получил письмецо от ЛВЕ:
Борис Петрович, я тут случайно наткнулась на "свежую" страницу анти-чойса, теперь, вКонтакте, думаю, Вам про Маргарет Сэнгер, возможно будет интересно, хотя, судя по всему - старье-берем...Хотя, технология интересная...они огромную статью разрезают на меленькие части и постят кусочками...получается много постов на одну тему, занимают пространство своими гадостями.
Как они уже надоели...
http://vk.com/topic-41413392_29254349
С уважением, ЛВ
Showing posts with label opponent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opponent. Show all posts
November 17, 2013
November 9, 2012
trip to Germany
"The old-fashioned warrior who entered with sword and killed his victims outright has my respect after witnessing the 'Peace' conditions of Germany," she wrote shortly after leaving Europe. She aimed for shock value a few months later in a dinner speech before the Women's Economic Club in Philadelphia, when she suggested that rather than sending aid for starving children in Germany and other European countries, the United States should "send over a quantity of chloroform to put them out of their misery," because that would be the best thing for the children and the future of the world." (Sanger's Hunger Games-A Postwar Germany Odyssey, Fall 2012.)
For much more on Sanger's 1920 tour, see the newsletter article, Sanger's Hunger Games-A Postwar Germany Odyssey, Fall 2012, and Sanger's two-part article, "Women in Germany, Dec. 1920 and Jan. 1921, Birth Control Review.
foto: Margaret Sanger in the fall of 1920 after returning from her trip to Germany. (Courtesy of the Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College)
Neo-Malthusianism, Family Limitation, and Conscious Generation
While she supported some aspects of eugenics when it came to
improving health and strengthening the human race, her goal remained,
first and foremost, to give all women the same freedom and autonomy
enjoyed by men. “Feminists,” she wrote in her 1938 autobiography (pp.
107-8), were trying to free women “from the new economic ideology but
were doing nothing to free her from her biological subservience to man,
which was the true cause of her enslavement.”
Sanger’s launched the movement in 1914 to give women that freedom, but the new movement needed a new name. As she and her colleagues sat around sifting through various options, she recalled, she found that the terms already in use — Neo-Malthusianism, Family Limitation, and Conscious Generation seemed stuffy and lacked popular appeal.” She didn’t mind the word “control” but found the term “limitation” too narrow. She wrote, “my idea of control was bigger and freer.” Sanger wanted each woman to have the freedom to make her own choices and decisions. So they came up with the phrase “birth control.” That settled it–”the baby” as she dubbed the new movement “was named.”
source
Sanger’s launched the movement in 1914 to give women that freedom, but the new movement needed a new name. As she and her colleagues sat around sifting through various options, she recalled, she found that the terms already in use — Neo-Malthusianism, Family Limitation, and Conscious Generation seemed stuffy and lacked popular appeal.” She didn’t mind the word “control” but found the term “limitation” too narrow. She wrote, “my idea of control was bigger and freer.” Sanger wanted each woman to have the freedom to make her own choices and decisions. So they came up with the phrase “birth control.” That settled it–”the baby” as she dubbed the new movement “was named.”
source
July 19, 2012
Dear Madam, I Abhor You
If you want to read more on the hate mail that Sanger received in her lifetime, visit our article "Dear Madam, I Abhor You" at the Sanger Papers Newsletter!
example: “Dear Madam: You have been a shameless “murderess on parade” for a long while. However, you never looked more hellishly ludicrous than at present when the government is about to launch a campaign to encourage as many births as possible as has been done for sometime in Europe. Perhaps this will see and end to your shameless debasing of Parenthood. You, if you ever had any real Christian upbringing, must have developed a cast iron conscience to be able to carry on your soul the innumerable times you are guilty of having the Commandment--Thou shalt not kill--broken by poor innocent people who listened to your advice. The average schoolboy or girl knows more about contraceptives than you do and that is well-known; which makes your birth-controllers hopelessly out-dated. If you were a sincere person you would devote your time to something clean worthwhile.” (Aug. 28, 1941, Brooklyn, N.Y. [LCM 50:135].)
example: “Dear Madam: You have been a shameless “murderess on parade” for a long while. However, you never looked more hellishly ludicrous than at present when the government is about to launch a campaign to encourage as many births as possible as has been done for sometime in Europe. Perhaps this will see and end to your shameless debasing of Parenthood. You, if you ever had any real Christian upbringing, must have developed a cast iron conscience to be able to carry on your soul the innumerable times you are guilty of having the Commandment--Thou shalt not kill--broken by poor innocent people who listened to your advice. The average schoolboy or girl knows more about contraceptives than you do and that is well-known; which makes your birth-controllers hopelessly out-dated. If you were a sincere person you would devote your time to something clean worthwhile.” (Aug. 28, 1941, Brooklyn, N.Y. [LCM 50:135].)
December 14, 2011
voice of Russia
вральная статья на голосе России
с упоминанием участия Сэнгер в программе стерилизации
с упоминанием участия Сэнгер в программе стерилизации
November 2, 2011
Eugenics, or Scientific Racism, in American Education
One of the evil fruits of the tree of evolution is the idea of
eugenics, the notion that human beings can be bred to perfection by the
same methods used to breed perfect cattle. Since evolution itself
reduces man to the level of animal, it is not surprising that eugenics
was adopted by many leaders among the educational elite as the means of
solving man’s social problems. But eugenics itself poses a problem: what
does one mean by human perfection, and whose definition of perfection
should be adopted?
The founder of the eugenics movement, Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), cousin of Charles Darwin, found his model of perfection in the British elite. But he was painfully aware that the birthrate of the elite was far lower than that of what he considered to be the inferior classes. In this he saw a great danger to civilization. He concluded that ways had to be found to encourage the fertility of the superior stock and to discourage the fertility of the inferior stock.
In order to determine which individuals had superior traits, Galton created an anthropometric laboratory in 1884 for the measurement of man, with the hope that by means of tests he could single out those individuals who should survive. However, Galton realized that physical measurements alone were not enough to determine the criteria he needed. He began searching for ways to investigate psychological differences.
In 1886, he was introduced to James McKeen Cattell, a young American who had just completed two years of study in the laboratories of Prof. Wilhelm Wundt, the world’s leading experimental psychologist, at Leipzig University in Germany. It was there that Cattell conducted his reaction-time experiments which became the “scientific” basis for teaching children to read by the whole-word method. Cattell spent the next two years working in Galton’s lab at Cambridge University where he used experimental techniques to investigate the mental differences among normal individuals. He coined the term “mental test.” Cattell used Galton’s framework of physical and physiological anthropometry in which to conduct his experiments on individual differences.
Born in 1860, Cattell graduated in 1880 from Lafayette College (Easton, Penn.) where his father, a Presbyterian minister, was president. While at college, Cattell studied the ideas of Auguste Comte, the French philosopher who stressed the authority of scientific knowledge over religious or metaphysical forms of thought. This philosophy, known as Positivism, led Cattell to adopt a new “religion” of science.
In 1882-83 Cattell studied at Johns Hopkins University where his classmate was John Dewey and their professor was psychologist G. Stanley Hall. Hall was the first American to study at Leipzig under Prof. Wundt, and he encouraged Cattell to get his doctorate under Wundt at Leipzig.
After completing his studies in Germany and his experiments at Cambridge, Cattell returned to the United States where he became professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1891, Cattell moved to Teachers College, Columbia University, where as professor of experimental psychology he built the nation’s leading department of psychology. He trained many young psychologists who then fanned out across American academia to teach the new gospel of psychology. In 1904, Cattell arranged for his friend John Dewey to come to Columbia as professor of philosophy.
At Teachers College, Cattell’s star pupil was Edward L. Thorndike, who espoused the principles of eugenics and became America’s leading educational psychologist. He devised a new theory of learning based on conditioning techniques used in animal training. His book, Animal Intelligence (1898) laid the groundwork for the school of behaviorism.
Both Cattell and Thorndike were active in applying the principles of eugenics to education. Like Dewey, they held an organic view of society. Socialist Dewey wrote in his famous My Pedogogic Creed:
“I believe that the individual who is to be educated is a social individual and that society is an organic union of individuals…. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child’s fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of most service and where he can receive the most help.”
This was clearly the educational philosophy of a collectivist state, not a Constitutional republic in which the purpose of government is to secure the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the individual. The purpose of education in a free society is to provide the individual with the skills needed to make his way in the adult world, not to determine where he can be ”of most service.”
Inherent in Dewey’s creed is the notion that individual human worth is determined by social usefulness, a concept that is taught today in the lifeboat and fallout shelter survival exercises in which students must decide who to throw out of the lifeboat or kill in the fallout shelter. Dewey also wrote in that Creed:
“[T]he teacher is engaged, not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life....In this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God.”
It was inevitable that those who believed in eugenics would see society in racial terms and impose racist ideas on American education. The veneer of science made racism respectable among the social-radical progressives who were supposedly only interested in the future good of mankind.
Eugenics conferences were held in the United States to spread the new spirit of scientific racism within academia. G. Stanley Hall, who had become president of Clark University (Worcester, Mass.) in 1889, encouraged his students to develop tests to assess mental capacity. One of his students, Lewis Terman, devised a mental test that was to become the most famous of them all, one that measured the I.Q., or Intelligence Quotient. The I.Q. expressed the ratio of a child’s mental age to his chronological age, multiplied by one hundred. Terman believed that intelligence was a matter of genetic inheritance and that genetic superiority could therefore be determined by this test.
