Posted on 12/17/2013 4:47:52 PM PST by Diago
Margaret Sanger was not for abortion. She thought birth control was about preventing pregnancy and is quoted as saying abortions are a pock on civilization. It was only AFTER HER DEATH that PP went all out for abortions.
“Yeah, and at this point in time Im beginning to wonder if she didnt have a premonition of what was coming ? I dont care if my post is deleted. Everybody in this nation knows the truth by now. If not...you are blind,deaf, and dumb.”
THE NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sangers EUGENIC Plan for Black America
By Tanya L. Green
Excerpts
I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing
therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.
Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV
On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the Say So march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade rights in t he latterconverged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the marchs sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.
Civil rights doesnt mean anything without a right to life! declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident.
Many Americansblack and whiteare unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sangers Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).
The aim of the program was to restrictmany believe exterminatethe black population. Under the pretense of better health and family planning, Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. Whats more shocking is Sangers beguilement of black Americas créme de la crémethose prominent, well educated and well-to-dointo executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.
The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: We have become victims of genocide by our own hands, cried Hunter at the Say So march.
Malthusian Eugenics
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and purtiy, particularly of the Aryan race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the fit to reproduce and the unfit to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the inferior races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.
Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this population crisis. According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems.
His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:
All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.
Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolatedor even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more scientific approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more practical and acceptable ways to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.
Critics of Malthusianism said the group produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless. Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.
Despite the falsehoods of Malthus overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the scientifically verified threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background.
Sangers publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Ruin. Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.
Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that virtually all of the organizations board members were eugenicists.
Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of revolutionary literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services almost without the exception. And Planned Parenthoods international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.
The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the areathose deemed unfit to reproduce.
Source?
The Rules of the Great American Race Game
By John Zmirak
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 3, 2005
The current flap over former Secretary of Education William Bennetts remarks last week reveals just what a bizarre set of taboos Americans have imposed on themselves when it comes to raceand what a political booby trap leftists have managed to rig around the subject, ready to explode in a burst of career-destroying shrapnel at the slightest misstep.
Yes, it was insensitive of Mr. Bennett to notice the fact that black Americans commit violent crimes in highly disproportionate numbers. Its worth making a special effort not to incriminate the vast majority of law-abiding black citizensmany of whom grow up poor in broken homes, subjected to stronger temptations than those of us who grew up differently.
Given the history of eugenics in the last century, one can understand a certain touchiness on the subject. But the ferocity with which liberals pounced on Bennettso soon after accusing President Bush of racism for FEMAs failure to (do black Mayor Ray Nagins job for him and) rescue black New Orleaniansbetray a profound political cynicism, and a willingness to seize crassly (and selectively) upon human tragedy to make cheap rhetorical points.
To recap the Bennett flap: Mr. Bennett is being condemned for a slip of the tongue which contravened the rules of polite discourse which govern how crime is depicted in mainstream media. Bennett was speaking on the radio about an assertion by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, who claimed in their ludicrously overpraised book Freakonomics that abortion decreases crimeessentially by imposing capital punishment in advance on babies who are more likely to grow up as felons.
Lets leave aside for a moment how morally repulsive this idea isreeking of precisely the same eugenic logic preached by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who called for more children from the fit, fewer from the unfit. Worse than evil, this argument isnt even valid. It has been comprehensively dismantled by the clear-thinking and candid Steve Sailer, who showed that the crime decline attributed by Dubner and Levitt to legal abortion in fact had far more to do with a decline in the popularity of crack, and the election of mayors such as Rudolph Giuliani in New York.
Since blacks are disproportionately the victims as well of violent crime, any improvement in public order will save far more black lives and livelihoods than white. Of course, because most such tough-on-crime mayors are Republican, they wont get the credit for this.
Now youd think that a couple of economists who spoke with thinly veiled enthusiasm about culling entire social classes before they are born in order to kill off future criminals would find themselves exiled from decent society. I know I wouldnt sit down and eat with this kind of creep.
