion still today, rather than being seen as a way of helping the poor and minorities, is considered the easiest solution for our economic problems: Don't help the poor - just eliminate them.
|
|
Who
Said it? Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger or Aryan Nation's Tom Metzger
First some background on our two quotable and notable contestants:
The ADL website provides the following profile of Tom Metzger, leader of
White Aryan Resistance:
Tom Metzger, a television repairman from Fallbrook, California,
has been a leader in organized bigotry for more than 25 years...He has been
widely acknowledged as the principal mentor of the neo-Nazi skinhead movement
since its appearance in America during the mid-1980s; in this connection, he
attracted nationwide publicity in 1990, when an Oregon jury rendered a $12.5
million judgment against him and his son, John, for inciting the murder of an
Ethiopian immigrant by skinheads. Today, although still paying the judgment,
Metzger continues to cultivate a following through his monthly newspaper, WAR
White Aryan Resistance, a Web site, a telephone hotline, an e-mail
newsletter, and other media.
Margaret Sanger, on the other hand, was the founder of Planned
Parenthood. Recently voted one of Time Magazine’s 100 Leaders &
Revolutionaries for the 20th Century, she is an inductee into the American
Nurses Association Hall of Fame and the National Women's Hall of Fame. Gloria
Steinem recently wrote as follows about Ms. Sanger in Time Magazine:
The movement she started will grow to be, a hundred years from now, the
most influential of all time," predicted futurist and historian H.G.
Wells in 1931. "When the history of our civilization is written, it will
be a biological history, and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine."
One is a “heroine” of the 20th Century. The other a modern villain. So
the following quiz concerning who said what ought to be easy. Right? Well try
your luck and you may be surprised.
Margaret or Metzger?
1. “Negroes and Southern Europeans are mentally inferior to native born
Americans”
2. “Since Christianity is in fact a slave religion, it is satirical at
least to see the negro adopt a slave religion, after chattel slavery was
ended. It simply underlines the fact that consciously or unconsciously, weak
humans desire the status of sheep, no matter what they say.”
3. “More children from the fit, less from the unfit."
4. “...apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation
to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose
inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to
offspring.”
5. "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be
exterminated."
6. “Covertly invest into non-White areas, invest in ghetto abortion
clinics. Help to raise money for free abortions, in primarily non-White
areas. Perhaps abortion clinic syndicates throughout North America, that
primarily operate in non-White areas and receive tax support, should be
promoted.”
7. "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that
idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Extra Credit
8. Who was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J.
in 1926, Margaret or Metzger?
9. Which current Civil Rights Leader once stated the following:
"Abortion is black genocide...What happens to the mind of a person
and the moral fabric of a nation , that accepts the aborting of the life of
a baby without a pang of conscience?"
10. Who is a responsible for the deaths of millions of black Americans?
a. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.
b. White Aryan Resistance Leader Tom Meztger
c. Sanger and Metzger.
d. Neither
Answers
1. Sanger; E. Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, CUL
Publishers, 1980, Section 1, p. 18-24; http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_42.asp
2. Metzger; http://www.africa2000.com/XNDX/xwarpo.htm
3. Sanger; Birth Control Review, May 1919 (vol. III, no. 5); p.12. http://www.homekeepers.com/sanger.html
4. Sanger; A Plan For Peace, The Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 106
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_42.asp
5. Sanger; http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html
6. Metzger; http://www.africa2000.com/XNDX/xwarpo.htm
7. Sanger; 1. Linda Gordon, Woman's Body Woman's Right: Social History of
Birth Control in America (New York, Grossman Publishers, 1976) p.333. http://www.missionariestopreborn.com/ppNegro.htm
www.missionariestopreborn.com/
8. Sanger; (1) Emily Taft Douglas, Margaret Sanger; Pioneer of the Future,
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, N.Y., 1970, p. 192. http://www.scholarscorner.com/ethics/Anti-Semitism.html
9. Jesse Jackson; http://www.blackgenocide.org/
10. a. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger
Oh, the ambiguities of the English language. Does this mean we do not want the (false) word to go out, or the (true) word?
Mrs VS
Eugenics was invented by Francis Galton who was Charles Darwin’s cousin and when he died, Charles Darwin’s son Leonard Darwin was the leader of the Eugenics Society.
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap02.html
None that I know of. What "conservatives" have you been talking to?
Maggie Sanger and the Human Weeds
By Shawn Macomber
WASHINGTON — After a lengthy incubation, the sick dreams of Margaret Sanger are finally hatching. Against the excuses of her modern defenders, it should be remembered that the founder of Planned Parenthood’s main interest in the legalization of abortion was not that women should be freed from the bonds of childbearing, but that unsavory types should be cleansed from the larger population.