The Anglo-American eugenics movement grew in influence on both sides of the Atlantic. In England it was embraced by Fabian socialists because they believed that an ideal society could be produced only by “superior” people. In America, it drew such progressives as Margaret Sanger, Gifford Pinchot, David Starr-Jordan, Charles M. Eliot, Emma Goldman, and such conservatives as Herbert Hoover and Charles Davenport. Sanger was motivated by her belief in eugenics to start the birth-control movement.
The eugenics movement persuaded Congress to pass new immigration laws to curtail the influx of "inferior" peoples from Eastern and Southern Europe. In 1921, the Second International Congress of Eugenics was held at New York’s Museum of Natural History. Its president was Henry Fairfield Osborn, who wrote in the program:
However, there was nothing benign about scientific racism which affected more important aspects of life than just eating habits. To eugenicist Thorndike, blacks were inferior and had to be treated differently in education, and he was responsible for changing “certain schools for Negroes from a predominantly literary to a predominantly realistic and industrial curriculum.”
In other words, as a result of “scientific research,” pupils were now no longer being judged as individuals, but as members of different racial groups. Scientific racism became an integral part of progressive education policy.
In 1933, Hitler’s new National Socialist (Nazi) government adopted a Eugenic Sterilization Law that resulted in the compulsory sterilization, within three years, of 275,000 people judged “unfit” by Hereditary Health Courts. In 1939, on the eve of World War II, the Nazi regime inaugurated a policy of euthanasia for the mentally diseased or disabled. Some 70,000 patients were shot and gassed to death. All of this was prelude to the mass extermination of Jews that would take place during the war years.
But all of that is in the dim past. In America today, eugenics has been replaced by multiculturalism, affirmative action, new liberal programs to help minorities advance economically, and special education in the public schools to help the mentally challenged (once dubbed "useless human beings") get a government education. The schools are now dumbing-down everyone, and functional illiteracy is now epidemic. In other words, we’ve gone from one evil to another. Scientific racism rejected Biblical religion, and today’s progressives reject the supernatural. American culture is in a state of total philosophical chaos. The future of America is uncertain because of the raging battles among competing philosophies. Only by repudiating the statists and returning to the sane political philosophy of the Founding Fathers will this nation be able to reconstruct an American future in liberty and economic freedom for all.
Written by Sam Blumenfeld
The founder of the eugenics movement, Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), cousin of Charles Darwin, found his model of perfection in the British elite. But he was painfully aware that the birthrate of the elite was far lower than that of what he considered to be the inferior classes. In this he saw a great danger to civilization. He concluded that ways had to be found to encourage the fertility of the superior stock and to discourage the fertility of the inferior stock.
In order to determine which individuals had superior traits, Galton created an anthropometric laboratory in 1884 for the measurement of man, with the hope that by means of tests he could single out those individuals who should survive. However, Galton realized that physical measurements alone were not enough to determine the criteria he needed. He began searching for ways to investigate psychological differences.
In 1886, he was introduced to James McKeen Cattell, a young American who had just completed two years of study in the laboratories of Prof. Wilhelm Wundt, the world’s leading experimental psychologist, at Leipzig University in Germany. It was there that Cattell conducted his reaction-time experiments which became the “scientific” basis for teaching children to read by the whole-word method. Cattell spent the next two years working in Galton’s lab at Cambridge University where he used experimental techniques to investigate the mental differences among normal individuals. He coined the term “mental test.” Cattell used Galton’s framework of physical and physiological anthropometry in which to conduct his experiments on individual differences.
Born in 1860, Cattell graduated in 1880 from Lafayette College (Easton, Penn.) where his father, a Presbyterian minister, was president. While at college, Cattell studied the ideas of Auguste Comte, the French philosopher who stressed the authority of scientific knowledge over religious or metaphysical forms of thought. This philosophy, known as Positivism, led Cattell to adopt a new “religion” of science.
In 1882-83 Cattell studied at Johns Hopkins University where his classmate was John Dewey and their professor was psychologist G. Stanley Hall. Hall was the first American to study at Leipzig under Prof. Wundt, and he encouraged Cattell to get his doctorate under Wundt at Leipzig.
After completing his studies in Germany and his experiments at Cambridge, Cattell returned to the United States where he became professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1891, Cattell moved to Teachers College, Columbia University, where as professor of experimental psychology he built the nation’s leading department of psychology. He trained many young psychologists who then fanned out across American academia to teach the new gospel of psychology. In 1904, Cattell arranged for his friend John Dewey to come to Columbia as professor of philosophy.
At Teachers College, Cattell’s star pupil was Edward L. Thorndike, who espoused the principles of eugenics and became America’s leading educational psychologist. He devised a new theory of learning based on conditioning techniques used in animal training. His book, Animal Intelligence (1898) laid the groundwork for the school of behaviorism.
Both Cattell and Thorndike were active in applying the principles of eugenics to education. Like Dewey, they held an organic view of society. Socialist Dewey wrote in his famous My Pedogogic Creed:
“I believe that the individual who is to be educated is a social individual and that society is an organic union of individuals…. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child’s fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of most service and where he can receive the most help.”
This was clearly the educational philosophy of a collectivist state, not a Constitutional republic in which the purpose of government is to secure the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the individual. The purpose of education in a free society is to provide the individual with the skills needed to make his way in the adult world, not to determine where he can be ”of most service.”
Inherent in Dewey’s creed is the notion that individual human worth is determined by social usefulness, a concept that is taught today in the lifeboat and fallout shelter survival exercises in which students must decide who to throw out of the lifeboat or kill in the fallout shelter. Dewey also wrote in that Creed:
“[T]he teacher is engaged, not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life....In this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God.”
It was inevitable that those who believed in eugenics would see society in racial terms and impose racist ideas on American education. The veneer of science made racism respectable among the social-radical progressives who were supposedly only interested in the future good of mankind.
Eugenics conferences were held in the United States to spread the new spirit of scientific racism within academia. G. Stanley Hall, who had become president of Clark University (Worcester, Mass.) in 1889, encouraged his students to develop tests to assess mental capacity. One of his students, Lewis Terman, devised a mental test that was to become the most famous of them all, one that measured the I.Q., or Intelligence Quotient. The I.Q. expressed the ratio of a child’s mental age to his chronological age, multiplied by one hundred. Terman believed that intelligence was a matter of genetic inheritance and that genetic superiority could therefore be determined by this test.
The Anglo-American eugenics movement grew in influence on both sides of the Atlantic. In England it was embraced by Fabian socialists because they believed that an ideal society could be produced only by “superior” people. In America, it drew such progressives as Margaret Sanger, Gifford Pinchot, David Starr-Jordan, Charles M. Eliot, Emma Goldman, and such conservatives as Herbert Hoover and Charles Davenport. Sanger was motivated by her belief in eugenics to start the birth-control movement.
The eugenics movement persuaded Congress to pass new immigration laws to curtail the influx of "inferior" peoples from Eastern and Southern Europe. In 1921, the Second International Congress of Eugenics was held at New York’s Museum of Natural History. Its president was Henry Fairfield Osborn, who wrote in the program:
The right of the state to safeguard the
character and integrity of the race or races on which its future depends
is, to my mind, as incontestable as the right of the state to safeguard
the health and morals of its people. As science has enlightened
government in the prevention and spread of disease, it must also
enlighten government in the prevention of the spread and multiplication
of worthless members of society, the spread of feeble-mindedness, of
idiocy, and of all moral and intellectual as well as physical diseases.
It was this philosophy of government which enabled Congress to pass
Prohibition, which made it illegal to drink alcoholic beverages. And we
all know what a social disaster Prohibition turned out to be. Likewise,
Mayor Bloomberg of New York believes that it is government’s highest
duty to determine what people should be allowed to eat. It sounds benign
and sensible to a statist. But nothing in our Constitution gives
government such powers.However, there was nothing benign about scientific racism which affected more important aspects of life than just eating habits. To eugenicist Thorndike, blacks were inferior and had to be treated differently in education, and he was responsible for changing “certain schools for Negroes from a predominantly literary to a predominantly realistic and industrial curriculum.”
In other words, as a result of “scientific research,” pupils were now no longer being judged as individuals, but as members of different racial groups. Scientific racism became an integral part of progressive education policy.
In 1933, Hitler’s new National Socialist (Nazi) government adopted a Eugenic Sterilization Law that resulted in the compulsory sterilization, within three years, of 275,000 people judged “unfit” by Hereditary Health Courts. In 1939, on the eve of World War II, the Nazi regime inaugurated a policy of euthanasia for the mentally diseased or disabled. Some 70,000 patients were shot and gassed to death. All of this was prelude to the mass extermination of Jews that would take place during the war years.
But all of that is in the dim past. In America today, eugenics has been replaced by multiculturalism, affirmative action, new liberal programs to help minorities advance economically, and special education in the public schools to help the mentally challenged (once dubbed "useless human beings") get a government education. The schools are now dumbing-down everyone, and functional illiteracy is now epidemic. In other words, we’ve gone from one evil to another. Scientific racism rejected Biblical religion, and today’s progressives reject the supernatural. American culture is in a state of total philosophical chaos. The future of America is uncertain because of the raging battles among competing philosophies. Only by repudiating the statists and returning to the sane political philosophy of the Founding Fathers will this nation be able to reconstruct an American future in liberty and economic freedom for all.