But far from ostracism, Messrs. Dubner and Levitt are heroes. Their book is a massive best-seller, recently excerpted by the New York Times. How did they manage this coup? Because they didnt mention race. They presented their argument about thinning out the crop of future felons, and conveniently left out the fact that most of these children aborted would be poor, and either Hispanic or black. This allowed the reader to fill in the blankand fantasize about suppressing the crime rate a little more, and maybe reclaiming some blighted neighborhoods as well, by arranging for fewer children from the unfit.
I once heard people talking precisely this way at a cocktail party, and stepped in to ask them, By that logic, why dont you just carpet bomb the ghetto? That would cut crime too. Without cracking a smile, one of them said, That wouldnt be as politically palatable. I steered clear of this knot of sociopaths for the rest of the evening.
Now Mr. Bennett, in his commentary, was making the same point I was, which Steven Sailer reiteratesthat the theory presented by Dubner and Levitt is impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible. But in the course of his comments, Bennett made the mistake of noticing the African elephant in the bathtubthe fact that since the residents of Americas prisons are disproportionately black, people who daydream about emptying those prisons by killing off their residents before they are even born are fantasizing about killing black people.
This fact was noticed decades ago by no less a race-baiter than the Rev. Jesse Jackson, when he called legal abortion black genocide. That hasnt stopped Jackson from supporting legal abortion, howeveror cozying up to President Bill Clinton, who as commander in chief ordered the withdrawal of U.S. peace-keeping forces from Rwanda, leaving millions of defenseless Tutsis to be slaughtered with machetes, while our and other nations blue helmets sped off to safety in other countries.
Now which U.S. president was it, again, who doesnt care about saving the lives of black people? (For a scathing look at Clintons blatant disregard for millions of African lives, see the powerful new documentary Broken Promises: The UN at 60, narrated by Ron Silvercoming soon to theaters.)
The irony gets richer; Reverend Jacksons son, the Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., has insisted that William Bennett should be censured and fined by the Federal Communications Commission for his repugnant and barbarous remarks.
Do you think the younger Jackson has forgotten his own fathers remarksor that hes unaware that black Americans are the primary targets of those who would promote abortion in order to thin out the ranks of the poor? Or is he simply and cynically ignoring the facts?
Instead, I would suggest, the younger Jackson is playing masterfully by the rules of racial rhetoric as they are currently laid out in American discourse. As this affair makes clear, among these commandments, three are the greatest.
1) Thou shalt ignore any statistics that cast racial minorities, even provisionally, in an unflattering light.
2) Thou shalt condemn anyone who mentions these statistics as a racist, even if you know that he is not a racist. The truth is not important. The important thing is the taboo.
3) Thou mayst entertain and promote racist fantasies of eliminating poor babies, Hispanic babies, and black babies in the womb, so long as you dont mention their race. Its okay to kill them, but not to mention their race.
Now that weve gotten all that clear, we can watch as Mr. Bennett is hounded into apology after apology, and perhaps driven out of public life, while the upper-class leftists who live in gated communities or high-rises with doormen indulge their bloodthirsty daydreams, —— in the knowledge that theyre not racists. Not at all.
Is that sarcasm or have you slipped on the ice and bashed your head on the concrete?
I’m surprised that no white supremacist organization has given Cecile Richards their version of a Medal of Honor. You know, as a fellow traveler.
THE NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sangers EUGENIC Plan for Black America
By Tanya L. Green
http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html
Sanger's family planning advocacy always focused on contraception, rather than abortion. It was not until the mid-1960s, after Sanger's death, that the reproductive rights movement expanded its scope to include abortion rights as well as contraception. Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother in the early 20th century and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote, "while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."
Historian Rodger Streitmatter concluded that Sanger's opposition to abortion stemmed from concerns for the dangers to the mother, rather than moral concerns. However, in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger noted that her opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: "[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer wayit took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." And in her book Family Limitation, Sanger wrote that "no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."
Margaret, if you’re okay with using race-selective birth control for eugenics, it’s a short hop to using abortions for eugenics. Tell me you knew. Your colleagues clearly did.
Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika
by Mike Richmond
The rest of the history of Planned Parenthood and the Democratic party
http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html
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.