In fact, Sanger only turned to abortion when her original plan to “apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation” to those with “objectionable traits” — sometimes derided as the stronger epithet “human weeds” — found little support. Turned out folks felt a bit queasy about sending those of certain ethnic backgrounds and with disabilities and mental illnesses off to “farm lands and homesteads” to be “taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.”
Sounds a bit like a concentration camp, no? Then again, she was a great admirer of the Nazi eugenics movement. Like Hitler, she had a long list of folks she wanted to eliminate from society, including “illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope fiends.”
More to the point, Sanger considered non-Aryan people “a great biological menace to the future of civilization.” The same woman considered a saint today by the pro-choice crowd warned supporters in 1939 that they did not want “word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
But look at the massive abortion rates in modern black neighborhoods and set them against, say, the merely moderate rates in white neighborhoods, and it becomes depressingly clear that Sanger helped accomplish something both depressing and far-reaching. If these high death rates were attached to a war, it would be called genocide. When it happens in a Planned Parenthood office we call it progress.
AND NOW, ABORTION ON demand, combined with ever more rigorous screening of children in the womb, has provided the perfect backdoor for other eugenic obsessions to quietly slip back into American life.
According to a front page article in Sunday’s New York Times, upwards of 500 medical conditions can be diagnosed by tests on fetal cells “with more than 100 tests added in the last year alone.” And, as literally hundreds of science fiction novels predicted, those of us who fail to measure up to the state of normalcy determined by society-at-large are getting the axe in utero.
The results are fairly ugly. For starters, more Down’s Syndrome children are now aborted than born. Not for any lack of sentience or capacity for joy or love, they simply move too slowly for modern tastes. Unborn children at risk for cystic fibrosis, expected to live 35 to 40 years, are also increasingly not worth the trouble. Tragic as the disease might be, we never react to the death of an 18-year-old in a car accident by wishing they’d never been born. Exactly how many years must people live before their lives are considered worthwhile?
As with anything else, the moment parents are allowed to selectively eliminate their children because of flaws, we have to grapple with the fact that what constitutes an abnormality can vary greatly.
Thus, the Times tells us the story of a woman who was born with an extra finger, which she later had surgically removed. So far she has aborted two children when ultrasound scans showed they had the same extra digit.
Another woman in Manhattan recently aborted a female child because she already had three daughters and wanted a son. Her physician, Dr. Mark Engelbert, told the Times that he was uncomfortable with the situation, but what could he do?
“My feeling as a physician was that I’ve accepted the responsibility of being her health care provider,” he said. “She’s not doing anything illegal, and it’s not for me to decide.”
That’s just it, isn’t it? Those who have accepted the barbarism of abortion are forced to follow it all the way down. Any uneasiness about the reason for a particular “elimination” must be set aside for the greater good.
Shawn Macomber is a reporter for The American Spectator. He runs the website Return of the Primitive.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6738
Thanks, I had seen that before but forgotten about it.
ALL of the evidence points to the latter.
So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.
Hey, Rudy forgot to mention that he "hates abortion." This is kind of like a guy who claims he hates second hand smoke praising the inventor of the cigarette. Or perhaps, "I hated the Holocaust, but you gotta admire that Hitler guy."
Rudy is such a phony.
What a lying POS.
What Rudy and leftist supporters don't seem to understand is that the 'Rats don't care if Republicans support infanticide or not, they will still vote for the 'Rat candidate.
I understand that abortion comes directly from the eugenics mindset. But Sanger herself, though a staunch eugenicist, never advocated abortion.
The woman and her movement is flawed enough without attributing views to her she did not espouse.
However, she did say this:
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
- The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
"We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
- The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
- Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.
I grew up around mostly conservatives and lets be honest here-many DID speak favorably about forced sterilization,abortion and their fear that “they”-meaning blacks and Mexicans”breed like rabbits”and that this was not good for the white race.
Liberals also were guilty of similiar sentiments to be sure but don’t hold your head in the sand and pretend conservatives often did not hold these views.
They did in my circle.This was in the Fifties and Sixties.Hopefully,we have matured somewhat since then.
Ping
Yes, she did say those things. What Sanger said and wrote are well documented. That is how we know she did not advocate abortion.
Absolutely. When I think of hell I always think of the weeping and gnashing of teeth, from burning. But since burning is such a physical pain, in reality, I hope this spawn of Satan can’t open its mouth for the pain. As a matter of fact, I think a just God would have it personally experience the pain of each and every abortion it is responsible for in the extreme sensitivity of a preborn, not being able to scream or cry, for eternity.
bump
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
Would that be preemptive or retro-emptive?
Read it in context of the paper that phrase was written in. She is not advocating abortion.
None of rhe conservatives I grew up with nor any that I have encountered in many years of political activism ever held any views like that. And such views are utterly incompatible with conservatism.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.