Margaret Sanger: Eugenics MONSTER Who Hillary Greatly Admired

Hillary Clinton received the “Margaret Sanger” award.  I would liken that to someone receiving the “Adolph Hitler” award.

This woman was a beast. She was the RACIST of racists. She wanted to make sure that the Black communities had a “Planned Parenthood” on just about every corner.  She believed that the Black population needed to be greatly reduced.

From cnsnews.com

Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?

When I write about Margaret Sanger’s May 1926 speech to the women’s chapter of the KKK in Silverlake, New Jersey—as I did again recently—liberals get upset. They accuse me of distortion and even making up the whole thing. Many of them cannot find it within themselves to condemn this sordid moment. One writer in the Huffington Post, who was highly unimpressed with, went so far as to assert that the KKK “was almost a mainstream group then, if still clandestine.”

 Well, maybe or maybe not, but it was still a rather hideous group. Can we not agree on that? This unending desire by the left to defend utterly everything about Planned Parenthood and its founder, Sanger, no matter how ugly, really is quite astonishing.

This same person who read my column went to pages 366-67 of Sanger’s 1938 autobiography—as I recommended doing—and accused me of “cherry-picking” from that material. I must say, I am pleased simply to see that some liberals are actually going to those pages. They have been in existence for 77 years now. It is high time that liberals read them. I’ve begged them to read that disturbing passage, and, alas, some of them are—though they’re usually motivated, it seems, to criticize me rather than Sanger. To avoid further accusations of cherry-picking this material, I’m herein reprinting the entire Sanger passage for readers to dissect themselves:

Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.

 My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten minutes for a cup of coffee or bite to eat, because no supper would be served later.
 I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted ten minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver. I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in the back and settled back. Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was right, she stepped on the self-starter. For fifteen minutes we wound around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon. We took this lonely lane and that through the woods, and an hour later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water beside a large, unpainted, barnish building.
My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me severely, “Wait here. We will come for you.” She disappeared. More cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A few gleams came through chinks in the window curtains. Even though it was May, I grew chillier and chillier.

After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty minutes. It was warmer and I did not mind so much. Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.

 Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.

In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York. Under a curfew law everything in Silver Lake shut at nine o’clock. I could not even send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in the river or was being held incommunicado. It was nearly one before I reached Trenton, and I spent the night in a hotel.

Those who have accused me of cherry-picking criticize me for not underscoring statements from Sanger like “hysteria,” “aroused,” and “weirdest.” Actually, I have noted those words when writing about this, and those words (I believe) actually further make the case against Sanger. They demonstrate that she knew that this was an extreme group. She clearly is intimidated somewhat. In fact, note Sanger’s comment about letting her family know that she hadn’t been thrown into the river. This suggests she understood that this was a rather violent group, right? What gave her that hint? The illuminated crosses? The KKK’s history of lynching black people?

 Most notably, there are no regrets here articulated by Sanger. And there’s also no indication of what she said that so thrilled the KKK sisters that they proffered a dozen invitations to her to speak again. If what she said prompted such an enthusiastic reaction, we ought to be able to safely assume it was consistent with their values. Moreover, all of this is, flatly, indefensible. No, not “any aroused group” is a “good group.” Could you imagine a prominent conservative speaking to the KKK and then telling the New York Times, “Hey, to me, any aroused group is a good group, and so I accepted an invitation to speak to the Klan.” Would even one liberal in America accept that?

Aside from the KKK speech, another item is often cited by Sanger critics as evidence of her alleged racism. It’s another troubling Sangerism that her admirers on the left feel compelled to defend. In a December 10, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Eugenics Society, in the context of discussing the Negro Project, which she developed in concert with white birth-control reformers, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

 What does the disturbing statement mean? It has been typically interpreted in two opposing ways: 1) Sanger admirers argue that she was saying “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” because, in fact, she did not want to exterminate the Negro population; and 2) Sanger detractors argue that she wanted to keep quiet her (alleged) desire to (indeed) exterminate the “Negro population.”
Okay, so which is it? The letter doesn’t say. But as for those with a negative interpretation—including Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece Alveda King, the website BlackGenocide.org, the group of black pastors who currently want Sanger’s bust removed from the Smithsonian, and numerous other African-Americans that I could list at length—it’s rather easy to understand their sensitivity to a critical interpretation.
 This we can say with absolute certainty: Margaret Sanger spoke to a women’s organization affiliated with the KKK and she started the Negro Project to bring birth-control information and clinics to impoverished southern African-Americans. Moreover, the Planned Parenthood founder unequivocally preached a creed of “race improvement,” which meant refining the gene pool and controlling and limiting the reproduction of human beings whom she thought weakened the human race. She clearly saw “Negroes” as among those members of the human race whose reproduction she wanted to control. And there is no doubt that the KKK, being absolute racists, would have lauded that.
Was Sanger plotting to eliminate all blacks? Of course, not. But she was plotting to control the reproduction of blacks and of the human race generally. She was a racial eugenicist. Was she a racist-eugenicist? Be careful. Really, even Margaret Sanger’s abortion views are not entirely clear. That is something that I’ve also written about many times for years.
 What else can be said for certain about Sanger and race? If the person we’re describing here was a prominent conservative rather than a progressive icon, this would be grounds for liberals to completely discredit and outright destroy that conservative. Liberals should reconsider their views of Sanger and what she has wrought.

