Margaret Sanger Being An Idiot During World War II

Saturday, September 20, AD 2014

 

Hattip to Instapundit.  A salute to Dalrock for coming up with another example of the font of stupidity that was Margaret Sanger:

In my last post I quoted from a radio program delivered by Margaret Sanger discussing the hardships women face in marriage and the importance of marriage counseling.  Sanger described a young mother she met the day before on the train:

she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”

I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.

The date of the program was July 19, 1944.  This was just a little over a month after D Day and before the Normandy breakout.  World War II was very much still raging in Europe, and American men were still fighting and dying there.  Yet at this very time we had (if we believe the story), a woman complaining to strangers on a train about the exciting adventures her husband was enjoying in the European theater (most likely as a result of being drafted).  

Continue reading...

56 Responses to Margaret Sanger Being An Idiot During World War II

  • Women now days are self-centered and I will not disrespect the men on this video by saying something horrible about women! My father was in Korea and was a firefighter putting his life on the line to save people and my mother’s response was ” THE BEST THING IN MY LIFE WAS YOUR FATHER!” Perhaps many women today could learn a thing or to from her! MAY THESE MEN REST IN PEACE AND THANK YOU ALL EVERYONE OF YOU ALL FOR YOUR SACRIFICE!

  • Sacrifice!

    Agape love. This is the bottom line.
    A mother trying to hang on without the help of the father. Sacrifice. The father risking his life for neighbors. Sacrifice.
    This is the highest form of love, yet look at the darkness of M. Sanger. To exclude the truth of sacrifice and replace it with envy was, is the foundation of the new woman. The woman envious. The license to kill instead of love. The opposite of agape.
    The foundation of the deaths of over 58 million unborn lives. Sanger and those who treasure her beliefs are from an enemy camp. An enemy of humanity.

  • Phillip, well said. However, I wonder if beyond these snippets of understanding we glimpse between the young mother and her husband and leaving out Margaret Sanger for a moment, perhaps what’s missing for the young mother is her husband not relating to her hardships and understanding her sacrifice as well. Husbands are called to understand their wives and possibly when this is absent, he has fueled her feelings of unease with the situation, herself, him. I loathe what Margaret S. fostered in this world, fueled from her own envy, but maybe for this husband and wife, their are more issues at play.

  • Cindee.

    Thank you for your observations.
    I did make a blanket statement which I did not mean to encompass all. There are myriads of circumstances, however the sower of the seed, M. Sanger, is the weed planting witch infusing a toxin that has been heralded as modern progressive elixir for disgruntled women.

    I am sympathetic to womens hardships, but not at the expense of anothers life.

    Doris Day, (not the actor) is an example of heroic virtue in the face of extreme hardship.

  • MS likely, in part or in toto, fabricated the encounter.
    .

    Yes, I’m no fan of feminism. My uncle John (RIP) was married when he went overseas with the “Big Red One.” He fought with them from North Africa to Germany. He survived the D-Day landing. That woman left him for another man while he was overseas. And, while he was away having fun, his (my great-grandmother) mother suffered a massive stroke and he could never speak with her again.
    .

    No man can understand or appreciate the “hardship” and “sacrifice” that motherhood involves. Dealing with young children makes months of infantry/combat training, endless cold/wet, scorching/arid fatigues, cramped-ship-borne travel in U-boat infested seas, and intense hours/minutes of sudden death or dismemberment seem like fun.

  • Perhaps, Cindee, but we don’t know that the woman’s husband didn’t express such sympathy. Perhaps he didn’t, perhaps he did but not enough, and perhaps he did.
    It’s also possible that the woman was being sarcastic in her use of the word ‘fun’ – meaning her view was closer to Don McClarey’s – and the sarcasm went right over Sanger’s head (“hmmm, lemme see, what’s more likely, that this woman’s comment fits my prejudices concerning male-female roles, or could it possibly be a critique of a lack of enough gravity while people suffer – naw, it couldn’t be the later!” BTW, the husband’s ‘lightness’ may have been a stress mechanism and was misunderstood as such.
    Thinking about it, I’m not sure I would take Sanger’s account at face value.

  • Mr. Shaw, I missed your “MS likely, in part or in toto, fabricated the encounter” comment when I wrote mine. Sorry. Funny we came to the same conclusion

  • T. Shaw-

    One more to add to your list.
    PTSD. My uncle served under Four Star Gen. Patton as a tank driver. He survived the Buldge, however he was changed forever. He struggled with civilian life. Long haul trucking was his therapy. Being on the road away from others help keep him sane.

    Two year olds are challenging, Omaha beach complete hell on earth.

  • From “A Heart on Fire” by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.:
    .
    “Without the restraints of a moral consensus animated and defended by a living religious community, the freedom of the individual easily becomes a license for selfishness.”
    .
    Satan whispers in our ears the lovely song of self-serving delight. We are told that we’re not hurting anybody, that it’s just for some enjoyment, and after all, if God loves us, doesn’t He want us to be happy?
    .
    Sanger, and all Progressives alike, have drunk deep from this well. They must exclude the existence of God and the higher callings that provide honest happiness – the ones that feed our souls and work for the glory of He who made us – in order to perpetuate the lie given them by the Father of Lies.

  • “MS likely, in part or in toto, fabricated the encounter.”

    It has been my experience that any time (no exceptions) there is/are a supposed fact/facts being used to push/support a liberal agenda–that the “fact/facts” is/are a lie/lies. Case in point: The head of Planned Parenthood testifying that partial birth abortion is rare in this country in order to provide cover for Bill Clinton to veto a federal partial birth abortion ban. It was made public after the fact of the veto that one NJ abortion clinic had killed 1200 babies in the year previous to the veto (yes, just one clinic & just one year.) It also turned out that the head of PP knew he was lying to Congress at the time he was stating the falsehoods. What a shock! *sarcasm*

  • Sorry! Re: my previous post: the NJ abortion clinic killed those 1200 babies in one year by using the partial birth abortion method–the very method that was being proclaimed to be “rare” & ” safe.”

  • “Satan whispers in our ears the lovely song of self-serving delight. We are told that we’re not hurting anybody, that it’s just for some enjoyment, and after all, if God loves us, doesn’t He want us to be happy?”

    I WISH most women thought that what they were doing was OK with God. In the last year, I have had a coworker tell me point blank that she KNOWS abortion is wrong & simply does not care–that she is going to do it anyway. One can work with those who do not understand the difference between right & wrong. May God have mercy on those who say, “I know this is murder in God’s eyes and am absolutely determined to commit murder anyway.”

  • Very well stated Phillip. I would only add her current supporters seem to use the same motiff e.g., fabricate personal stories of personal knowledge they know will never be authenticated as to veracity that convey a shallow and selfish perspective focused on the me and my. The my of course referring to their bodies in support of their sacrament of abortion, patently a lie most scientifically proven such that gymnastic legalisms as to “personhood” must be employed.

  • If we can leave Margaret Sanger out of it for a moment and just focus on what this anonymous housewife reportedly said, it is quite plausible. I would think that her husband, in writing letters home, would probably leave out most of the gory details, not wanting to burden her or make her worry about his safety, and would try to focus on the positive. Plus, his letters were almost certainly censored by the military and any details that could reveal where he was fighting or the number or type of casualties his unit was suffering, or inflicting on the enemy, would have to be left out. So all that he COULD talk about, perhaps, would be stuff that would make it sound as if he were on a great adventure of some kind, and even if she knew intellectually that his job was not all “fun” she probably couldn’t help but feel a bit envious. Bear in mind, also, that gasoline rationing and car ownership not being as prevalent at that time probably meant she didn’t get out of her house or neighborhood very often. Also, we are not told why she was on the train or where she was going. It may not have been a “pleasure” trip; perhaps she was on her way to visit an ill or distressed or difficult relative.

    About 20 years ago I met a very exemplary Catholic wife, whose husband was in the military over in, I believe, Bosnia, who admitted to similar feelings of jealousy toward him at times — “you get to see the world and I’m stuck at home wiping the kids’ noses all day!” This woman was NOT naive or spoiled, she knew her husband’s job was dangerous, but she admitted to feeling that way at times.

    All that said, the solution to the bored/trapped housewife’s problem was not for her to divorce her husband or abort her children, but simply for someone to give her an occasional break by offering to babysit or take her kids to the park, etc. while she did something else. If her husband were not willing to do it, a friend, relative or neighbor could have.

  • Thank you Mr. McClarey for the kind words and the link.

    @Elaine Krewer

    …even if she knew intellectually that his job was not all “fun” she probably couldn’t help but feel a bit envious.