Written by Sam Blumenfeld
August 7, 2011
May 31, 2011
сексуальность Сэнгер
scribe пишет в Brown Pelican Society of Lousianna
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, saw herself as “The New Woman,” one emancipated from traditional religion and morality, empowered to have sex without procreation, and able to compete publicly with men. Yet behind this façade was a soul lost in emptiness and degradation.
An atheist who scorned all hope of an afterlife, Margaret Sanger lived entirely for the here and now. Born in 1879, she married twice and cheated on both spouses. Her first husband, whom she wed in August 1902 and divorced in 1921, was the socialist Bill Sanger. With him she had three much-neglected children. While married to Bill — and this is proven by letters and journals that survive — she had many affairs, some lasting for years, with such men as the Editor of American Parade Walter Roberts, the well-known English sexologist Havelock Ellis, the Spanish radical Lorenzo Portet, and the English patrician Hugh de Selincourt, as well as his wife Janet. These are facts, not rumors or suspicions, since her adulteries are well documented in the definitive biography, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America written by Ellen Chesler, who makes use of the archives in Smith College and the Library of Congress. Why did Margaret not destroy these compromising papers? Like a female Dorian Gray, she kept her scabrous self hidden away for her entire life. But perhaps she thought that was long enough and wanted to be “outed” after her death.
A rich friend from early days, Mabel Dodge, recalled that Margaret was the first woman she ever knew who openly propagandized the pleasures of the flesh “as a sacred and at the same time a scientific reality.” This is a crucial point: It was Margaret’s trademark to speak of sex with a combination of sentiment and science. Science here means the pseudo-science of eugenics, part of Herbert Spencer’s religion of evolutionism, which was a public craze at that time. Margaret and her associates wanted to legalize not just birth control, but also forced sterilization of the “unfit,” so those classes would breed less and ease the burden on rich taxpayers. In the 1920s she was subsidized by a set of wealthy people who dabbled in population control (as the ultra-rich still do today). These millionaires imagined that they were the “fit” class and that they could seize the reins from Nature and direct the evolution of the human species to a higher level. Mostly they wanted to ensure that the breeding of inferior classes would be curtailed. Angela Franks has recently published an important work, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy, which demonstrates how deeply the founder of Planned Parenthood was implicated in eugenics and in the Spencerian faith in evolutionism.
These two ways of looking at sex — sacred and scientific — would be contradictory if not for the fact that sacred here is only a smokescreen to hide the main point — that human sex is nothing more than the crude coupling of animals. When Margaret was going around lecturing about the need for medical control of human breeding and lacing her talks with sentimental rhetoric, she was only repeating what she had learned in England in 1914 from her mentor Havelock Ellis, also an atheist. Ellis taught that sex was a matter of biology and anthropology, but it could have a spiritual dimension. A precursor of Kinsey, Ellis produced the first clinical study of homosexuals, claimed their orientation was genetic, and demanded legal protection for them. He supported co-education and sex-education for children, as well as organized feminism, and he labeled as normal even the sexual perversions of sadism and masochism. Chesler says that it is “virtually impossible to overestimate” his influence on Margaret Sanger. She imbibed his theories uncritically and formed from them the basis of her birth-control agenda. She also saw his teaching as a green light for her own misbehavior.
Later, though, when Ellis’s memoirs came out posthumously in 1940, Margaret was disappointed at the romantic nostalgia with which he wrote about his marriage to Edith, a lesbian. (Part of this was the result of guilt, since his sexual infatuation with Margaret had hastened his wife’s death.) Margaret complained that these memoirs “undermined the empirical scientific basis of Ellis’s sex research and theory,” which had been the “foundation” of “her own life and work.” Here she made it perfectly clear that a “scientific” approach to sex was the groundwork of her Birth Control League, later to be called Planned Parenthood.
Margaret’s second husband was Noah Slee, a multi-millionaire who was 20 years her senior and who left his wife within months of meeting Margaret. They were married in September 1922. At the time, Noah was unaware that Margaret — even in the weeks leading up to their wedding — was meeting secretly with multiple sex partners in England. In 1924 she would also add Harold Child and H.G. Wells to her list of playmates across the pond. Wells once flattered her by saying she had a “scientific quality of mind,” a compliment on which she preened herself even to old age. In the 1920s she also became sexually involved with three Americans: Bill Williams, Herbert Simonds, and Harold Hersey. From 1933 to 1935, in her mid-fifties, she engaged in an affair with Angus Sneed MacDonald, explaining at the end that she could not marry him because it would damage her reputation to be twice-divorced. Thus, the New Woman had to weigh private pleasures against the public appearance of virtue. Even in the 1940s, when she was in her mid-sixties, she had a six-year fling with Hobson Pittman, a landscape painter who was 20 years her junior. She told close friends that he was for fun, “not for keeps,” and that she dared not marry him, for fear of what the press might say.
Her first husband was aware of her infidelities. In response to his rebukes, she insinuated that their marriage might survive if their adulteries were mutual. It was his fault, then, if he was unadventurous, for she would accept no blame for her conduct — such being “the way of an adulterous woman, who eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done no evil’” (Prov. 30:20). Her second husband, Noah, seems to have been blind to her doings. She managed to keep him in the dark by making him sign a prenuptial contract, pledging that she would have her separate residence with separate keys and that she, the New Woman, would retain full freedom to visit and entertain friends in privacy. She guarded this privacy fiercely — as well she might. Such was the founder of Planned Parenthood. And since figs are not gathered from thorns, or grapes from the bramble bush, the organization which sprang from Ellis and Sanger still keeps the same drumbeat today, now urging the privacy rights of minors — little girls lured into promiscuity by sex-education, then advised to have abortions without parental knowledge or consent.
How empty is a life spent running from one sex partner to another! St. Augustine speaks of how people like her are in endless motion, yet going nowhere — how they “go about and stand not, how they go in the circle of error, where the journeying is without end.” Again and again she confided to her journal that she was lonely, depressed, even despairing — yet she never changed. By then, maybe, she could no longer change, since vice had turned to addiction, a form of slavery. Though she found no joy in being the New Woman, she made it her life’s work to “liberate” other women, too, from chastity and “involuntary motherhood” by means of her Birth Control League…………..CONTINUED………..
Besides this, she had an addiction to vainglory. The stories she told about herself were peppered with lies meant to make her more admirable. She was the sixth of 11 children born to poor Irish parents, but she longed to be of the privileged class, at least by marriage, so she used to claim that Bill Sanger’s father had been an English merchant and his mother the daughter of a German mayor. She knew perfectly well that her father-in-law was a Jew who had immigrated in 1878 and worked in the garment district. Moreover, having little formal education but being gifted in the art of imitation, Margaret took over the feminist agenda and rhetoric of Emma Goldman, without so much as a thank you. Much of her talk about “voluntary motherhood” through contraception came from Goldman, but she pretended it was of her own devising, never acknowledging any debt in her autobiographies, and in 1934 even refusing to support Goldman’s attempt to regain U.S. citizenship. And here is another instance of how she rewrote her past life to raise herself: In 1939 she claimed that Havelock Ellis had guided her reading at the British Museum for a year and a half, when she had been under his tutelage for only a month and a half. Her fibs were meant to make her seem more ladylike, original, and educated than she really was.
In 1914, while traveling in Europe with Lorenzo Portet, Margaret sent home articles and letters in which she made her association with him public, but hid its sexual nature, intimating that she was the guest of Portet and his wife. Her biographer notes that beyond a handful of close friends — not family members or colleagues — no one knew of her Dionysian side. She rightly feared that the American public would turn in disgust from a birth-control movement championed by so disreputable a woman. From first to last, therefore, she wore the mask of virtue and pretended to fight for birth control for altruistic reasons, rather than because her private behavior made it a dire necessity. To this day, Planned Parenthood keeps up the same pretense of virtue, spreading and supporting unbridled sexuality, while purporting to be defending the rights of privacy and individual autonomy which are allegedly enshrined (though invisibly) in the U.S. Constitution.
To prove that what she really wanted was to free women from “involuntary motherhood,” Margaret would recount again and again the same sob story about a married woman named Sadie Sachs, who allegedly died in front of her as a result of a second self-induced abortion. Her story presented Sadie as the hapless victim of benighted laws that denied poor Jewish immigrants like her easy access to birth control. Never mind that such immigrants were precisely those whose fertility the eugenicists associated with Margaret wanted to limit or suppress. Margaret provoked tears over Sadie’s plight, then launched into the “scientific” side of sex and urged that the medical profession be put in control of women’s fertility. To this day, Planned Parenthood uses the same sort of sentimental ploy to preach the message of medical control over late-term abortions and experimentation with embryos.