Brethren, just as Isaiah 5:20 says:

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

from prolife365.com

12 Disturbing Quotes from Margaret Sanger: Planned Parenthood’s Foundress

Apparently, supporting and advocating eugenics earns you a place of honor in today’s world. If you’re Francis Galton, who coined the term, eugenics meaning “well born,” then you’re forgotten. If you’re Margaret Sanger, then the world’s largest abortion provider names an annual award after you.

Margaret Sanger began in 1923 the American Birth Control League. It would go on to become Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Back in March 2014, Nancy Pelosi, a self-professed Catholic, and current Minority Leader in the US House of Representatives, was given the dubious “Margaret Sanger Award.”

So, what did Sanger stand for? To give you an idea, here are 12 quotes:

1) “[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children… [Women must have the right] to live … to love… to be lazy … to be an unmarried mother … to create… to destroy… The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order… The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

– Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922 (emphasis mine).

2) “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

– Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976 (emphasis mine).

3) “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

“I think you must agree… that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics… Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator.

“As an advocate of birth control I wish… to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.

“On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

– Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5 (emphasis mine).

4) “Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying… demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism…

“[Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.

“Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant…

“We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

– Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922, pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition (emphasis mine).

5) “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

– Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922, page 12 (emphasis mine).

6) “One fundamental fact alone, however, indicates the necessity of Birth Control if eugenics is to accomplish its purpose…

“Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.”

– Margaret Sanger. “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb 1919 (emphasis mine).

7) The government ought to “apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

And the government should “give certain dysgenic groups (those with ‘bad genes’) in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

– Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108 (emphasis mine).

8) “The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”

– Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, pages 172 and 174 (emphasis mine).

9) “There is only one reply to a request for a higher birthrate among the intelligent, and that is to ask the government to first take the burden of the insane and feeble-minded from your back. [Mandatory] sterilization for these is the answer.”

– Margaret Sanger, “The Function of Sterilization.” Birth Control Review, October 1926 (emphasis mine).

10) “In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of ‘fit’ and ‘unfit.’ Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind. But among the writings of the representative Eugenists [sic], one cannot ignore the distinct middle-class bias that prevails.”

– Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. “Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?” Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44 (emphasis mine).

11) Birth control: “To create a race of thoroughbreds.”

– Margaret Sanger, “Unity.” The Birth Control Review, Nov 1921 (emphasis mine).

12) “Birth Control is not merely an individual problem; it is not merely a national question, it concerns the whole wide world, the ultimate destiny of the human race.

“Hordes of people [are] born, who live, yet who have done absolutely nothing to advance the race one iota. Their lives are hopeless repetitions… Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world; we must cultivate our garden.”

– Margaret Sanger. Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities, 1925 (emphasis mine).

Again, Margaret Sanger is the woman Planned Parenthood proudly affiliates with, and calls a “great hero.” In fact, although not mentioning Sanger’s obvious efforts to promote eugenics, Planned Parenthood goes on to state“Sanger’s early efforts remain the hallmark of Planned Parenthood’s mission.” – source

Can you see this so clearly all over this sin ravaged world? The Blacks do not want to hear bad things about Margaret Sanger. They do not want to hear bad things about the Democrats.  Basically, they don’t want to hear TRUTH!

If you have friends who are Margaret Sanger fans, you may want to share this article with them.  Not sure whether it would make a difference at this point; the god of this world has deceived the masses. It does say that our God sends strong delusion and that the people would rather believe a lie.  Don’t forget that Satan must go before God just as he did before his attacks on Job and his family.

The evil on this earth at the present time is much like the days of Noah. People are partying and drinking and having a grand old time. They have NO idea what is coming.

We are blessed that we do know these things, because God told us that they would happen.  Every word in the Bible is TRUTH. God cannot lie.  He wants His people to be informed.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also will reject you from being priest for Me;
Because you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children”  (Hosea 4:6).

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!

 

3 thoughts on “Margaret Sanger: Eugenics MONSTER Who Hillary Greatly Admired

  1. This is a timely post. Eugenics was all the rage during the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. Amazingly, this pseudo-science became a popular cause among American progressives (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt) and even scientists (Nikola Tesla). In addition to Sanger, curiously, Helen Keller was also a proponent. The movement’s implicit racism and prejudice against the poor and disabled were widely accepted in the academic community (Social Darwinism) and acted upon by political leaders. For example, Indiana enacted the first sterilization law in the country in 1907. The “Black Stork,” a silent film released in 1917 and re-released in 1927 under the title, “Are You Fit to Marry,” captures the movement’s intentional lack of scientific sophistication, fraudulent use of data, and easy use of scare tactics–all designed to manipulate public opinion.

    Nazi atrocities, performed in the name of “racial hygiene,” all but discredited the movement in the 1940s. Eugenics had become a toxic term. But the idea never disappeared. Both the British and American Eugenics Societies continued. In fact, one of the scientists who invented “in vitro fertilization” was a member of the British Society during most of his career. It is significant, therefore, that The Spectator (April 2, 2016) published Fraser Nelson’s article, “The Return of Eugenics.” It is just hard to keep a bad idea down.

    Nelson tells us that geneticists are forecasting in the near future (20-40 years) the reality of designer babies-IVF embryos that have been revised and edited genetically according to their parent’s wishes. The troubled “science” of eugenics, Nelson says, is back. Its tools, however, are far more powerful than anything its proponents in the past could have imagined. For those who have read C. S. Lewis’ “Abolition of Man,” we have reason to worry.

    Like

  2. Pingback: Evidence is Mounting that PLAGUE Outbreak in Africa is an Engineered Depopulation Bioweapon – Absolute Truth from the Word of God

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s