    About 20 years ago I met a very exemplary Catholic wife, whose husband was in the military over in, I believe, Bosnia, who admitted to similar feelings of jealousy toward him at times — “you get to see the world and I’m stuck at home wiping the kids’ noses all day!” This woman was NOT naive or spoiled, she knew her husband’s job was dangerous, but she admitted to feeling that way at times.

    All that said, the solution to the bored/trapped housewife’s problem was not for her to divorce her husband or abort her children, but simply for someone to give her an occasional break by offering to babysit or take her kids to the park, etc. while she did something else. If her husband were not willing to do it, a friend, relative or neighbor could have.

    The problem we have today is that we can’t spot the sin of feminist rebellion when it is right in front of us. No matter how egregious the example, it will be rationalized away. To be honest, we have probably always found this difficult, even in Sanger’s time and before.

    Above you have described two wives sinning in envy of their husbands, a characteristic form of sin we are advised of in Genesis. In the first case you describe it as normal, and in the second case you describe is as the model of an exemplary Catholic wife.

    There is no such thing as sin in our modern world when it comes to wives, only the need for more help with childcare. Sanger would be proud.

  • I never said these women were right or justified in how they felt, only that I tended to believe the woman-on-the-train story COULD have actually happened, in contrast to those who suggested that Sanger probably just made it up to advance her point. The second woman I described as an “exemplary Catholic” not because her OCCASIONAL twinges of jealousy were worthy of emulation, but because she was a committed, orthodox Catholic, very involved in her parish and in the pro-life movement, and also homeschooled her older children. In other words, she was one of the last people on earth I would have suspected of being guilty of the “sin of feminist rebellion”.

  • Margaret Sanger was jealous of God.

  • @Elaine Krewer

    I never said these women were right or justified in how they felt, only that I tended to believe the woman-on-the-train story COULD have actually happened, in contrast to those who suggested that Sanger probably just made it up to advance her point. The second woman I described as an “exemplary Catholic” not because her OCCASIONAL twinges of jealousy were worthy of emulation, but because she was a committed, orthodox Catholic, very involved in her parish and in the pro-life movement, and also homeschooled her older children. In other words, she was one of the last people on earth I would have suspected of being guilty of the “sin of feminist rebellion”.

    If you spotted the feminist rebellion, why the need to invent a whole series of justifications for the woman on the train in rebellion? Acknowledging it as a standard issue and very common sin would suffice in explaining that it could have happened. Why invent a series of details to paint Sanger’s housewife in a more favorable light? And why keep Sanger out of it, since either way Sanger is telling this story to sell her favorite sin, the sin of feminist rebellion? Sanger didn’t enjoy killing babies, abortion was merely a means to the end of this favorite sin of hers. She even published a monthly named after her favorite sin: “The Women Rebel”.

    Moreover, why not ever acknowledge the sin, and why did you propose as the solution to said sin not repentance, but the feminist solution of the husband taking over more of the childcare? No doubt Sanger would be delighted with your proposal, but therein lies the problem.

  • And why keep Sanger out of it, since either way Sanger is telling this story to sell her favorite sin, the sin of feminist rebellion? Sanger didn’t enjoy killing babies, abortion was merely a means to the end of this favorite sin of hers. She even published a monthly named after her favorite sin: “The Women Rebel”.

    Sanger was an advocate of eugenics. Not everything is properly jammed into the procrustian bed of your thinking.

  • Margaret Sanger won popular influence as she capitalized on people’s sense of victimhood. Devilish.

  • Art,

    My nearly 700-page Webster’s NewWorld Thesuarus does not include the word “procrustean.” I found it in a google search.

    I’m impressed.

  • @Art Deco

    Sanger was an advocate of eugenics. Not everything is properly jammed into the procrustian bed of your thinking.

    I don’t see the relevance of Sanger’s eugenics or your ad hominem. Are you accusing me of being unwavering in my faith? And how does this nulify the valid questions I asked?

    Why not name the sin? Why go to such great lengths to describe the sin as reasonable and understandable? Why propose a feminist solution (the husband takes over more child care) as the solution to the sin of feminist rebellion, instead of proposing repentance?

    Call me more names if you wish, but it won’t matter tho those who read carefully.

  • Err, pretty sure that wasn’t an ad hominem.

  • “why did you propose as the solution to said sin not repentance, but the feminist solution of the husband taking over more of the childcare? No doubt Sanger would be delighted with your proposal, but therein lies the problem.”

    So giving a stay at home mom an occasional break from taking care of her kids is sinful in your book? If she’s going bananas cooped up at home, she should just “repent” of her “rebellion” and push all thoughts of having even a couple of hours to herself out of her mind? That way of thinking, sorry to say, feeds right into Sanger’s argument — that divorce, contraception and abortion are the ONLY alternative to a life of unrelieved drudgery and isolation for women.

    Call it a “feminist solution” but I would think that if asking one’s husband or a friend or relative to watch the kids so you can get an occasional afternoon or evening out keeps you from having a nervous breakdown, developing an addiction, or taking out your frustrations on your kids via verbal or physical abuse, I see nothing wrong with that. If Sanger “would have approved” of this idea, well, a stopped clock is right twice a day, and a good idea doesn’t become evil just because an evil person happens to approve of it. If that were the case, we should denounce interstate highways and Volkswagens as evil because they were Hitler’s ideas.

  • @Paul Zummo

    Err, pretty sure that wasn’t an ad hominem.

    Of course it was. He chose to dismiss me instead of addressing my argument.

  • Umm, that’s not what an ad hominem is. And he didn’t dismiss you – but whatever. Being the angry young man on the internet is what floats some people’s boat.

  • Sometimes women, especially those engaged in raising several small children, are just exhausted and need a change. I would suggest that desiring a different experience for a brief period (including wishing that one could change places with one’s husband) is not always a sin….absent a malignant intent.
    .
    In my view, Margaret Sanger is in a different category from the average exhausted housewife. Sanger actively and intentionally rebelled against the Will of God by seeking to elevate (wo)men to the status of gods and by dishonoring and rejecting the inherent dignity due every human being who is made in Imago Dei.
    .
    Sanger’s actions suggest an intentional promotion of Division between:

    (i) men and women by advancing a false form of women’s liberation divorced from Revelation and Natural Law;

    .
    (ii) blacks and whites by advancing the malicious lie of utopian racial perfection (eugenics);
    .
    (iii) by impeding new life and the destruction of the Family through contraception (placing physical and hormonal barriers between a woman’s ovum and her husband’s sperm); and when contraception failed,
    .
    (iv) by promoting abortion (the intentional destruction of new life).
    .
    For those Sanger categorized as “less than” and unworthy (in her opinion) of propagation, sterilization was the final solution.
    .
    Catholicism teaches us that “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians 6:12
    .
    I suggest that Margaret Sanger’s actions intentionally advanced the ends of “the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”. For this reason, her actions were contrary to God’s plan and complicit with evil. Her reasons for dishonoring God and the dignity due His children are best known to herself. As one who was raised Catholic, she should have known better. May God have mercy on her soul.
    .
    Thus, I’m not convinced that all exhausted women who need a short term change of experience are in rebellion or are complicit with the dark forces of this world.
    .
    An examination of one’s Intent matters when determining whether sin is present and God is the ultimate judge.

  • Pingback: Why we don’t need Sanger: Give the rebellious wife what she demands or the baby gets it! | Dalrock
  • “Why propose a feminist solution (the husband takes over more child care) as the solution to the sin of feminist rebellion, instead of proposing repentance?”

    Repentance does not change diapers. It is a job that somebody has to do and a child’s father is as capable of it as its mother, who may be beyond exhaustion and in a desperate need of reprieve.

    Anyway, how’s husband taking over more child care a “feminist” solution? Since time immemorial fathers cared for their offspring on an equal footing with mothers, especially among the working poor world over.

    The idea that husband taking on more child care duties is “feminist” results from a narrow-minded and possibly paranoid worldview, sadly common among the American middle class religious fundies whose experience with life on this planet as most humans know it is severely limited (by their choice, at this time of our history).

    The lack of basic understanding of human reality here is only rivaled by the lack of empathy (for women, but not only). Faith without compassion is an empty vessel.

  • It’s somewhat rich to decry narrow-mindedness, lack of empathy, and lack of basic understanding, then follow it up with this whopper of a generalization:

    sadly common among the American middle class religious fundies whose experience with life on this planet as most humans know it is severely limited (by their choice, at this time of our history).

    This entire conversation seems to have taken a rather bizarre turn, not uncommon on these interwebs.

  • It appears that my comments have seriously scandalized dozens of people on another blog, and got everyone here distracted from the main point, so I would like apologize for that and ask everyone to just disregard my previous comments if that’s possible.