When Noah built her an estate in Fishkill, New York, in the 1920s, she wrote to her playmate Hugh: “If only I could fly by night to London to see you & Havelock & Harold — I’d be ready to say this is paradise.” Then, when she was in England in 1924 sleeping with two new partners, H.G. Wells and Harold Child, she sent Noah effusive love letters, protesting that “England is nothing without my adorable lover husband.” She wrote to him at length about her meetings with Harold Child, but made their association look perfectly above board. In later years she would laugh about how she fooled her husband, as for instance on February 2, 1934, when she wrote to Angus MacDonald that she had lied to Noah and his guests about the flowers she had received. If her husband grew suspicious, she rebuked him sharply and then laughed about it later with her partner. Such conduct in a woman of 55 is infantile, and it is proof she had been going in a circle for a long time. No wonder Dante draws Hell as a set of closed circles.
After the stock-market crash of 1929, Noah was virtually ruined, so Margaret felt less obligated to be by his side. She pretended she was devoting herself night and day to the birth-control movement and would spend months without seeing him (he died in 1943). Even so, she would, like Thaïs the courtesan (sunk in excrement for flatteries to lovers in Dante’s Inferno), send him flattering letters about what a terrific lover he was. When her husband grieved over the length of her absences, she told him in no uncertain terms that she was the New Woman who would never compromise her freedom or put aside her public work for any man. Sometimes, too, she used another ploy: She blamed him for misunderstanding her and thus for keeping her at a distance. Before his face, she was the aggrieved wife, but behind his back, a virtual Messalina.
At Noah’s memorial service in Fishkill, Margaret gave herself a eulogy, declaring that she had always “fascinated” Noah, for she was the “quicksilver” that he could never “quite catch.” Here she drew an uncannily accurate self-portrait. For quicksilver is mercury, a poisonous substance, and a person who is mercurial is cunning, restless, and unpredictable. Another time she told a sex partner that she was a “will o’ the wisp.” Again, she chose an eerily revealing image. For a will o’ the wisp is a delusory light that dances over a swamp and leads night travelers astray, even to their death by drowning. On some level she seems to have known how destructive a woman she was.
Since Margaret was an atheist who denied the Redemption and the Resurrection, she found guilt and death nearly impossible to face. When her daughter Peggy died of pneumonia in 1915, shortly after Margaret’s return from a year of cavorting abroad, she was haunted by the sound of halting footsteps (Peggy had limped from polio) and had nightmares of losing a child. She dreamed that she was in the middle of a disaster and worried about Peggy, and then she would realize in the dream that she had neglected her child for years and had no clue of her whereabouts. For help in this crisis she turned to the occult. Havelock Ellis introduced her to Rosicrucianism so she could empower herself by connecting to a “spark of divinity” within. He explained to her that science and this type of mysticism were not in conflict. Sunk in loneliness and despair, she would thereafter seek out psychics and theosophists to try to make contact with her child. Her dabbling in the occult led to a delusory comfort: She confided to a friend that she could now talk to her dead child and that she had created a space, separate from the rest of the world, in which Peggy could grow up to maturity. This Peter Pan substitute for the Resurrection did not keep her from bouts of depression, and her sexual escapades offered only temporary reprieves from dejection.
Toward the end of her life, she confessed that she had long ago “entrusted her spirit” to the Rosicrucian Society, yet she seemed to know little about the Society. In 1951, when she was in her 70s, she enrolled in a Rosicrucian mail-order course to learn more. From that course she became convinced that she would not die because, as her biographer reports, she saw that she “embodied the aspirations of all women on earth” and was “their chosen agent of liberation.” Evidently, the Rosicrucians were not in the business of teaching humility! In 1954 she said in an interview that she liked the Rosicrucians “because of their interest in the enhanced spiritual powers of women and their sympathy for political feminism.” In this fake spirituality she found fleeting compensation for the brutal emptiness of her scientific materialism.
After all that, it is not surprising to learn that Margaret had a rabid hatred of the Catholic Church. She rightly saw the Church as the great enemy and chief obstacle of the Birth Control League. In the 1920s Catholics presented a united front and gave public warnings that were clearly inspired and prophetic. They declared that legalizing birth control would lead to refined materialism and selfish individualism, would degrade marriage, would cause husband and wife to see each other as instruments of sexual gratification, and would weaken their self-control, as well as their capacity for self-denial. Even Gandhi agreed with the Catholic view when Margaret Sanger visited him and tried to bring him around to her worldview. Archbishop Patrick J. Hayes of New York put it bluntly: Easy access to artificial contraception would lead to a “wild orgy of atheism and immorality.” These predictions have manifestly been fulfilled.
In the 1930s Catholics also gave prophetic warning that if Margaret Sanger and her Birth Control League had their way, the floodgates of pornography would be opened and abortion would soon be legalized. A generation before Roe v. Wade, they could see that legalized abortion was around the corner once easy access to birth control made immorality rampant.
In conclusion, Margaret Sanger can be compared to Semiramis, the mythical queen of Babylon who supplanted her husband and made sexual immorality the law of the land. She did this because she herself was lascivious and her abrogation of virtue brought about the ruin of her nation. Margaret Sanger’s private life was obviously the hidden spring of her public actions. This now has to be admitted. She worked tirelessly to overturn the laws against obscenity, birth control, and abortion mainly because her secret lifestyle made all these things necessary. For at the root of her agenda and that of Planned Parenthood was and is a pseudo-scientific view of human sexuality as something even lower than the coupling of animals.
….A rich friend from early days, Mabel Dodge, recalled that Margaret was the first woman she ever knew who openly propagandized the pleasures of the flesh “as a sacred and at the same time a scientific reality.” ….
By Anne Barbeau Gardiner, New Oxford Review, September 2006
-
Anne Barbeau Gardiner is a Contributing Editor of the NOR. She has published on Dryden, Milton, and Swift, as well as on Catholics of the 17th century, and is Professor Emerita of English at John Jay College of the City University of New York.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, saw herself as “The New Woman,” one emancipated from traditional religion and morality, empowered to have sex without procreation, and able to compete publicly with men. Yet behind this façade was a soul lost in emptiness and degradation. An atheist who scorned all hope of an afterlife, Margaret Sanger lived entirely for the here and now. Born in 1879, she married twice and cheated on both spouses. Her first husband, whom she wed in August 1902 and divorced in 1921, was the socialist Bill Sanger. With him she had three much-neglected children. While married to Bill — and this is proven by letters and journals that survive — she had many affairs, some lasting for years, with such men as the Editor of American Parade Walter Roberts, the well-known English sexologist Havelock Ellis, the Spanish radical Lorenzo Portet, and the English patrician Hugh de Selincourt, as well as his wife Janet. These are facts, not rumors or suspicions, since her adulteries are well documented in the definitive biography, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America written by Ellen Chesler, who makes use of the archives in Smith College and the Library of Congress. Why did Margaret not destroy these compromising papers? Like a female Dorian Gray, she kept her scabrous self hidden away for her entire life. But perhaps she thought that was long enough and wanted to be “outed” after her death.
A rich friend from early days, Mabel Dodge, recalled that Margaret was the first woman she ever knew who openly propagandized the pleasures of the flesh “as a sacred and at the same time a scientific reality.” This is a crucial point: It was Margaret’s trademark to speak of sex with a combination of sentiment and science. Science here means the pseudo-science of eugenics, part of Herbert Spencer’s religion of evolutionism, which was a public craze at that time. Margaret and her associates wanted to legalize not just birth control, but also forced sterilization of the “unfit,” so those classes would breed less and ease the burden on rich taxpayers. In the 1920s she was subsidized by a set of wealthy people who dabbled in population control (as the ultra-rich still do today). These millionaires imagined that they were the “fit” class and that they could seize the reins from Nature and direct the evolution of the human species to a higher level. Mostly they wanted to ensure that the breeding of inferior classes would be curtailed. Angela Franks has recently published an important work, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy, which demonstrates how deeply the founder of Planned Parenthood was implicated in eugenics and in the Spencerian faith in evolutionism.
These two ways of looking at sex — sacred and scientific — would be contradictory if not for the fact that sacred here is only a smokescreen to hide the main point — that human sex is nothing more than the crude coupling of animals. When Margaret was going around lecturing about the need for medical control of human breeding and lacing her talks with sentimental rhetoric, she was only repeating what she had learned in England in 1914 from her mentor Havelock Ellis, also an atheist. Ellis taught that sex was a matter of biology and anthropology, but it could have a spiritual dimension. A precursor of Kinsey, Ellis produced the first clinical study of homosexuals, claimed their orientation was genetic, and demanded legal protection for them. He supported co-education and sex-education for children, as well as organized feminism, and he labeled as normal even the sexual perversions of sadism and masochism. Chesler says that it is “virtually impossible to overestimate” his influence on Margaret Sanger. She imbibed his theories uncritically and formed from them the basis of her birth-control agenda. She also saw his teaching as a green light for her own misbehavior.
Later, though, when Ellis’s memoirs came out posthumously in 1940, Margaret was disappointed at the romantic nostalgia with which he wrote about his marriage to Edith, a lesbian. (Part of this was the result of guilt, since his sexual infatuation with Margaret had hastened his wife’s death.) Margaret complained that these memoirs “undermined the empirical scientific basis of Ellis’s sex research and theory,” which had been the “foundation” of “her own life and work.” Here she made it perfectly clear that a “scientific” approach to sex was the groundwork of her Birth Control League, later to be called Planned Parenthood.
