Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (68081)

8/7/2015 3:33:55 AM

From: Greg or e

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 69300

Margaret Sanger speaks...

‘The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat, knows no law except nature, which impels him to procreate, whatever the result.’ 22 Margaret Sanger

Flynn, D.J., Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas, Crown Forum, New York, 2004.

To: Solon who wrote (68081)	8/7/2015 3:51:18 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Margaret Sanger Wanted to Eliminate “Human Weeds” November 4, 2011 by Owen Strachan Ben Domenech’s Transom email is chock-full of good links and thoughts. Recently, it included the material listed below from the Margaret Sanger corpus. Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, came up recently when Herman Cain, embattled Republican candidate for the presidential nomination, suggested on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that she wanted “to kill black babies.” Here’s the transcript. This remark touched off a heated debate. Here’s one response, for example, that decries Cain’s remark, arguing that he “offered an alternate version of history” in serving up this assessment. You can also see the response from the Washington Post in the link above. And make sure you read this helpful breakdown by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway (and the telling comments section). Domenech included the following quotations from Sanger’s writing and remarks. They are, in a word, stunning. They show an audacious confidence in Sanger’s ability to determine who should be a part of civilization and who should not. I’m pasting them in directly from the Transom: “Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks–those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” (From this 1923 NYT story: http://goo.gl/z0ZdV, quoted in this study: http://goo.gl/7n4I9) “The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” (From her biography: http://goo.gl/XRUC0) “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.” (From this essay: http://goo.gl/dDyTW) “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.” (October 1921: http://goo.gl/XRUC0) “Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.” (From the NYU archive of her papers, in 1918: http://goo.gl/KaFVv) These quotations speak volumes about Sanger’s views on eugenics. It is clear that she believed that she had found a solution to the “problem” of the “over-fertility” of the “mentally and physically defective,” of whom African-Americans were a part. This is material that should shock us, burn in our hearts, and cause us to peaceably and prayerfully oppose the work of Planned Parenthood and other abortion practitioners with the greatest Christ-inspired urgency. Planned Parenthood is not a liberator, but a killing machine; Sanger was no hero, but the head of this sub-human agency. Satan is real, and he wants to destroy humanity (1 Peter 5:8). His work–including the destruction of innocent babies in the womb–will finally be defeated when Christ returns. Until that day, we must oppose it with every fiber of our being. patheos.com

To: Solon who wrote (68081)	8/7/2015 3:53:17 AM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 69300

Fine line between racial pioneer and eugenicist Mollie Hemingway Comments November 1, 2011 Ethics, Journalism, Race, Social Issues, Mollie Hemingway, Science/Environment We've been living under the "fact check" era at newspapers for three or four years now. I tend to agree with the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto when he writes: The "fact check" is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news. The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment. The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog ends each assessment with between one and four "Pinocchios," just like movie reviewers giving out stars. Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along ... And yet they persist. I think many news reporters enjoy the freedom to just opine or offer analysis under the guise of "fact-checking." Still, I thought this one from the Washington Post was particularly interesting. It deals with some statements presidential contender Herman Cain made about Planned Parenthood and race. Now, you will never find me defending anything that any politician says on account of how I believe that somewhere close to 100% of all politicians lie somewhere around 100% of the time. I'm all for checking out what they say and providing news consumers with information to combat their tendency to lie. In any case, it looks like Herman Cain made the "fact checker" at the Washington Post a bit upset by talking about Margaret Sanger's eugenicism. You can read the relevant exchange (or what I assume is the relevant exchange) from "Face the Nation" at the top of the "fact check." Host Bob Schieffer asks why Herman Cain said that Planned Parenthood was more like "planned genocide" and why he said that Planned Parenthood put centers in black communities and targeted black babies. Schieffer asked for proof that this was Planned Parenthood's objective. Cain says: Cain: If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger's own words, that's exactly where that came from. Look up the history. So if you go back and look up the history – secondly, look at where most of them were built; 75 percent of those facilities were built in the black community – and Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word "genocide," but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born. Cain also says something about Planned Parenthood not counseling women against abortions. So what followed? Did we get a list of the many Sanger quotes on eugenicism? Cain says to look at her words. Maybe he meant her piece for the New York Times where she led with a call for "racial hygiene" and said: Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks – those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization. Or maybe he was referring to her piece from the Birth Control Review where she wrote: Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as ... the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feebleminded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation. The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Or maybe he was just referring to her line: "Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its ... practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race." Did we get stats on how Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country, and data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that black women get almost 40 percent of the country’s abortions, even though they comprise only 13 percent of the population? Did the "fact check" include information on how nearly 40 percent of black pregnancies end in induced abortion, a rate far higher than for white or Hispanic women? Did we learn that 60% of black pregnancies in New York City end in abortion? Did we learn that 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood in a recent year got abortions while fewer than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care? No, no, we did not learn any of these things. Instead we were told that Margaret Sanger was a "racial pioneer." At worst, she may have exhibited an ever-so-slightly "paternalistic attitude toward African Americans." Dear God, I hope that the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler isn't asked to fact check something about American slave owners. We get, in fact, many many paragraphs of contextualization to tell us that Sanger's racial eugenics weren't even unpopular at the time. I mean, heck, you can't really argue with that. I think – there's a museum about this on the National Mall – that even the leader of Nazi Germany was enthusiastic in his support of eugenics. You can look it up. Of course, Cain wasn't talking about whether Sanger's racism was problematic for the time but, rather, just morally problematic. But in a "fact check" the "fact checker" sets the terms of debate. Got it? You won't be surprised, then, that Cain got four Pinocchios, apparently mostly for accidentally revealing Margaret Sanger's eugenicism. And that's a subject that Planned Parenthood itself assures us – assures us – is in no way problematic. No, really, the "fact checker" didn't manage to speak to anyone troubled by racial eugenics or abortion or any black pro-lifers working to highlight Sanger's (totally understood and contextualized by the Washington Post) views on eugenics. Perhaps pro-lifers are in short supply over at the Washington Post, I don't know. But he did get some really great sources at Planned Parenthood and they assure us that Sanger's comments are totally fine and nothing to be worried about and all those black fetuses are being very nicely taken care of at Planned Parenthood, OK? So just remember next time you read a story about someone talking about "cultivation of better racial elements," "a cleaner race" and "the solution for racial ... problems," the Washington Post will be the first to tell you that you're probably reading about a "racial pioneer." Four Pinnochios indeed!

To: Solon who wrote (68081)	8/7/2015 4:02:51 AM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

In 1932 Sanger was openly calling for forced Sterilization and/or a lifetime of confinement, in Prison Work Camps for a huge portion of the population, including Negros, ("the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development") Hispanics, the Poor, the Disabled the Mentally ill and the "feeble minded" a term so broad as to include anyone who disagreed with her. Here's part of what she called her "Plan for Peace" in 1932 " 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. ... to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives. The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics. The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct. Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense---defending the unborn against their own disabilities. ..." A Plan for Peace by MARGARET SANGER Summary of address before the New History Society, January 17th, New York City