  • Elaine Krewer, your comments. in my opinion, are not excessive and should not be withdrawn.
    .
    They raise a legitimate issue regarding human nature and the supportive role men and women should be willing to offer each other because of their mutual love and respect for each other and the children they created by virtue of their love.
    .
    Neither man or woman is perfect…it is ok for a woman to request assistance when she is worn out from minding children and tending house all day. It also ok for a loving husband who cares about his wife to assist her with the children or tend to house work when she needs some personal down time.
    .
    It is also perfectly ok for a woman to become the bread winner when her husband is unable to provide for the family due to sudden illness or unexpected job loss. He is neither less of a man because of his wife’s entry into the work place and she is not less of a woman because she is compelled to work outside the home. They are a family and families who love one another support each other.
    .
    You owe no apology for your astute observations and you are not, in my view, a radical feminist in rebellion mode…you are a sensible woman asking reasonable questions about men and women trying to live honorable lives in tough and uncompromising times.
    .
    Please stay the course.

  • I am new to this particular conversation, but when I saw the words Margaret Sanger, I immediately thought of a racist eugenicist. Personally I agree with Slainte just above me in the comment line. Sometimes when I come home I do the ironing or the cooking or whatever. My wife and I share duties. She likes having a job and it gives her a sense of self-esteem, given that her kids from a previous marriage (her former husband is deceased) are grown now. As for anything Margaret Sanger says, it may be feminism but it is NOT femininity and therein lies the difference.
    .
    PS, whether or nor anyone likes it, when my wife needs me to iron her duty uniforms, I probably will. A little effort for domestic tranquility goes a long way.

  • Yey Paul Primavera…
    .
    You are a considerate and kind husband. Your wife is a lucky woman.

  • Elaine,

    Kudos to you, but I agree with slainte. Based on the silence to which your apology was treated, and the tenor of subsequent comments, the words that occur to me are pearls and swine.

  • And lest I be hammered for another “ad hominem:” Matthew 7:6.

  • 50% of all abortions are women. Ignorance of this fact is unbelieveable.

  • Paul Zummo:

    Based on the silence to which your apology was treated, …

    Not true. Dalrock replied here.

  • That had not been posted when I commented, or at least I didn’t see it. In that case, my apologies and I retract my comment.

  • He chose to dismiss me instead of addressing my argument.

    That’s not what is meant by ad hominem. You’ve an extensive Theory of Everything regarding contemporary social relations. If you use those lenses, you’re not seeing Margaret Sanger clearly. Her advocacy of eugenics is her most salient feature, and the cause to which she devoted her life. The rest is derivative.

  • While Margaret Sanger’s advocacy of eugenics may have been her most salient feature as Art Deco suggests, she did not accomplish her goals without the silent, but substantial and continuous monetary infusion received from some of the most notable families and foundations in the United States.
    .
    See, http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_04robthecrad.html
    .
    While some would elect to make the saga of Margaret Sanger exclusively a “feminist issue”, by doing so, one misses the bigger and perhaps more frightening story of a long term investment (since at least 1913) by very powerful people who have shaped our society through intentional and aggressive promotion of population control techniques which have included, without limitation, contraception, abortion, and sterilization of our fellow human beings.
    .
    I suggest that Margaret Sanger was merely a figurehead behind which lurks a far bigger and more inimical hydra.

  • Pingback: Would you rather be right or be effective? | Questions for Strangers
  • @Art Deco

    That’s not what is meant by ad hominem. You’ve an extensive Theory of Everything regarding contemporary social relations. If you use those lenses, you’re not seeing Margaret Sanger clearly. Her advocacy of eugenics is her most salient feature, and the cause to which she devoted her life. The rest is derivative.

    Sanger’s eugenics doesn’t negate her feminism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. In the context of this discussion, Sanger’s eugenics is as relevant as her view on trade unions or the progressive income tax. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Sanger published a radical feminist monthly in 1914 titled “The Women Rebel”. The masthead read:

    No Gods. No Masters

    As explains:

    Sanger used the journal to assert that every woman had a right to be “absolute mistress of her own body,” including the right to practice birth control, a term coined for The Woman Rebel.

    While you accuse me of being blinded by my worldview, you refuse to accept Sanger’s own words and actions testifying that she was in fact a radical feminist. Nothing I can say would convince you otherwise, because no amount of proof would overcome your illogical argument that she can’t have been a feminist because she was a eugenicist.

    Not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand, but even if you look at where the two positions would collide she appears to have chosen feminism over eugenics. In my admittedly brief research, I haven’t found for example her exhorting women with the right genetics to give birth early and often. To the contrary, she even laments that her own mother had so many children. But again, even if she did advocate for women with the right genes to reproduce, it wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion at hand because the speech under discussion had nothing to do with eugenics, let alone birth control or abortion. It wasn’t selling eugenics, it was selling feminist rebellion under the form of advocating “scientific” marriage counseling. But as I mentioned before, there is a profound unwillingness or inability to recognize feminist rebellion. I can’t imagine a better example of this than the absurd claim that Sanger wasn’t in feminist rebellion.

  • Reposting the comment to fix botched html code.

    @Art Deco

    That’s not what is meant by ad hominem. You’ve an extensive Theory of Everything regarding contemporary social relations. If you use those lenses, you’re not seeing Margaret Sanger clearly. Her advocacy of eugenics is her most salient feature, and the cause to which she devoted her life. The rest is derivative.

    Sanger’s eugenics doesn’t negate her feminism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. In the context of this discussion, Sanger’s eugenics is as relevant as her view on trade unions or the progressive income tax. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Sanger published a radical feminist monthly in 1914 titled “The Women Rebel”. The masthead read:

    No Gods. No Masters

    As this site explains:

    Sanger used the journal to assert that every woman had a right to be “absolute mistress of her own body,” including the right to practice birth control, a term coined for The Woman Rebel.

    While you accuse me of being blinded by my worldview, you refuse to accept Sanger’s own words and actions testifying that she was in fact a radical feminist. Nothing I can say would convince you otherwise, because no amount of proof would overcome your illogical argument that she can’t have been a feminist because she was a eugenicist.

    Not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand, but even if you look at where the two positions would collide she appears to have chosen feminism over eugenics. In my admittedly brief research, I haven’t found for example her exhorting women with the right genetics to give birth early and often. To the contrary, she even laments that her own mother had so many children. But again, even if she did advocate for women with the right genes to reproduce, it wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion at hand because the speech under discussion had nothing to do with eugenics, let alone birth control or abortion. It wasn’t selling eugenics, it was selling feminist rebellion under the form of advocating “scientific” marriage counseling. But as I mentioned before, there is a profound unwillingness or inability to recognize feminist rebellion. I can’t imagine a better example of this than the absurd claim that Sanger wasn’t in feminist rebellion.

  • Doh!
    The word right in

    right genetics

    above should be in quotes:

    “right” genetics.

  • “Sanger’s eugenics doesn’t negate her feminism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.”

    I would assume, Dalrock, that any authentic feminism would have to be compatible with authentic humanism. So far no one has devised any sort of eugenics that is compatible with authentic humanism. Therefore, Sanger’s eugenics does conflict with and largely negate her feminism, at least from the eyes of a Christian who seeks the authentic. Put it this way: Sanger did not value the true feminism of black women one bit. Mary De Voe’s comment above that “50% of all abortions are [of] women [i.e., female babies]” is also pertinent, although I think the percentage must be higher. No, in the end such ‘feminism’ is just a charade and an excuse for absolute power over children who are yet to be born.

  • TomD

    I would assume, Dalrock, that any authentic feminism would have to be compatible with authentic humanism. So far no one has devised any sort of eugenics that is compatible with authentic humanism. Therefore, Sanger’s eugenics does conflict with and largely negate her feminism, at least from the eyes of a Christian who seeks the authentic. Put it this way: Sanger did not value the true feminism of black women one bit. Mary De Voe’s comment above that “50% of all abortions are [of] women [i.e., female babies]” is also pertinent, although I think the percentage must be higher. No, in the end such ‘feminism’ is just a charade and an excuse for absolute power over children who are yet to be born.

    Your argument assumes that both of the following are true:
    .
    1) It is impossible for a woman to hold two logically inconsistent views at the same time (or a man for that matter).
    2) It is impossible for a person to indulge in sin unless their philosophical beliefs are “authentic”.
    .
    I won’t try to guess at which of the above assumptions is more foolish.
    .
    You guys should just come out and say it:

    Sanger can’t possibly have been a feminist because… Dalrock.

  • Correction. The correct title for Sanger’s monthly is “Woman Rebel”, not “The Women Rebel”.