Margaret’s second husband was Noah Slee, a multi-millionaire who was 20 years her senior and who left his wife within months of meeting Margaret. They were married in September 1922. At the time, Noah was unaware that Margaret — even in the weeks leading up to their wedding — was meeting secretly with multiple sex partners in England. In 1924 she would also add Harold Child and H.G. Wells to her list of playmates across the pond. Wells once flattered her by saying she had a “scientific quality of mind,” a compliment on which she preened herself even to old age. In the 1920s she also became sexually involved with three Americans: Bill Williams, Herbert Simonds, and Harold Hersey. From 1933 to 1935, in her mid-fifties, she engaged in an affair with Angus Sneed MacDonald, explaining at the end that she could not marry him because it would damage her reputation to be twice-divorced. Thus, the New Woman had to weigh private pleasures against the public appearance of virtue. Even in the 1940s, when she was in her mid-sixties, she had a six-year fling with Hobson Pittman, a landscape painter who was 20 years her junior. She told close friends that he was for fun, “not for keeps,” and that she dared not marry him, for fear of what the press might say.
Her first husband was aware of her infidelities. In response to his rebukes, she insinuated that their marriage might survive if their adulteries were mutual. It was his fault, then, if he was unadventurous, for she would accept no blame for her conduct — such being “the way of an adulterous woman, who eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done no evil’” (Prov. 30:20). Her second husband, Noah, seems to have been blind to her doings. She managed to keep him in the dark by making him sign a prenuptial contract, pledging that she would have her separate residence with separate keys and that she, the New Woman, would retain full freedom to visit and entertain friends in privacy. She guarded this privacy fiercely — as well she might. Such was the founder of Planned Parenthood. And since figs are not gathered from thorns, or grapes from the bramble bush, the organization which sprang from Ellis and Sanger still keeps the same drumbeat today, now urging the privacy rights of minors — little girls lured into promiscuity by sex-education, then advised to have abortions without parental knowledge or consent.
How empty is a life spent running from one sex partner to another! St. Augustine speaks of how people like her are in endless motion, yet going nowhere — how they “go about and stand not, how they go in the circle of error, where the journeying is without end.” Again and again she confided to her journal that she was lonely, depressed, even despairing — yet she never changed. By then, maybe, she could no longer change, since vice had turned to addiction, a form of slavery. Though she found no joy in being the New Woman, she made it her life’s work to “liberate” other women, too, from chastity and “involuntary motherhood” by means of her Birth Control League…………..CONTINUED………..
Besides this, she had an addiction to vainglory. The stories she told about herself were peppered with lies meant to make her more admirable. She was the sixth of 11 children born to poor Irish parents, but she longed to be of the privileged class, at least by marriage, so she used to claim that Bill Sanger’s father had been an English merchant and his mother the daughter of a German mayor. She knew perfectly well that her father-in-law was a Jew who had immigrated in 1878 and worked in the garment district. Moreover, having little formal education but being gifted in the art of imitation, Margaret took over the feminist agenda and rhetoric of Emma Goldman, without so much as a thank you. Much of her talk about “voluntary motherhood” through contraception came from Goldman, but she pretended it was of her own devising, never acknowledging any debt in her autobiographies, and in 1934 even refusing to support Goldman’s attempt to regain U.S. citizenship. And here is another instance of how she rewrote her past life to raise herself: In 1939 she claimed that Havelock Ellis had guided her reading at the British Museum for a year and a half, when she had been under his tutelage for only a month and a half. Her fibs were meant to make her seem more ladylike, original, and educated than she really was.
In 1914, while traveling in Europe with Lorenzo Portet, Margaret sent home articles and letters in which she made her association with him public, but hid its sexual nature, intimating that she was the guest of Portet and his wife. Her biographer notes that beyond a handful of close friends — not family members or colleagues — no one knew of her Dionysian side. She rightly feared that the American public would turn in disgust from a birth-control movement championed by so disreputable a woman. From first to last, therefore, she wore the mask of virtue and pretended to fight for birth control for altruistic reasons, rather than because her private behavior made it a dire necessity. To this day, Planned Parenthood keeps up the same pretense of virtue, spreading and supporting unbridled sexuality, while purporting to be defending the rights of privacy and individual autonomy which are allegedly enshrined (though invisibly) in the U.S. Constitution.
To prove that what she really wanted was to free women from “involuntary motherhood,” Margaret would recount again and again the same sob story about a married woman named Sadie Sachs, who allegedly died in front of her as a result of a second self-induced abortion. Her story presented Sadie as the hapless victim of benighted laws that denied poor Jewish immigrants like her easy access to birth control. Never mind that such immigrants were precisely those whose fertility the eugenicists associated with Margaret wanted to limit or suppress. Margaret provoked tears over Sadie’s plight, then launched into the “scientific” side of sex and urged that the medical profession be put in control of women’s fertility. To this day, Planned Parenthood uses the same sort of sentimental ploy to preach the message of medical control over late-term abortions and experimentation with embryos.
When Noah built her an estate in Fishkill, New York, in the 1920s, she wrote to her playmate Hugh: “If only I could fly by night to London to see you & Havelock & Harold — I’d be ready to say this is paradise.” Then, when she was in England in 1924 sleeping with two new partners, H.G. Wells and Harold Child, she sent Noah effusive love letters, protesting that “England is nothing without my adorable lover husband.” She wrote to him at length about her meetings with Harold Child, but made their association look perfectly above board. In later years she would laugh about how she fooled her husband, as for instance on February 2, 1934, when she wrote to Angus MacDonald that she had lied to Noah and his guests about the flowers she had received. If her husband grew suspicious, she rebuked him sharply and then laughed about it later with her partner. Such conduct in a woman of 55 is infantile, and it is proof she had been going in a circle for a long time. No wonder Dante draws Hell as a set of closed circles.
After the stock-market crash of 1929, Noah was virtually ruined, so Margaret felt less obligated to be by his side. She pretended she was devoting herself night and day to the birth-control movement and would spend months without seeing him (he died in 1943). Even so, she would, like Thaïs the courtesan (sunk in excrement for flatteries to lovers in Dante’s Inferno), send him flattering letters about what a terrific lover he was. When her husband grieved over the length of her absences, she told him in no uncertain terms that she was the New Woman who would never compromise her freedom or put aside her public work for any man. Sometimes, too, she used another ploy: She blamed him for misunderstanding her and thus for keeping her at a distance. Before his face, she was the aggrieved wife, but behind his back, a virtual Messalina.
At Noah’s memorial service in Fishkill, Margaret gave herself a eulogy, declaring that she had always “fascinated” Noah, for she was the “quicksilver” that he could never “quite catch.” Here she drew an uncannily accurate self-portrait. For quicksilver is mercury, a poisonous substance, and a person who is mercurial is cunning, restless, and unpredictable. Another time she told a sex partner that she was a “will o’ the wisp.” Again, she chose an eerily revealing image. For a will o’ the wisp is a delusory light that dances over a swamp and leads night travelers astray, even to their death by drowning. On some level she seems to have known how destructive a woman she was.
Since Margaret was an atheist who denied the Redemption and the Resurrection, she found guilt and death nearly impossible to face. When her daughter Peggy died of pneumonia in 1915, shortly after Margaret’s return from a year of cavorting abroad, she was haunted by the sound of halting footsteps (Peggy had limped from polio) and had nightmares of losing a child. She dreamed that she was in the middle of a disaster and worried about Peggy, and then she would realize in the dream that she had neglected her child for years and had no clue of her whereabouts. For help in this crisis she turned to the occult. Havelock Ellis introduced her to Rosicrucianism so she could empower herself by connecting to a “spark of divinity” within. He explained to her that science and this type of mysticism were not in conflict. Sunk in loneliness and despair, she would thereafter seek out psychics and theosophists to try to make contact with her child. Her dabbling in the occult led to a delusory comfort: She confided to a friend that she could now talk to her dead child and that she had created a space, separate from the rest of the world, in which Peggy could grow up to maturity. This Peter Pan substitute for the Resurrection did not keep her from bouts of depression, and her sexual escapades offered only temporary reprieves from dejection.
Toward the end of her life, she confessed that she had long ago “entrusted her spirit” to the Rosicrucian Society, yet she seemed to know little about the Society. In 1951, when she was in her 70s, she enrolled in a Rosicrucian mail-order course to learn more. From that course she became convinced that she would not die because, as her biographer reports, she saw that she “embodied the aspirations of all women on earth” and was “their chosen agent of liberation.” Evidently, the Rosicrucians were not in the business of teaching humility! In 1954 she said in an interview that she liked the Rosicrucians “because of their interest in the enhanced spiritual powers of women and their sympathy for political feminism.” In this fake spirituality she found fleeting compensation for the brutal emptiness of her scientific materialism.
After all that, it is not surprising to learn that Margaret had a rabid hatred of the Catholic Church. She rightly saw the Church as the great enemy and chief obstacle of the Birth Control League. In the 1920s Catholics presented a united front and gave public warnings that were clearly inspired and prophetic. They declared that legalizing birth control would lead to refined materialism and selfish individualism, would degrade marriage, would cause husband and wife to see each other as instruments of sexual gratification, and would weaken their self-control, as well as their capacity for self-denial. Even Gandhi agreed with the Catholic view when Margaret Sanger visited him and tried to bring him around to her worldview. Archbishop Patrick J. Hayes of New York put it bluntly: Easy access to artificial contraception would lead to a “wild orgy of atheism and immorality.” These predictions have manifestly been fulfilled.
