Margaret Sanger: “We Want to Exterminate the Negro Population.” Her Wish is Coming True

Life News ^ | 12/16/13 4:48 PM | Matthew Archbold

[Diago]

Margaret Sanger: “We Want to Exterminate the Negro Population.” Her Wish is Coming True

by Matthew Archbold | LifeNews.com | 12/16/13 4:48 PM

If you listen very carefully to the coffin of Margaret Sanger you would hear absolutely nothing.

Assuredly, she’s not rolling over in her grave that black and Hispanic babies are far more likely to be aborted than white babies. She might be dancing, however.

Sanger once said, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race” and even said, “We should 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. We don’t want the 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.”

Now, you can read all sorts of defenses of those quotes like they’re taken out of context or hey, it was the 1920′s people said all sorts of stupid things way back in the day. But it’d be a little easier to ignore if the group she founded didn’t seem so intent on killing black and Hispanic children. According to a recent study from The Center for Disease Control 82 Percent of Abortions in New York City and 64% in Texas Were on Black or Hispanic Babies. Hey Margaret, mission accomplished.

LifeNews.com reports:

According to the report, there were 415,479 abortions for known ethnicity reported for selected states in 2010 and 153,045 (or 36.8 percent) were non-Hispanic white babies, 148,261 (or 35.7 percent) were non-Hispanic black babies, 87,240 (or 21.0 percent) were Hispanic babies, and 26,933 (or 6.5 percent) were babies of other races or ethnicities. The report reveals that a majority of Black or Hispanic babies were aborted in New Jersey (55.9 percent), the District of Columbia (64.8 percent) and Georgia (73.2 percent). In New York City alone 81.9 percent of the babies aborted were Black or Hispanic while in the state of Texas 63.7 percent were Black or Hispanic an increase from 2009.

So we have the founder of the organization saying that’s what she wanted to do and then when the organization does that, we’re all supposed to believe it’s just coincidence? Isn’t it weird that people point to the majority of prisoners being black and Hispanic as proof of racism but the fact that black babies are far more likely to be killed in the womb is just coincidence?

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

LifeNews Note: Matt Archbold graduated from Saint Joseph’s University in 1995. He is a former journalist who left the newspaper business to raise his five children. He writes for the Creative Minority Report. This column originally appeared at National Catholic Register and is reprinted with permission.

[CodeToad]

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.

[Squawk 8888]

I was surprised on learning it as well. She was a racist and an eugenics advocate but she abhorred abortion. Author Jonah Goldberg details it in Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change.

[steelhead_trout]

“Yeah, and at this point in time I’m beginning to wonder if she didn’t have a premonition of what was coming ? I don’t care if my post is deleted. Everybody in this nation knows the truth by now. If not...you are blind,deaf, and dumb.”

---

Exactly. And if the ‘Rats want to allow their most reliable voting demographic to be eliminated, well, as Napoleon said, in effect, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Just think how much worse crime, welfare dependency etc. could be. We all know the joke whose punchline ends with the word “crimestoppers”, now don’t we?

[Dqban22]

THE NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger’s 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 latter–converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

‘”Civil rights’ doesn’t 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 Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s 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 restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into 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 isolated–or 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.

Sanger’s 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 organization’s 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 Parenthood’s 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 area–those deemed “unfit” to reproduce.

[Religion Moderator]

Source?

[Dqban22]

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 Bennett’s remarks last week reveals just what a bizarre set of taboos Americans have imposed on themselves when it comes to race—and 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. It’s worth making a special effort not to incriminate the vast majority of law-abiding black citizens—many 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 Bennett—so soon after accusing President Bush of racism for FEMA’s failure to (do black Mayor Ray Nagin’s job for him and) rescue black New Orleanians—betray 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 crime—essentially by imposing capital punishment in advance on babies who are more likely to grow up as felons.

Let’s leave aside for a moment how morally repulsive this idea is—reeking 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 isn’t 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 won’t get the credit for this.

Now you’d 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 wouldn’t 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 didn’t 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 blank—and 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 don’t you just carpet bomb the ghetto? That would cut crime too.” Without cracking a smile, one of them said, “That wouldn’t 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 reiterates—that 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 bathtub—the fact that since the residents of America’s 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 hasn’t stopped Jackson from supporting legal abortion, however—or 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 doesn’t care about saving the lives of black people? (For a scathing look at Clinton’s blatant disregard for millions of African lives, see the powerful new documentary Broken Promises: The UN at 60, narrated by Ron Silver—coming soon to theaters.)

The irony gets richer; Reverend Jackson’s 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 father’s remarks—or that he’s 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 don’t mention their race. It’s okay to kill them, but not to mention their race.

Now that we’ve 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 they’re not racists. Not at all.

[USS Alaska]

And she would be appalled at what PP is doing. She was vehemently anti-abortion and had nothing but vitriol for doctors who performed them.

Is that sarcasm or have you slipped on the ice and bashed your head on the concrete?

[Tenlein]

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.

[Dqban22]

THE NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger’s EUGENIC Plan for Black America
By Tanya L. Green

http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html

[Squawk 8888]

She has consistently gone on the record opposing abortion, believing that it can only be justified if the pregnancy is endangering the mother's life, e.g. ectopic pregnancies etc.

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 way—it 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."

Link

[RichInOC]

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.

[Coleus]

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/negroproject/index

[Dqban22]

OBAMA IS IMPORTING MUSLIMS TO REPLACE BLACKS

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