  • 1) It is impossible for a woman to hold two logically inconsistent views at the same time (or a man for that matter).

    That’s ridiculous. I maintained no such position. It’s entirely possible for anyone, man or woman, to hold logically inconsistent views. Doing so opens such a person to logical criticism, which I just did in the case of Sanger. You are confusing criticism with…what? I’m not sure. An imagined demand of mine that Sanger not be illogical? Heck, I’d rather she be illogical, it makes things easier for me. Also, her problem is just logic, it’s her spiritual sickness that is also in play here.

    2) It is impossible for a person to indulge in sin unless their philosophical beliefs are “authentic”.

    That’s also ridiculous. I again maintained no such position. Words such as ‘authentic’ have specific meanings in Christian philosophy. Sanger’s philosophy, if she had any outside of gross utilitarianism, certainly were not ‘authentic’ because they did not conform to Christian norms. The ‘authenticity’ of a philosophy is simply a guide as to whether it is Christian. So I can’t even imagine what you are getting at, other than the possibility that Christians should accept non- or anti-Christian philosophies as authentic from a Christian viewpoint. If that is your point then sorry, I have no obligation to agree, and in the case of an anti-Christian philosophy I must not agree.

    And what is the point of your mentioning of sin? People sin without having any philosophical beliefs whatsoever, in case you haven’t noticed. Christians who invent or follow ‘authentic’ philosophies also sin, in fact every one of them does, including me. I see no link between philosophy and sin, other than motive (as in “I love this philosophy because it enables and validates my sinful actions”).

    I don’t think you made a deliberate attempt to invent straw men here (if you did it was inept). I’ll just pass it off as multiple non sequiturs.

  • Let me come at it from another angle, Dalrock. I’ll come right out and say it: Margaret Sanger was a pagan and anti-Christian feminist. Since Christianity is real, Sanger was not a real feminist. PDQ

  • @TomD

    And what is the point of your mentioning of sin?…

    I don’t think you made a deliberate attempt to invent straw men here (if you did it was inept). I’ll just pass it off as multiple non sequiturs.

    It isn’t a non sequitur, you missed a large part of the discussion. I’ve been talking about sin from my very first comment on this thread:

    The problem we have today is that we can’t spot the sin of feminist rebellion when it is right in front of us…

    My reference to the sin of feminist rebellion is what lead Art Deco to refer to me as procrustian in my thinking.

    Let me come at it from another angle, Dalrock. I’ll come right out and say it: Margaret Sanger was a pagan and anti-Christian feminist. Since Christianity is real, Sanger was not a real feminist.

    Are you saying the only real feminist is a Christian feminist? Since feminism is a rebellion against God’s order, I would argue the exact opposite. But assuming I’m reading you correctly, I think I understand our disagreement now.
    .
    Since several commenters have objected to my describing feminist rebellion as a sin, is this a feminist Catholic site? This would explain a great deal, and if so, I apologize for badly misreading the nature of this blog. I never would have joined the discussion had I not thought this was a traditional/anti-feminist space.

  • is this a feminist Catholic site?

    No, we’re just not singlemindedly obsessed with looking at every solitary issue through the prism of one particular mode of analysis.

  • Paul, I kindly disagree with your statement that the comment directed at Darlock wasn’t an ad hominem attack. Just as you dismissed him as an “angry young man on the internet”. If either comment dealt with the issues instead of dismissing him, no matter what you think of him, and laid a foundation then it would not an ad hominen attack but it was just a bold assertion with no support. I point to this website to help define terms:
    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
    Peace

  • Walter,

    The problem is that the original comment was not a logical fallacy – since you’re busy on providing definitions, an ad hominem attack need not be a fallacious one if it relates to the person’s credibility. Art’s point, and I think this has been well demonstrated by ensuing comments, is that Dalrock tends to view many of these debates through a particular prism (anti-feminism), which allows us to forget the larger issue – in this case, that Sanger was a eugenicist creep.

    Also, many commenters did deal with the substance of the issue, and I’d repeat that Art’s comment in this context is also substantive. This is a rhetorical trick that I find particularly annoying in online debates where one person harps on one particular comment and then plays the victim, pretending that they are being treated unfairly. You are not the first person to point out my “angry young man” comment (which, by the way, I do regret making), all the while ignoring all of the other comments in this thread.

  • As one acquainted with both this website and Dalrock’s for several years now, I’ll put my anonymous neck on the line and say that, whether what Art Deco and Paul Zummo have done is arguing ad hominem to Dalrock (it appears to me that they have been doing this, though seems ultimately only they could give the evidence necessary to prove it), they have at least too hastily dismissed his argument as ridiculously without merit. I cannot see what is procrustean about Dalrock’s mode of thinking, unless it’s procrustean merely to choose to favor a particular topic to address in one’s blog, something that almost every blogger does. And if one has read much of Dalrock’s blog and come away with the idea that he is “the angry young man on the internet,” the one who concludes this has himself provided evidence of his own procrustean mode of thought.

  • Sorry, did not see Paul’s 8:38 am comment by the time I posted mine. That comment pretty much makes mine retractable inasmuch as it addresses Paul’s “angry young man” comment.

No More Babies!

Wednesday, May 7, AD 2014

The post war world in 1947 was in the midst of a record shattering baby boom when Margaret Sanger issued her call above for no more babies for ten years in Europe.  However, it took a generation, but ultimately the dying societies of most of Europe heeded her advice, and the barren womb might as well be depicted on the EU flag.  The future belongs ultimately to those who want kids, and that leaves out much of the West.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to No More Babies!

  • Sanger was a libertine tramp who wanted more sex, but no babies.

  • What Stephen said. Democrats want to wallow in heat like baboons without responsibility or accountability.

  • This “anti-human” attitude is far worse than racism.

  • Margaret Sanger was jealous…of life, of joy, of innocents, of the human being’s free will and the human being’s free will right to choose. She lowered herself to the serpent.

  • All you social justice liberals: Remember this next election. “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously . . . . I am really in awe of her.” Hillary Clitton, 2009.

    You know Adam and Eve were not Asians. If they were, they’d have eaten the serpent not the apple.

  • Recently “Emily” filmed her own abortion and claimed victory.

    The face of evil is perpetuated down through the centuries with the common denominator being death. From Adam & Eve to Emily the budding film star.

    Ms. Sanger is only one of thousands of disobedient harlots that sell freedom at the cost off innocent life.

    Is it time to show the “positive” aspect of abortion? Say photos of abortion victims! AVP’s. Abortion victim photos.
    Monica Miller from Pro-Life Action League suggests a picture of reality in the darkness of Emily’s proud debauchery.

    Sanger Awards? Realistically any awards associated with killing the innocents should be known as the Hell Awards.
    A photo of Margaret could accompany the bronze sickle.

  • In 1957 Mike Wallace recorded an interview with Margaret Sanger about her career in Birth Control advocacy. See, http://youtu.be/HsrOPDdbTzM.
    .
    Wallace initially queried Mrs. Sanger about her career choice and whether it was in retaliation against the Catholic Church for unresolved antagonisms she experienced as a child. (minutes 4:30-5:30)
    .
    Mrs. Sanger’s mother was a Catholic and her father an atheist who publicly opposed Church teachings and experienced reprisals (from an unknown source). Wallace relays to the audience that, as a youngster, Mrs. Sanger and her ten siblings were taunted by neighbors and referred to as “children of the devil”.
    .
    Prompted by Wallace, Mrs. Sanger cooly described her primary opponents to her birth control advocacy as the “hierarchy” of the Catholic Church, not Catholic parishoners whom she claimed utilized her services together with non-Catholics.
    .
    Wallace describes the Church’s position as “The immediate purpose and primary end of marriage is the begetting of children. When the marital relationship is so used as to render the fulfillment of its purpose impossible (that is by birth control), it is used unethically and unnaturally.” (minutes 11:50-12:06). Mrs. Sanger scoffed and suggested that the Church should’t impose its position on non-believers like herself, an Episcopalian.
    .
    It’s interesting to note that the only moment during the interview that Mrs. Sanger actually smiled and seemed joyful was the moment when Wallace inquired about her two sons. Without missing a beat, she immediately informed Wallace that she had two sons and eight grandchildren…five boys and three girls. Without prompting from Wallace, she immediately produced photographs of her family for his inspection. (minute 26:43) For a woman who wanted no more babies, she certainly seems to have loved her own.
    .
    Something or someone hurt Margaret Sanger very badly and she seems emotionally scarred. While this is no excuse for her bad acts, it is axiomatic that sometimes hurting people hurt other people.

  • Correction on Monica Miller.