In the 1930s Catholics also gave prophetic warning that if Margaret Sanger and her Birth Control League had their way, the floodgates of pornography would be opened and abortion would soon be legalized. A generation before Roe v. Wade, they could see that legalized abortion was around the corner once easy access to birth control made immorality rampant.
In conclusion, Margaret Sanger can be compared to Semiramis, the mythical queen of Babylon who supplanted her husband and made sexual immorality the law of the land. She did this because she herself was lascivious and her abrogation of virtue brought about the ruin of her nation. Margaret Sanger’s private life was obviously the hidden spring of her public actions. This now has to be admitted. She worked tirelessly to overturn the laws against obscenity, birth control, and abortion mainly because her secret lifestyle made all these things necessary. For at the root of her agenda and that of Planned Parenthood was and is a pseudo-scientific view of human sexuality as something even lower than the coupling of animals.
May 27, 2011
Respond To Latest Guttmacher Report
Today, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates, disputed claims that restrictions on abortion "disproportionately affect" poor women. The assertion was made in, "Changes in Abortion Rates Between 2000 and 2008 and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion, published online yesterday in the June 2011 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology by researchers from the Guttmacher Institute (originally founded as a special research affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America).
"Data showing an eight percent drop in abortion rates across the board from 2000 to 2008 are encouraging," said Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life director of education and research.
"Guttmacher suggests that higher abortion rates among poorer woman and abortion restrictions are somehow connected, yet it's a thesis that goes undefended," O'Bannon further noted. "How common sense regulations like right-to-know laws, which tell women about abortion's risks and alternatives which are better for both them and their unborn children, and similar protective measures, are supposed to hurt poor women is hard to fathom."
The overall downward trend seems to indicate that such laws, along with the assistance provided by pregnancy care centers, which provide lifesaving alternatives to abortion, are enabling more women to choose life for their unborn child. However, several states - California, New York and at least a dozen others - publicly fund abortion for poor women. "While the abortion industry saw declines among most demographic groups, it just happened to see growth among women for whom states were covering abortion costs," observed O'Bannon.
The fact is, when tax dollars pay for abortion, you get more abortion," O'Bannon observed.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), according to their own 2008-2009 annual report, showed over $1 billion in revenues, including $363.3 million in "Government Grants & Contracts" (an increase from $165 million in 1998). At a time when the overall number of abortions has decreased, PPFA reports performing 332,278 abortions for the period covered in the 2009 report - accounting for more than 27% of all abortions performed annually in the United States.
O'Bannon noted: "The abortion industry likes to argue that high abortion rates are due to insufficient government funding for 'family planning,' but the record seems at odds with that assertion. As abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood has received hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, abortions at their facilities have steadily increased at rates that very nearly match their increases in government funding."
"Ultimately, the report says less about pro-life laws and more about the aggressiveness of the abortion industry that, funded by tax dollars in many states, exploited poorer women during the recession and profited from their misery. If more women choose life for their unborn children as a result of pro-life legislative initiatives, the abortion industry knows that it will adversely impact their financial bottom line," O'Bannon concluded.
Source: National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
"Data showing an eight percent drop in abortion rates across the board from 2000 to 2008 are encouraging," said Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life director of education and research.
"Guttmacher suggests that higher abortion rates among poorer woman and abortion restrictions are somehow connected, yet it's a thesis that goes undefended," O'Bannon further noted. "How common sense regulations like right-to-know laws, which tell women about abortion's risks and alternatives which are better for both them and their unborn children, and similar protective measures, are supposed to hurt poor women is hard to fathom."
The overall downward trend seems to indicate that such laws, along with the assistance provided by pregnancy care centers, which provide lifesaving alternatives to abortion, are enabling more women to choose life for their unborn child. However, several states - California, New York and at least a dozen others - publicly fund abortion for poor women. "While the abortion industry saw declines among most demographic groups, it just happened to see growth among women for whom states were covering abortion costs," observed O'Bannon.
The fact is, when tax dollars pay for abortion, you get more abortion," O'Bannon observed.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), according to their own 2008-2009 annual report, showed over $1 billion in revenues, including $363.3 million in "Government Grants & Contracts" (an increase from $165 million in 1998). At a time when the overall number of abortions has decreased, PPFA reports performing 332,278 abortions for the period covered in the 2009 report - accounting for more than 27% of all abortions performed annually in the United States.
O'Bannon noted: "The abortion industry likes to argue that high abortion rates are due to insufficient government funding for 'family planning,' but the record seems at odds with that assertion. As abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood has received hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, abortions at their facilities have steadily increased at rates that very nearly match their increases in government funding."
"Ultimately, the report says less about pro-life laws and more about the aggressiveness of the abortion industry that, funded by tax dollars in many states, exploited poorer women during the recession and profited from their misery. If more women choose life for their unborn children as a result of pro-life legislative initiatives, the abortion industry knows that it will adversely impact their financial bottom line," O'Bannon concluded.
Source: National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
May 20, 2011
Great Moments in Eugenics History
Charles Davenport was a prominent member of the American Eugenics Society in the early 1900s. Davenport, a biologist, founded the Eugenics Records Office at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 1910, which became the “scientific” crux of the American eugenics movement in the early 1900s. The ERO constructed pedigrees to document the “fitness” or “unfitness” of different American families and lobbied for compulsory sterilization. Davenport maintained extensive ties with German eugenicists Nazi movement in the 1930s. Here is what Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote to Charles Davenport in 1921:
a discussion follows this post
As the subject of the findings of the Eugenics Records Office with which you are connected at Cold Springs Harbor, on the heredity of disease tendencies, is really fundamental to a fair consideration of Birth Control, I am going to ask if you would give a paper on the subject, irrespective of whether you care to speak as an advocate of Birth Control or not……at a conference Sanger was then organizing. Ja, rhepeit aftzer me: Ze pedigrees für ze fit und unfit families ahr fündamental to ze Birth Kontrol solution ve ahr planning.
a discussion follows this post
April 18, 2011
US: Why fiscal conservatives care about Planned Parenthood
The shock is palpable across the Beltway media upon hearing Harry Reid confirm that, yes, it's the funding of Planned Parenthood that is the main sticking point in the budget negotiations that threaten a shutdown of the federal government.
Shocking because what's at stake – federal subsidies for contraception, cancer screening and STD testing – are largely uncontroversial. Shocking because while the rabid sex-hating, abortion-demented, abstinence-only crowd has a lot of power over Republicans, it was assumed they didn't own them wholesale – especially since the majority of Republicans support contraception use. Shocking because the common wisdom in DC was that the new Tea Party-controlled Republicans were about "fiscal conservatism", and the Republican demands for the defunding of Planned Parenthood are pure, old-school culture warring.
Not to gloat, but I did predict back in February that this would be the issue that brought everything to a head. The reason the conventional wisdom is wrong on this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "fiscal conservatism".
The belief is that fiscal conservatives are merely debt-averse and want to cut spending, while the fact that these so-called fiscal conservatives routinely elect Republicans who drive up the deficit is ignored. But I would argue that fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with the deficit, and is, instead, about who conservatives believe is and isn't deserving of government largesse.
It is and always has been about excluding from the social contract poorer people, unmarried women, gays, liberals, pointy-headed intellectuals and, especially, people of colour, and keeping all government spending aimed at white, conservative Christians – the richer, the better.
Planned Parenthood has become a symbol of the kind of government spending that fiscal conservatives reject.
The clientele of Planned Parenthood is the intersection of many groups that are considered unworthy by fiscal conservatives: lower-income, female, assumed to be unmarried and/or queer. Conservatives have argued, roughly forever, that such women should be cut off from any federal spending, with the hope that deprivation will force them to marry for sustenance.
If women can avoid childbirth, they're less needy, and in the conservative imagination, that much more likely to avoid getting married for support. The fact that Planned Parenthood touches on the anti-sex faction of the Republican party is an added bonus, ensuring that they'll have rabid support from anti-choicers.
In the 1980s, Reagan was able to catalyse the resentments of fiscal conservatives into the image of the "welfare queen". The stereotype was of a black woman who takes taxpayers' money and uses it to buy herself Cadillacs and other such luxuries. Reagan claimed to have evidence that such a woman existed, but it was never presented or found.
Essentially, what has happened on the right is that this image has been updated to what I'd call the "welfare slut": a low-income woman who is screwing on your dime, while you're out there working and your own sex life leaves much to be desired. (They can probably count on this resentment because most people would get laid more if they could.)
The welfare slut has been invoked, if subsequently retracted, by Kirsten Powers, who painted women who use subsidised contraception as addled-brained sluts who end up getting abortions anyway because they're too stupid to use the contraception the government gives them. The welfare slut was also imagined by Dana Loesch, who described the patients and supporters of Planned Parenthood this way:
"But you're not empowered when you're expecting Uncle Sam to act like your sugar daddy, and take care of your abortions and take care of your birth control, and pay your bills and everything else?"
The image of the welfare slut has been carefully constructed by the right in recent months to be as racist as possible, as well.