    Monica Miller is head of Citizens for a Pro Life Society. Please excuse my mistake.
    The following link is provided; citizensforaprolifesociety/abortionvictimphotography.com

    The graphics are disturbing, however the filming and promoting of the positive aspects of abortion are truly gut retching. Regardless of Emily’s attempt to make abortion seem like Snow White’s first kiss.

  • Margaret Sanger is one of the most miserable and evil people of the 20th Century.

    Kids and grandkids for her but not for you – typical elitist.

    I used to subscribe to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, which is published by Richard Mellon Scaife, a heir to the wealthy Pittsburgh industrialist families of Scaife and Mellon (founders of Mellon Bank and Gulf Oil). Scaife considers himself to be a libertarian. The editorial pages of his rag usually lampooned Rick Santorum. The editorial writers are what I call AHAs (abortionists, homosexualists, atheists). Scaife ran a front page editorial a few years back pleading for continued federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Scaife praised the “genius” of Sanger. I canceled the paper the following Monday.

    Scaife is a hypocrite. Scaife’s paper hated the construction of a new ballpark, football stadium, subway extension and convention center expansion, but Planned Parenthood is fine with him.

  • At the turn of the century, Time-Life sponsored a TV program hosted by Dan Rather that was a countdown of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century. He was effusive about Sanger, I think he even called her a saint. I think Time magazine did a similar feature. I wrote a two plus page letter.. No response. But I hoped at least somebody there read a dose of the truth.

  • Penguins Fan

    We tend to forget how strong the eugenics movement was at the beginning of the last century. The first President of the Eugenics Education Society was Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Charles Darwin. Its Eugenics Review was first published in 1909, the year Galton was knighted. He had published his “Hereditary Genius” in 1869, having coined the term “eugenics” in 1863.

    They were concerned about the late marriages and paucity of children among the upper echelons of society, whilst the lower orders were “breeding like lice.”

    Such ideas also gained a foothold in the United States.

    Two Prime Ministers, Arthur Balfour and Neville Chamberlain were members, as was the economist John Maynard Keynes, the crank and breakfast cereal manufacturer, John Harvey Kellogg.

    It changed its name to the Galton Institute in 1989.

  • Anzlyne: Is TIME still around?
    Hitler adopted our eugenics for his final solution.
    Sanger called her opinion “intelligent”. Sanger thinks that she and her opinion are intelligent. Does Sanger know anything about the Person, the individual human being? Humane?

  • T. Shaw: “You know Adam and Eve were not Asians. If they were, they’d have eaten the serpent not the apple.” Best line yet.
    .
    Thank you, Michael Paterson-Seymour for all your information. It is very helpful when encountering individuals in the public arena.

  • The Eugenics Society’s notions of racial hygiene and the sterilisation of the disgenic fell into disfavour in the aftermath of WWII, especially in the former occupied countries.

    France, for example, enacted Art 214-1 of the Code Pénal – “The implementing of any eugenic practice aimed at organising the selection of persons is punished by thirty years’ criminal imprisonment and a fine of €7,500,000.” Art 214-3 increases the penalty to criminal imprisonment for life and a fine of €7,500,000 if they are committed by an organised gang [bande organisée]
    Art 214-4 makes “Participation in a group formed or in an agreement established with a view to the preparation, as demonstrated by one or more material actions, of any of the felonies defined by articles 214-1…is punished by criminal imprisonment for life and a fine of €7,500,000.”
    Art 215 adds “Natural persons guilty of the offences set out under the present sub-title also incur the following penalties:
    1° forfeiture of civic, civil and family rights, pursuant to the conditions set out under article 131-26; 2° prohibition to hold public office, pursuant to the conditions set out under article 131-27; 3° area banishment, pursuant to the conditions set out under Article 131-31;4° confiscation of any or all of their property, moveable or immoveable, whether held jointly or severally; 5° confiscation of the material that has been used to commit the offence.”

    Reproductive human cloning has been added to the Article by Art 214-2
    Similar laws exist in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and numerous other countries

  • Thanks Mary De Voe! Time magazine is NOT around anymore and people of this century are seeing the Truth, despite all the efforts if the devil. Christ Jesus Victor! I would be interested to know the comparative readerships and demographics of conservative vs liberal blogs.

  • Michael P-S thank you for mentioning cloning – also a eugenic manipulative effort lurking and looking for opportunity to grow.

  • Anzlyne

    France and Germany have been leading efforts at the UN to have reproductive human cloning declared a crime against humanity, with universal jurisdiction &c.

    It would, at least, send a message, if nothing more.

  • I hope we are not all sleepy and we are awake enough to receive the message!
    And act on it!
    Not just the message about Life, cloning eugenics euthanasia etc. but all the disorder and dissembling all around us. “If today you hear my voice…” I think some have heard and are responsible now to act.

  • I always find eugenicists curiously vague about the goal to be achieved.

    The stock-breeder knows what sort of cattle and sheep the market wants and produces beasts to satisfy this demand. But who decides the sort of people we want and why?

    Do we really want a world peopled with clones of Galton, or Kellogg, or Keynes? It’s the stuff of nightmares

  • Anzlyne.

    Divine Mercy indeed before divine justice. The hearts of many are hardened and the country will know without a doubt when His justice arrives.

    The birth pangs have been evident. Soon an event will strike our land that will be undeniably a “wake up call.”

  • Anzlyne and Michael Paterson-Seymour: Human cloning is a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity because every person must give informed consent to be cloned or genetically manipulated. A person of eighteen years of age who is mentally able may give informed consent to be genetically manipulated but there is no consent that he or she may give for an offspring, or the next generation. A future generation because of cloning or genetic manipulation without informed consent is a crime against humanity. The change may then infect all of the human race…a crime against humanity…enslavement to the principle that man has no free will.
    .
    Even abortion is a crime against humanity because the recipient of the abortion claims that she had no choice in getting pregnant, no free will to choose. Abortion is a nation of lobotomized zombies enslaved to the principle that man has no free will.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “The stock-breeder knows what sort of cattle and sheep the market wants and produces beasts to satisfy this demand.”
    .
    One third of the stock were still-born or deformed. Some were dwarfs. No they cannot produce “beasts to satisfy this demand.” Consideration for the person cloned would take preference to the megalomania needed to implement such horror…Frankenstein.

  • I hope we are not all sleepy and we are awake enough to receive the message!

    .
    “A large crowd of people followed Jesus, including many women who mourned and lamented him. Jesus turned to them and said, ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say “Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.” At that time people will say to the mountains, “Fall upon us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when the wood is dry?'”

    That’s the message I think about when I see stories like this.

  • Mary de Voe

    When I said “The stock-breeder knows what sort of cattle and sheep the market wants and produces beasts to satisfy this demand” I was referring to conventional breeding, not genetic engineering. One has only to consider breeds of horses as various as the Clydesdale, the Irish Draught or the English Thoroughbred to see what can be achieved – providing one knows what one wants in the first place.

    It was an application of these methods that Galton and his colleagues favoured.

  • While Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and other women were being starved, beaten, jailed and hung by their wrists in a jail cell for the temerity to insist that women were sovereign persons equal to men in the political sphere deserving of the vote, Margaret Sanger, founder of the Birth Control League, later known as Planned Parenthood, was being hailed as the liberator of women from their natural and very human desire to bring forth our constitutional posterity, their husband’s offspring, their family of children.
    .
    While Susan B. Anthony was preaching that men must respect women to be real men, support the women carrying their child and stand by their families for their own happiness and the common good, Margaret Sanger was drawing the map for men to be cowardly traitors to their manhood, abandon the women who are carrying their seed and totally deny their responsibility toward the next generation who will be carrying their family name and their genes.
    .
    Fifty seven million children have been denied by their fathers. Three generations of young men have not been taught how to become a grown man to father the next generation.
    .
    Total disaster and disintegration have been sown by Margaret Sanger and she calls herself “humane” and “intelligent”. While Susan B. Anthony and her followers are still being hauled into court for demanding that women, those born and the future of our nation, our constitutional posterity, those women to be born, be treated with respect and equal Justice.
    .
    Roe v. Wade admitted the right of privacy and the right to choose, but Roe v. Wade never sanctioned the slaughter of the innocent infant in the womb. It is not the job of the Supreme Court for the United States of America to execute fifty seven million moral and legal innocents.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “When I said “The stock-breeder knows what sort of cattle and sheep the market wants and produces beasts to satisfy this demand” I was referring to conventional breeding, not genetic engineering.”
    .
    I too, was referring to conventional breeding, not genetic engineering. Natural breeding OK, but artificial insemination with frozen semen, which is now how most cattle are brought into the world has miserably failed.

  • WHAT does it take for some people to be insulted, offended and have their integrity impugned. Obama, Sebelius, Holder, John Roberts, William Brennan, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Pelosi and all are second generation constitutional posterity of Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger wanted us all to be aborted.
    .
    We, the people, you and I, every human being with the breath of life in his body, this day, are Margaret Sanger’s constitutional posterity. Margaret Sanger hated us. Margaret Sanger called us “useless eaters”, “human weeds”, the better to be scratched from the womb, unborn. Yes, you and I were in Margaret Sanger’s gun sights for eradication as a burden to her enlightenment, to her “intelligent and humane” way of life.
    .
    Each and every one of us alive today are the second generation constitutional posterity who have escaped the hatred and jealousy spewed by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and human sacrifice.
    .
    Why did not Margaret Sanger pick up where Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton had the work started of demanding equal Justice for women, the vote and respect? Well, Why not? Could it be that Margaret Sanger was a devil worshipper offering human sacrifice to Satan?
    Just remember it might have been you, Obama or Pelosi. You are a second generation constitutional posterity escapee from the bloodlust of Margaret Sanger.

  • Mary de Voe

    I had 107 surviving lambs this spring from 60 Scottish Blackface ewes, using 3 tuips.

    Anyone who fancies artificially inseminating this breed is braver than I.

    http://www.scottish-blackface.co.uk/images/blackface24.jpg

    http://www.scottish-blackface.co.uk/images/blackface01.jpg

    Even the collies are wary and the shearing gangs look like cage fighters

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour. I am happy for you. My comparison was made in the interest of comparing it to human cloning. Dolly, the cloned sheep, required, I believe it to be over 60 tries and these people are still messing around. It cannot be better for humans, although some people have claimed that some foreign nations have cloned the human being and with their soul.
    .
    I am still railing about the adulation given that infamous creature who lied, and cheated human nature. Margaret Sanger was educated and professional but she betrayed both.
    .
    Susan B. Anthony was beaten, starved and handcuffed to the iron bars of the jail cell for days.
    To honor Susan B. Anthony for her staunch support and fight for suffrage, equal Justice for women and the recognition of women as equal citizens, persons, as created by our Creator, a dollar coin was struck. It is now not used in circulation because people were mistaking the Susan B. Anthony dollar for a quarter dollar. The Susan B. Anthony dollar is the size of a twenty-five cent piece.
    Yes, girls, your dollar is worth twenty-five cents of the boy’s dollar.
    .
    And to help emasculate males and deny the humanity of their souls, Margaret Sanger gave us birth control, sex without love.
    .
    If the government does not like you, you will be handcuffed and hung from the prison bars without food and water between beatings unless you accept Margaret Sanger’s lies, Margaret Sanger’s intelligent, humane lies.

In The Birth Control Controversy; The Mocking of Conservative Religious Women By Militant Secularists Will Soon Backfire

Sunday, February 19, AD 2012

We have all seen the supposed polls indicating that 99% of Catholic women use birth control. However, has anyone ever bothered to look at who conducted the poll? It was the Guttmacher Institute; the driving force behind abortion and other leftist social movements.  Finally someone in the Mainstream Media (The Washington Post) has weeks after the fact realized the untruthful nature behind this canard. This is just one of many red herrings thrown at religious conservatives to discredit and mock them. It seems some in mainstream media are making it their mission to ask former Pennsylvania Senator and Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum every question imaginable with regard to birth control. Whatever happens to Santorum in the primary race, it does seem as if the Hand of Providence is helping bring up the topic of birth control and the faithful alternative of Natural Family Planning.

While there is some dispute between Catholics and some Evangelicals on birth control; there are signs that many Evangelicals are seeing what Catholics and some Orthodox Jews have long believed about birth control. In my previous book and forthcoming book; The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholicism, I cite quotes from Chuck Colson and R Albert Mohler, two towering figures in the Evangelical world. They have genuine affection for Pope Paul VI’s 1968 prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae which cemented the Catholic view on birth control in the modern birth control pill era. If you want to really rile up a militant secularist you might mention that it wasn’t until 1930 that the first religious group (the Anglican Church) even approved of birth control. The Progressive Teddy Roosevelt said the idea of birth control was “ridiculous” and even liberal hero Dr Sigmund Freud said the whole concept was “narcissistic.”

Dorothy Day (1897-1980) the late women’s rights activist, who used birth control back before any religious group approved of it, spoke out forcefully against abortion and birth control once she converted to Catholicism later in life. She told men and women that in using birth control they were becoming engaged in a culture that was disconnecting them from God’s plans, along with not using their bodies in accordance with the Holy Spirit. Though her women’s rights and libertarian economic views remained, she became a social conservative, who lashed out at Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, something you aren’t likely to hear or read in the mainstream media.

Families that adhere to the clinically proven facts of Natural Family Planning are treated as if they are some sort of religious nuts. Militant secularists in the corridors of power (Legislative and Fourth Estate) have even thrown out their favorite term “sexually repressed.” Now this term is so widely repeated in our popular culture, perhaps we should examine where it came from. Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) of the infamous Marxist “Frankfurt School” came up with the term. Marcuse left pre-World War II Germany and taught at Columbia. Marcuse believed in free love and surmised that the more narcissistic society was with regard to sexual relations, the better the world would become. Before his death, he claimed his prized student was 1960s militant radical Angela Davis. Marcuse was way out in left field in his day and yet the militant secularists in our pop culture have made him seem as mainstream as Dr. Phil. When societies turn away from religion they embrace the crazies like Marcuse; sadly something has to fill the vacuum and it is usually the ideas which come from the half baked among us that do so.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to In The Birth Control Controversy; The Mocking of Conservative Religious Women By Militant Secularists Will Soon Backfire

  • Your last paragraph is a good prayer for Lent – I won’t limit it to women though.
    Having read the Left in Tatters from 1/25/10 link, I saw that Fr. George Rutler commented; and think you would enjoy his 2/19/12 column on the Church of Our Savior site.

  • PM, thanks for bringing Father Rutler’s column to my attention. As usual, he gives us something to ponder, pray over and act upon. Initially a year or so ago when I wrote the article to which I linked and he commented, I had no idea that he read this site. I contacted him to thank him and he thanked me. It was all so very humbling. He told me that a friend suggested he read my article. He went on to say that we all have a part to play in building up the Faith. In retrospect we should all do more to thank God for giving us those like Father Rutler.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: GLOBAL CULTURE WAR | ThePulp.it

Sanger: "We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population"

Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010

“We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population”

— Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. [1]

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Sanger: "We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population"

  • The fruit of liberalism, leftism and “Demokracy” which is but the other side of the coin whose head is “Socialism.”

  • I hate to complain, but if we’re going to win the argument on abortion, we need to be fastidious. The quote that you use as a title for this article is badly taken out of context. If you use that particular quote, you’re inviting an embarrassing refutation. Sanger said a lot of things that would offend modern people. Don’t use this one.

  • Yeah, not sure it’s a good idea to have a headline like on a blogpost. It could appear that American Catholic is saying that.

  • Interesting that EMILY’s List has an ad on this vid–are they hoping to cash in on backlash?

  • I have a different complaint. These sorts of arguments aren’t very convincing. Should we boycott Volkswagen because it began as a Nazi program? Convincing pro-choicers of their error requires addressing their concerns, not the concerns of their ancestors.

  • Gee, Volkswagen branched out from trying to kill Undesirables to trying to kill everyone?

    Dang, how did I miss that story?

  • As an American Catholic, the basis of my ‘anger’ with Planned Parenthood is that they receive Federal funding under false pretenses. They are the main US organization to procure and facilitate abortions, the US abortion-brokers, though stated reason for their existence is to provide family planning education.

    From a superficial viewpoint, founding of Planned Parenthood is not unlike the founding of Nazi party in Austria and Germany during the 1930s by a charismatic crackpot supported by those with nefarious and inhumane intent and purpose, that incidentally was detrimental to human society as a whole, and individually by outright killing of fellow humans in an effort to eliminate opposition to their supremacy.(

    The Planned Parenthood gang stoops to lies and distortions to gain political leverage and provide a political platform for one stated purpose while setting the stage for another purpose altogether, in part funded by our tax dollars. This ‘fact’ may be disputed, but I did receive 5-8 expensive colorful fliers in a State political election 3-4 years ago asking for support of their candidate because of unfair authority of ‘pharmacists making decisions about woman’s reproductive rights’ in filling certain type of prescriptions, which was indisputably wrong information.

    According to 2001 estimates, 76% Americans are Christian adherents (with 25% of US population Catholics). This ‘fact’ is barely disputable, with data showing a wide majority of Americans as Christian, and a major denomination the original Christians.