A nationwide billboard campaign linking black women and abortion invokes the Reagan-era stereotype of black women as neglectful mothers and over-sexed harridans, and reinforces the message to the base that the only way to put these women in their place is take away their reproductive healthcare.
The campaign has worked beautifully with the Republican base, even among those who might otherwise support the right to abortion and contraception. A liberal writer at Salon talking about her strange friendship with a pro-choice Republican captured a perfect example of how this works:
"She told me she didn't believe government had any business funding [Planned Parenthood] in the first place. That this isn't about abortion or hating women but ways the government doesn't need to be involved."
It's not that fiscal conservatives are against sex or contraception. They're all for it … for themselves. It's those slutty women taking government money who need to be cut off.
So, for those wondering how it can be that something as minor as the funding of Planned Parenthood could be the dealbreaker that threatens a government shutdown, I would say that it's not minor on the right.
It's a symbol of everything they believe about who and who isn't deserving of government spending. This is about sending a strong message to the base that Republicans take seriously the mandate to cut off everyone not considered, to borrow Sarah Palin's phrase, a "Real American".
For any genuine fiscal conservatives out there, the evidence is that cutting off Planned Parenthood would actually raise government expenditures. But the Republican base won't mind that as long as the money isn't going to the "wrong people".
Source: A Marcotte, The Guardian (UK), 8 April 2011
April 16, 2011
Planned Parenthood and the Soviet Model
пионер = всем ребятам пример
"[W]e could well take example from Russia," advised Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, "where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government."
My, how far modern liberal Democrats have progressed.
Sanger, Planned Parenthood matron and racial-eugenicist, who ran a "Negro Project," who spoke to a KKK rally in 1926, who wished to rid America of its "human weeds" and "morons" and "imbeciles," and who wanted birth control for "race improvement," had just returned from a pilgrimage to Stalin's Russia. Like many Potemkin progressives, she went there to soak in the glorious triumphs of the communist motherland. Each progressive dupe had a particular interest; John Dewey, for instance, hailed the Bolsheviks' "Great Experiment" in public education. Sanger marveled at Lenin's and Stalin's wondrous advancements for women.
And so, in the June 1935 edition of her flagship publication, Birth Control Review, in an article titled, "Birth Control in Russia," Sanger concluded:
Now there, ladies and gentleman, is progressive utopianism, an absolute faith in central planners. Contrary to the Planned Parenthood founder's optimism, abortions skyrocketed to seven million annually (overestimte;) in the USSR.
Looks like Margaret Sanger was wrong on that one. Talk about being duped.
What struck me in recently re-reading this article is how Democrats in America have arrived at Sanger's ideal, where Planned Parenthood's services have become, in their mind, "part of the regular welfare service of the government" -- just like good old Stalinist Russia.
Consider the hysterical response by Democrats to completely legitimate Republican attempts -- amid record deficits and debt levels -- to cut taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood:
"The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate," vowed Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), echoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who told House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) that there's no chance defunding would pass the Senate. Indeed, how could there be? Democrats have a majority there.
Reid said Republicans had placed a "bull's eye on women in America," preventing them from getting "health services they need."
Democrats are united in their vitriol: "The real reason that the right-wing extremists in Congress orchestrated this outrageous government shutdown is to try and defund Planned Parenthood as part of their ideological assault on women's health care," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO).
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) calmly explained, "This is a war on women. They're trying to inject their politics and their religion into local family planning."
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) insisted that defunding efforts were "nothing more than an opportunity for the right wing in the House to sock it to women."
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it a "very dangerous situation for the health -- the reproductive health -- of women across our country." Pelosi told reporters: "It's degrading to women; it's disrespectful; it doesn't make any sense; and if you want to reduce the number of abortions in our country, you must commit to supporting contraception and family planning." The lifelong Roman Catholic and mother of five said Republicans were using Planned Parenthood as a "whipping boy."
And the always measured Barbara Boxer described Republican efforts as a "vendetta" against women, insisting, "Behind each of these Republican proposed cuts, there are thousands, maybe millions of people who would be hurt."
I thought liberals had called for civility? Well, I guess civility stops when conservatives want to kill American women.
Remember when President Obama referred to "tax cuts for the wealthy" as the Republicans' "Holy Grail"? Well, taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood appears to be the Democrats' Holy Grail (click here). As was reported earlier this week, as Obama and Boehner battled over a budget compromise, Obama drew a line in the sand. As Boehner pushed the president to defund Planned Parenthood, Obama finally snapped: "Nope. Zero. John, this is it."
The room fell silent. Obama had hoisted the Holy Grail.
You'd think from Democrats' reaction that taxpayer funding of the nation's largest abortion provider was Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, an inalienable right in the Declaration, the heart of Federalist 10, Washington's Farewell Address, the writings of Franklin and Adams and John Locke, the cornerstone of the New Deal and Great Society, a sacred political covenant with the American taxpayer, etched in cement at the base of the Washington Monument.
It's preposterous that America has run so far aground that one could even seriously entertain directing taxpayer dollars to America's largest abortion provider. The "right" to an abortion had to be read into the Constitution, at the total exclusion of sections guaranteeing a right to life, such as the 14th Amendment. Abortion was read into the "right to privacy," three words which themselves don't exist in the Constitution. Democrats should praise their stars that they have that much; even then, it isn't enough. Now they want those of us who are pro-life to fork over our dollars to an organization that exterminates more unborn babies (millions of them) than any other. It's downright obscene.
The Democratic Party has truly lost it.
It took Democrats a while to get there, but, finally, almost a century after the launching of the Bolshevik Revolution and Margaret Sanger's organization, they've finally arrived at where Sanger and the Soviets found common ground. They indeed act as if, as Sanger said about Stalin's Russia, "birth control… is part of the regular service of the government."
The saddest thing of all is that neither they, nor their supporters, nor America, seem to comprehend the outrageousness of their position.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
"[W]e could well take example from Russia," advised Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, "where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government."
My, how far modern liberal Democrats have progressed.
Sanger, Planned Parenthood matron and racial-eugenicist, who ran a "Negro Project," who spoke to a KKK rally in 1926, who wished to rid America of its "human weeds" and "morons" and "imbeciles," and who wanted birth control for "race improvement," had just returned from a pilgrimage to Stalin's Russia. Like many Potemkin progressives, she went there to soak in the glorious triumphs of the communist motherland. Each progressive dupe had a particular interest; John Dewey, for instance, hailed the Bolsheviks' "Great Experiment" in public education. Sanger marveled at Lenin's and Stalin's wondrous advancements for women.
And so, in the June 1935 edition of her flagship publication, Birth Control Review, in an article titled, "Birth Control in Russia," Sanger concluded:
Theoretically, there are no obstacles to birth control in Russia. It is accepted … on the grounds of health and human right…. [W]e could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.I could quote more, including this jaw-dropping prediction: "All the officials with whom I discussed the matter stated that as soon as the economic and social plans of Soviet Russia are realized, neither abortions nor contraception will be necessary or desired. A functioning Communistic society will assure the happiness of every child, and will assume the full responsibility for its welfare and education."
Now there, ladies and gentleman, is progressive utopianism, an absolute faith in central planners. Contrary to the Planned Parenthood founder's optimism, abortions skyrocketed to seven million annually (overestimte;) in the USSR.
Looks like Margaret Sanger was wrong on that one. Talk about being duped.
What struck me in recently re-reading this article is how Democrats in America have arrived at Sanger's ideal, where Planned Parenthood's services have become, in their mind, "part of the regular welfare service of the government" -- just like good old Stalinist Russia.
Consider the hysterical response by Democrats to completely legitimate Republican attempts -- amid record deficits and debt levels -- to cut taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood:
"The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate," vowed Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), echoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who told House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) that there's no chance defunding would pass the Senate. Indeed, how could there be? Democrats have a majority there.
Reid said Republicans had placed a "bull's eye on women in America," preventing them from getting "health services they need."
Democrats are united in their vitriol: "The real reason that the right-wing extremists in Congress orchestrated this outrageous government shutdown is to try and defund Planned Parenthood as part of their ideological assault on women's health care," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO).
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) calmly explained, "This is a war on women. They're trying to inject their politics and their religion into local family planning."
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) insisted that defunding efforts were "nothing more than an opportunity for the right wing in the House to sock it to women."
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it a "very dangerous situation for the health -- the reproductive health -- of women across our country." Pelosi told reporters: "It's degrading to women; it's disrespectful; it doesn't make any sense; and if you want to reduce the number of abortions in our country, you must commit to supporting contraception and family planning." The lifelong Roman Catholic and mother of five said Republicans were using Planned Parenthood as a "whipping boy."
And the always measured Barbara Boxer described Republican efforts as a "vendetta" against women, insisting, "Behind each of these Republican proposed cuts, there are thousands, maybe millions of people who would be hurt."
I thought liberals had called for civility? Well, I guess civility stops when conservatives want to kill American women.
Remember when President Obama referred to "tax cuts for the wealthy" as the Republicans' "Holy Grail"? Well, taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood appears to be the Democrats' Holy Grail (click here). As was reported earlier this week, as Obama and Boehner battled over a budget compromise, Obama drew a line in the sand. As Boehner pushed the president to defund Planned Parenthood, Obama finally snapped: "Nope. Zero. John, this is it."