    There is a consistency between Constitutional rights and Christian beliefs that women have a basic right to bear a child, a healthy child as a gift from God, especially if provided necessary attention to fetal growth and development. So is Planned Parenthood promoting support of delivery of healthy babies, even similar to March of Dimes efforts in minimizing congenital birth defects? I think NOT. I don’t this is a debatable fact.

  • Yeah, using that as a headline was a terrible idea, it DOES make it sound like the the blog authors are the ones advocating genocide. The next conclusion one is led to by the picture of Barack Obama under the title is that Obama is the one who said it. It is not explained why a picture of Obama is even included.

  • ….because he’s standing in front of a huge wall covered with “PLANNED PARENTHOOD” in huge, red letters?

    Even if one didn’t know he’d spoken for PP in the past, it does kind of offer a large chunk of dark humor, kind of like having a chicken for the “spokesman” of KFC or something.

  • PP is no different than the KKK.

  • I think that’s a very serious concern as regards the title of this post — and given that know Tito is not able to be at the computer for long stretches at the moment, I’ve gone ahead and edited it.

  • restrainedradical’s Volkswagon comparison would be more convincing if PP no longer lauded its founder.

    Sanger’s portrait hangs in the board room of PP’s Atlanta office. Good luck finding Hitler’s portrait in any VW office.

  • The creation of an affordable People’s Car was actually one of the better and legitimate initiatives of the Third Reich (legitimate from a fascist perspective). A better comparison might be with buying Zyklon B if it were being marketed as a chemical to rid your yard of all pests from Ants to Zionists. I just don’t see that happening.

  • About the first comment… I don’t understand why all Americans seem to just misunderstand the whole of socialism? Would someone please answer?

  • Like the portraits of slaveowners in the White House?

    If the point of this post was to argue that Sanger should not be celebrated, then I join the author and I think even many PP supporters would approve Many would probably support a campaign to remove Sanger’s portrait from the boardroom. Other PP supporters might say that her racism is but a small stain on an otherwise great woman.

    But if the point is to paint PP as racist, you’ll have to provide modern-day evidence. And if the point is to discredit the larger pro-choice movement, you’ll have to tackle the issue of abortion itself, not these tangential stories of Depression-era activists.

    I only point this out because I see this sort of tactic often and I just don’t think it’s effective. To use another analogy, it’d be like someone using the priest sex scandal to imply that the Church is on a mission to molest children.

  • “But if the point is to paint PP as racist, you’ll have to provide modern-day evidence.”

    Perhaps the fact that reps of PP are on tape having no problem accepting a donation from someone who explicitly wishes to have his donation used to abort black kids.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338529,00.html

    Then we have the charming habit of Planned Parenthood locating their abortion clinics in or adjacent to minority neighborhoods.

  • Hey Foxfier,
    Meebbe we better get rid of the Interstate Highway system while we’re at it–that was another idea that owes some inspiration to the Nazis.;-)

  • Thanks Darwin!

    The quote is attributable 100% to Margaret Sanger.

    tour86Rocker,

    If you can come to those conclusions then let me introduce you to some truthers and birthers.

  • I agree w/ restrained radical. I’m seeing this line of attack cropping up more and more and it disturbs me b/c I think a) it’s not fully accurate and b) it’s ineffective and possibly harmful to our cause.

    The racist roots of planned parenthood and it’s founder don’t necessarily mean that’s what planned parenthood stands for today. Planned parenthood stands for unrestrained sexual freedom and abortion as their cash cow backup plan. Simple. Evil. They think they’re providing a good – that women need these “services” in order to fully realize their freedom. Sex is good. Sex without consequences is better and is the ultimate goal. So yes, they provide their evil twisted services in poor neighborhoods (which tend to be disproportionately minority populated) because that’s where their clients are. That results in a disproportionate impact on black children, but in their eyes that’s disproportionate for the good – minority women are getting what they (and all women) need. I see no evidence of a Sanger-like intent to reduce the number of black children b/c they are undesirable. Abortion and sexual freedom are the only desired ends here. As for the undercover tapes, I never found them as damning as everyone else did. Certainly it showed me that PP people have no principles (though, what do you expect from people who literally make their living on blood money). However, I don’t think it evidenced a racist motivation on their part. They think they’re providing a good and I’m SURE that look at minority specific donations as a benefit to a poor minority (like a minority specific college scholarship). That they didn’t care that the person giving the money was a racist doesn’t mean they were acting in a racially motivated way. Even the one employee who said she “was excited b/c she’d never done this before” seemed to me to be stalling for time and trying not to piss off the caller so she could still get the money. Again – no principles at all, but none of them seemed to be REALLY agreeing w/ the caller so much as yessing him just to get the money.

    We don’t need this line of argument b/c I think it is open to valid dispute. The pro-life movement has everything it needs in the scientific fact that a human life is being taken. Point out the disparate effects, sure (just like it’s good to point out that 1/3 of this generation is missing). However, it’s counterproductive to attribute that impact to a racial motivation that I see very little evidence for.

  • CT,

    I respectfully beg to differ.

    I am on the board of a pro-life organization and am quite familiar with the many practices that PP does.

    The racist beginnings of PP are carried on through their policies and actions.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57526

    I can see your point to a certain degree, but if we are playing by the liberal playing book, then PP is inheritantly racist and they should be called out for it.

    Especially when a the first president of African heritage has spoken at a PP event, it’s amazing how Margaret Sangers plan to use “social activists” within the “negro community” has panned out.

  • Perhaps the confusion is between the word ‘racist’ and ‘eugenicist’. PP is formerly named the Birth Control League and it was designed to exterminate the ‘inferiors’ so that we can be the masters of our own evolutionary process and become gods. Yeah, in its simplest form PP is the modern manifestation of the first lie.

    As for the modern agenda of PP, it is no different than it ever was. The only difference is the masterful deceit of masking the true intentions with socially acceptable images and politically correct terms.

    Anyone, especially a professed Catholic, that thinks PP is simply trying to help women make choices is sorely misguided. The are designed to kill as many babies as possible because lower-forms of humanity are a cancer on the planet and for our master race to thrive we need to reduce the population of undesirables including effete fag**ts, nig**rs, kik*s and the lowest of the low: Orthodox CATHOLICS.

    Ugly words. Face the truth. This is what PP is all about. Be honest. There is nothing defensible about this anti-human conspiracy.

    Not to mention their desire to engineer humans with embryonic stem cell and cloning technology. The massive dollar supporters of PP want to engineer eternal life for themselves to reign as gods over their homo-simian slaves. It is insanity.

  • American Knight, I’m not sure if something in my post lead you to believe PP is “simply trying to help women make choices.” I know PP has an evil agenda. But I just haven’t seen any evidence that this agenda is currently racist at an organizational level. Yes they are designed to kill as many babies as possible, but I don’t know that they care which babies they kill (ie I see no design to kill black babies b/c they’re black). They’ll kill anyone’s baby as long as they pay and I don’t think they care at all how that falls on the racial spectrum.

    Tito, I still don’t see how those investigations show racism on the part of the employees rather than an indifference to the racism of the caller so long as money is coming their way. Now, maybe that indifference IS a sort of racism and I’ll give you that. But the accusation is that PP in it’s current form carries forth the same overt/race-elimination kind of racism that it’s founder had. I would like to see more than quotes from their founders and videos showing that employees don’t care where their money comes from.

    Just for the record – I absolutely abhor PP and in NO way do I think they provide anything good for anyone. In my above post, I was referring to PP supporters’ subjective perspectives that abortion is a good thing to provide for women.

  • CT, I hope I did not make you feel as though I thought you support Planned Parenthood. I was just emphasizing that their agenda is a general reduction in population with a specific emphasis on the ‘undesirables”. The largest percentage of killing centers are in ‘minority’ neighborhoods. A third of the babies killed are black. Poor whites and South American Indians are considered as undesirable as Negros.

    Planned Parenthood is ultimately a tool of the Devil; however, it has a human face and the humans that perpetrate it are in favor of having a small white Super Race rule the world and a ‘manageable’ amount (500,000,000 or so) of sub-human, engineered homo-simian slaves. This only sounds like science fiction until the science catches up with the fiction. The fiction is not a fantasy it is an evil delusion that is shared by a sick cadre of rich trans-national eugenicists.

    To think otherwise is to disregard a large part of the New Testament. Don’t give the Devil and his minions the benefit of the doubt. The Evil One is real and he presents destruction as a pleasurable goal.

  • Here’s the thing. If a neutral person were to read that quote, “we want to exterminate the Negro population”, they’d assume that Sanger was a monster. But they might also find the whole quote on any number of internet sites:

    “The minister’s work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs.”

    Sanger wasn’t calling for the extermination of black people in that quote, she was seeking to prevent that false impression from getting out. The truth is, she didn’t want to exterminate them, she just wanted to thin out their numbers because she believed them to be inferior. Given that truth, we shouldn’t use selective editing to make it sound worse than it is. There are plenty of words and actions of Sanger’s that can make the argument fairly.

If You Want The Political Left To Run Governments, Look At What The Religious Left Has Done To Religion (Left It In Tatters)

Monday, January 25, AD 2010

There is a undercurrent in American society that somehow believes that if the mafia ran things, the country would be better off. There was one city (Newark, New Jersey) where the mafia once controlled much of the city. When their grip on power was done, the city was in tatters. The same could be said for liberals running religion.

Continue reading...

40 Responses to If You Want The Political Left To Run Governments, Look At What The Religious Left Has Done To Religion (Left It In Tatters)

Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll

Tuesday, October 27, AD 2009

Take this with more than a grain of salt, since the Club for Growth supports him, but in the latest poll by the Club for Growth Doug Hoffman, the pro-life Conservative Party candidate  in the special election in the New York 23rd Congressional District endorsed by Sarah Palin and other Republican Party luminaries, leads with 31.3% of the vote to 27% for Bill Owens the Democrat and 19.7% for the pro-abort leftist Republican Dede Scozzafava., with 22% undivided.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll

  • If anything Mr. Hoffman’s support has gone up. The question is, is it enough to lead the polls?

    I’ll believe it when I see a more credible poll. Though a 5% margin of error isn’t bad for the Conservative Party candidate.

  • “Maddeningly the Republican National Committee is pumping money into Scozzafava’s campaign and running adds against Hoffman. This is an excellent way to alienate the conservative base of the party. Idiocy, sheer idiocy.”

    THE GOP is doing what it is suppose too. At least some of them. The GOP is a party that has “moderates” too and we shall see what can of worms have been opened up by this.

    The problem is in New York and people would be much better off changing the leadership there in the party. THE prob;lem is not the National GOP.

    I hope I don’t wake up and see Republicans for Free Choice and the Olympia Snowes of the world campaigning for conservative yet pro choice “independents” against GOP pro-lifers we picked in our primary. If they do then a lot of people will not have a moral arguement against it

    I think in the long run this will backfire but again the GOP has no choice here. Unless we are taking a stand that local control of the party should be micromanaged from Washington?

  • My Lord! No other phrase captures what I am thinking other than “Idiocy!” How could the republicans be stupid? This is a telling display of how the republicans are losing voters. Pro life is 98% of the reason I vote at all yet alone republican. I wish they would get that through their heads…

  • It sounds a lot like the kind of craziness the GOP pulled on Congressman Paul in the 14th District of Texas. In ’96 they recruited the DEMOCRAT to switch parties and run as the G.O.P. -backed candidate. Paul was able to survive into the run-off , and then won by simply reminding everyone how liberal his ‘establishment’ opponent really was.

    If the Republicans insist on choosing ‘winners’ over their principles, I hope more and more people defect. They have not learned their lessons after 2006 and 2008.

  • Robert I agree with you in the need to keep the GOP as Pro-life as possible. But the problem here is not the National GOP but the New York GOP. Again do we really want the National GOP to decide what races it will fund and not fund. The local party in New York needs to change

  • jh is right. The national GOP cannot be expected to overrule the state GOP; that is just not realistic. NY conservatives cannot bolt from the GOP in favor of the NY Conservative Party and then feel entitled to get angry when the National GOP supports the GOP candidate over their own party candidate.

  • I’m nervous about the 23% that are undecided. Expect more of Scozzafava’s numbers to migrate to Hoffman and then hold your breath for the next 7-8 days!

  • The Republicans are showing their true colors – this is another momment of decision. Will the Republican party hold to authentic conservative and traditional values or will they be run by liberal, establishment Democrat-lite insiders?

    This is not a political question – it is a question of culture. Are conservatives and traditionalists strong and principled enough to rout the liars or will we be left with the choice of speedy progressives and not-so-fast progressives again?

    Goldwater, Reagan, Paul and Hoffman (and Palin) are examples of the people choosing principles over political-pragmatism. You can either change the Republican party or migrate to another. Perhaps the Conservative Party will grow and the Republican party die, or publically merge with the Democrats, rather than keep up the farce that they are two different parties. In fact, the Republicans and the Democrats are just slightly different factions of the same oligarchy.

  • NY conservatives cannot bolt from the GOP in favor of the NY Conservative Party and then feel entitled to get angry when the National GOP supports the GOP candidate over their own party candidate.

    Once more with feeling. Mr. Hoffmann is an enrolled Republican. Ten county chairmen in the North Country selected Mrs. Scozzafava as a candidate by a weighted vote among themselves per the Election Law of New York. There was no petition process or primary. The North Country is not the east side of Manhattan or Westchester. Common-and-garden Republicans can and do poll well there. The county chairmen have been playing an obscure insider game and expected (as New York pols do) that the electorate would suck it up (as that electorate generally does if you do not poison the water table or forthrightly and transparently raise their property taxes). These ten individuals cannot legitimately complain if their own committeemen flip them the bird, much less if everyone else does.

  • Art, I agree, and admit that you have a far better grasp of the facts than me. My only remaining point would be that it is difficult to expect the national GOP to ignore or overrule the decisions of the local GOP, regardless the mechanisms or machinations behind those local decisions. It would be different if the national GOP were complicit in such insider games, but no one has suggested that, but instead some seem to want to count deference to local decisions as complicity. That just strikes me as unfair and unrealistic.

13 Responses to Margaret Sanger and the Klan

  • Margaret Sanger is a sick human being. Unfortunately, her legacy lives on with Planned Parenthood.

  • As a fledgling investor- with actual hundreds of dollars invested- I have come to an irrevocable conclusion: never will I invest dime one in any stock whose executives came to Capitol Hill, tin cups in hands, between September 15 and December 24. In retrospect, largely an effort to cover over years of negligence and/or incompetence with federal dollars. So PP finds itself in similar bind. Along with the entire adult entertain- make that, filth peddler industry, as Larry Flynt has requested a $5 billion donation. PP has laid off 30 employees, cut back businesses. In part because a major donor, some Florida joint big in subsidizing pro-death projects, allowed House of Madoff to manage its funds. Poof there went House of Madoff following financial sector meltdown. Funny how the skeletons of the past show up when the dirt which buried it is washed away. Thus the saga of the Klanswomen and La Singer. May stick in minds of certain Congresspersons when their current acolytes arrive, tin cups in hands.

  • We can never remind people enough of this connection.

  • Mark,

    I guess you think extending this connection to Planned Parenthood sponsored politicians is a stretch?

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • Mr. DeFrancisis, I think it only fair to allow you to respond to Matt’s comment if you wish. After that I would prefer it if both you and Matt could comment without attacking each other. The comboxes of many other blogs tend to get bogged down in combox feuds. I am not going to allow that to happen in my threads. This is a place to debate ideas not to attack personalities.

  • Donald,

    I’ll respectfully pass…

  • I can not believe people here are going now this rabbit hole. DOn’t you know the real crime is how Bush and others wanted to purify New Orleans in a ethnic way after Katrina and how this is all part of the Reagan famous Southenn game plan!!!

    We should be discussing the racist dresses that will be in Obama’s parade not this!!! (SARC)

  • Thank you Mr. DeFrancisis. Sanger’s connection with outright racists and the eugenics movement is completely unknown to most people and you are correct that we cannot raise this enough.

  • I do wish this was examined more. Most Black Ministers I know are not pro-abortion but there is has been a curious lack of poltical action on this.

    There is much attention given to have the Pro-life Catholic voice lost the battle in the 70’s in the machine of Democrat politics. Little to no attention is given what the African American clergy and activist were doing.

    I know that evangelicals had sort of odd attitude toward abortion. For instance the SOuthern Baptist Convention passed a vote basically supporting the right to privacy I believe as to abortion. It was not till ROE they got activated in a huge way and it took the Carter years to do that.. Is this a matter of perhaps African Americans Protestant Christians sort of sharing in the same Pre-Roe mindset?

  • BlackGenocide.org – One black minister who’s putting up a fight.

  • Thank you Catholic Anarchist and Christopher for the book cites. I think we just have scratched the surface here of a very dirty story, and it needs more research. Sanger and Planned Parenthood did their best to sanatize her pre-war activities after World War II and I think there is still much documentation, especially in private correspondence, yet to come to light.

  • Pingback: Clinton and Our Lady « The American Catholic