The room fell silent. Obama had hoisted the Holy Grail.
You'd think from Democrats' reaction that taxpayer funding of the nation's largest abortion provider was Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, an inalienable right in the Declaration, the heart of Federalist 10, Washington's Farewell Address, the writings of Franklin and Adams and John Locke, the cornerstone of the New Deal and Great Society, a sacred political covenant with the American taxpayer, etched in cement at the base of the Washington Monument.
It's preposterous that America has run so far aground that one could even seriously entertain directing taxpayer dollars to America's largest abortion provider. The "right" to an abortion had to be read into the Constitution, at the total exclusion of sections guaranteeing a right to life, such as the 14th Amendment. Abortion was read into the "right to privacy," three words which themselves don't exist in the Constitution. Democrats should praise their stars that they have that much; even then, it isn't enough. Now they want those of us who are pro-life to fork over our dollars to an organization that exterminates more unborn babies (millions of them) than any other. It's downright obscene.
The Democratic Party has truly lost it.
It took Democrats a while to get there, but, finally, almost a century after the launching of the Bolshevik Revolution and Margaret Sanger's organization, they've finally arrived at where Sanger and the Soviets found common ground. They indeed act as if, as Sanger said about Stalin's Russia, "birth control… is part of the regular service of the government."
The saddest thing of all is that neither they, nor their supporters, nor America, seem to comprehend the outrageousness of their position.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
April 9, 2011
1 из самых популярных контраргументов
ниже по тэгу Wells можно найти (моё:) разъяснение о спортивный признаках
Margaret Sanger was an angry, elitist woman who wanted to eradicate the lower classes, including those whose only sin was the color of their skin or their economic condition
+ коллекция линек
++ In defense of the most ridiculed and unappreciated being on the planet…THE WHITE MALE
March 18, 2011
ещё одно опровержение от MSPP
молодцы, не ленятся разгребать льющееся нескончаемым потоком дерьмо
но, замечу, что нормальный человек всегда проигрывает подонку, потому что подонок пойдёт на всё, а нормальный человек -- нет; для него и законы писаны и мораль тоже его
как раз сейчас читаю In cold blood by T. Capote, идея, конечно, не новая, но от этого она не становится неверной (любезное сердцу.ру двойное отрицание)
January 9, 2011
возможно повтор
ну, и пусть :)
an extreme pro-life group has archived pdfs of a ton of Margaret Sanger's writing, including all of the issues of the BCR, online.
меня тоже удивило такое бережное отношение к наследию врага
инфа отсюда
an extreme pro-life group has archived pdfs of a ton of Margaret Sanger's writing, including all of the issues of the BCR, online.
меня тоже удивило такое бережное отношение к наследию врага
инфа отсюда
January 3, 2011
стандартный аргумент
или стойка на голове:
Race also matters with abortion rates. When black people are registering around 40% of the country's abortions and only around 12% of the population, there is an undeniable problem that colorblindness doesn't help to fix -- especially when you consider Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's dream of wiping out black people and that a vast majority of Planned Parenthoods are -- rather fortuitously -- located in black neighborhoods.
идеи и их следствия
выудил в блоге семейной безопасности
According to Wikipedia:
“At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of ‘defectives’ that had been pioneered in the United States.”
December 4, 2010
Сэнгер и Гарри Поттер
бумажный проект сообщает: Гарри Поттре добрался до Сэнгер, точнее, некий коментатор кина приписал то, чего не было, то-есть, расизм и проч человеконенавистничество:
“Perhaps the most striking element in the film is the parallels to fascist and Marxist regimes. As the Ministry of Magic is infiltrated by demonic powers who intend to rid the wizarding world of “halfbloods” (half mortals/half wizards) and create the perfect race of wizarding creatures, one cannot help but draw connections to Adolf Hitler or American eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger. The powers that be are disgusted by the very idea of “halfbloods” breeding with “fullbloods,” believing “halfbloods” to be of far lesser stock.”
разоблачение тут
“Perhaps the most striking element in the film is the parallels to fascist and Marxist regimes. As the Ministry of Magic is infiltrated by demonic powers who intend to rid the wizarding world of “halfbloods” (half mortals/half wizards) and create the perfect race of wizarding creatures, one cannot help but draw connections to Adolf Hitler or American eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger. The powers that be are disgusted by the very idea of “halfbloods” breeding with “fullbloods,” believing “halfbloods” to be of far lesser stock.”
разоблачение тут
November 29, 2010
антисэнгеровская статейка
с любопытным набором ссылок, кои надо просмотреть
See Article,
Nield, Michael. “The Police State Road Map.” March 2005.http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/policestate_roadmap/policestate_roadmap.htm#Contents specifically, Chapter 2, “The Great Trust.”http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/policestate_roadmap/policestate_roadmap02.htm Accessed May 25, 2010.
[2] Griffin, G. Edward. “World Without Cancer.” 2nd edition. American Media. 1997. P. 235-236.
See Also,
Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[3] Griffin, G. Edward. “World Without Cancer.” 2nd edition. American Media. 1997. P. 235-236.
[4] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[5] National Park Service: Biographical Vignettes – John D. Rockefeller.http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sontag/rockefeller.htm
[6] Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/about/people/international_advisory_board.html Accessed on April 28, 2010.
[7] The Trilateral Commission: Membership. http://www.trilateral.org/memb.htm Accessed on April 28, 2010.
[8] National Park Service: Biographical Vignettes – John D. Rockefeller.http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sontag/rockefeller.htm
[9] Marrs, Jim. “Rule By Secrecy.” Harper. 2000. Pp. 20-58.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Black, Edwin. “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.” History News Network, George Mason University. November 11, 2003. http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
[12] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[13] Black, Edwin. “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.” History News Network, George Mason University. November 11, 2003. http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
[14] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[15] Takeuchi, Aiko. “The Transnational Politics of Public Health and Population Control: The Rockefeller Foundation’s Role in Japan, 1920’s – 1950’s.” Rockefeller Archives. 2009.http://www.rockarch.org/publications/resrep/takeuchi.pdf
[16] “Birth Control or Race Control?” Margaret Sanger Papers Project #28, Fall 2001. New York University. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html
[17] “Birth Control Organizations – American Birth Control League – About Margaret Sanger.” New York University. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/organization_abcl.html
[18] United Nations Population Fund website. http://www.unfpa.org/public/about Accessed April 29, 2010.
[19] Watson, Steve; Watson, Paul Joseph; Jones, Alex. “Professor’s ‘Kill 90% of Population’ Comments Echo UN, Elite NGO Policies.” April 4, 2006.http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406_b_depopulation.htm
[20] “Medisin.” Whitaker, Scott; Fleming, Jose. Divine Protection Publications. 2007. Pp. 12-14.
See Also,
Rockwell, Llewellyn Jr. “Medical Control, Medical Corruption.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html
See Article,
Nield, Michael. “The Police State Road Map.” March 2005.http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/policestate_roadmap/policestate_roadmap.htm#Contents specifically, Chapter 2, “The Great Trust.”http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/policestate_roadmap/policestate_roadmap02.htm Accessed May 25, 2010.
[2] Griffin, G. Edward. “World Without Cancer.” 2nd edition. American Media. 1997. P. 235-236.
See Also,
Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[3] Griffin, G. Edward. “World Without Cancer.” 2nd edition. American Media. 1997. P. 235-236.
[4] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[5] National Park Service: Biographical Vignettes – John D. Rockefeller.http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sontag/rockefeller.htm
[6] Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/about/people/international_advisory_board.html Accessed on April 28, 2010.
[7] The Trilateral Commission: Membership. http://www.trilateral.org/memb.htm Accessed on April 28, 2010.
[8] National Park Service: Biographical Vignettes – John D. Rockefeller.http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sontag/rockefeller.htm
[9] Marrs, Jim. “Rule By Secrecy.” Harper. 2000. Pp. 20-58.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Black, Edwin. “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.” History News Network, George Mason University. November 11, 2003. http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
[12] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[13] Black, Edwin. “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.” History News Network, George Mason University. November 11, 2003. http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
[14] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[15] Takeuchi, Aiko. “The Transnational Politics of Public Health and Population Control: The Rockefeller Foundation’s Role in Japan, 1920’s – 1950’s.” Rockefeller Archives. 2009.http://www.rockarch.org/publications/resrep/takeuchi.pdf
[16] “Birth Control or Race Control?” Margaret Sanger Papers Project #28, Fall 2001. New York University. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html
[17] “Birth Control Organizations – American Birth Control League – About Margaret Sanger.” New York University. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/organization_abcl.html
[18] United Nations Population Fund website. http://www.unfpa.org/public/about Accessed April 29, 2010.
[19] Watson, Steve; Watson, Paul Joseph; Jones, Alex. “Professor’s ‘Kill 90% of Population’ Comments Echo UN, Elite NGO Policies.” April 4, 2006.http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406_b_depopulation.htm
[20] “Medisin.” Whitaker, Scott; Fleming, Jose. Divine Protection Publications. 2007. Pp. 12-14.
See Also,
Rockwell, Llewellyn Jr. “Medical Control, Medical Corruption.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html
отсутствие мозга или совести ?
Of course this is idiotic, but no one who buys or reads Palin’s book really cares about actual, factual feminist history.
отсюда
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
