You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘eugenics’ tag.

Where do Democrats stand in defending the rights of the unborn? Sadly, nowhere.

Yet, it has taken several years for this truth to dawn on lifetime Democrat voters.

It is unfortunate that Pete ‘Mayor Pete’ Buttigieg (pron. ‘Budd-uh-judge’) of South Bend, Indiana, is an Episcopalian. He puts the denomination to shame in his support of late-term abortion. Yet, many other Episcopalians — also Democrats — do, too:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at least one Catholic Democrat saw the light, as Mayor Pete defended abortion until the bitter end. Interestingly, Mayor Pete’s dad was a left-wing professor at the University of Notre Dame who was a co-founder and past president of the International Gramsci Society. Who can make sense out of that? But I digress.

LifeSite News reported that the professor who termed Mayor Pete’s views as ‘the straw that broke this camel’s back’ is:

Charles Camosy, an associate professor of Theology at Fordham University, has also resigned from the board of Democrats for Life. 

Camosy, who specializes in biomedical ethics, explained his reasons for his decision in an op ed he wrote for Thursday’s New York Post: the Democrats’ complete disregard for the unborn child.  

Also (emphases mine):

it was same-sex married Pete Buttigieg’s attitude to late-term abortion, aired last week on The View, that convinced Camosy that pro-life Democrats are “fighting a losing battle” in convincing their party to respect their position. Buttigieg had indicated that he didn’t think the government should have any say regarding late-term abortion or post-birth infanticide

“The straw that broke this camel’s back was Pete Buttigieg’s extremism,” Camosy wrote. 

“Here was a mainstream Democratic candidate suggesting, at one point, that abortion is OK up to the point the baby draws her first breath.” 

He concluded that if the party was “willing to go all-in on the most volatile issue of our time with a position held by only 13 percent of the population, it was time to take no for an answer.”

Camosy also predicted that, thanks to its pro-abortion “extremism,” the Democratic Party will lose the next election

We can but hope. If they win, they will have cheated; of that, I’m sure.

Dr Camosy does not think he will be able to vote Republican, though:

My broader values mean I can’t vote Republican, however, and this makes me one of many millions of Americans for whom our political duopoly doesn’t work,” he wrote.

That’s too bad. Opening up other minor yet established parties does not work, either. The British proved that in their December 12, 2019 election.

LifeSite News has more of what Camosy wrote for the New York Post, all of it worthwhile reading. It also quotes Mayor Pete’s views for The View.

In closing, this is what Camosy had to say in his op-ed about the Democrats’ stance on late-term abortion:

Camosy asked them to participate in a thought experiment in which they suppose that “hundreds of thousands of children are being killed each year in horrific ways,” either because they have Down syndrome, or because their grandparents think their parents are too young, or because an abusive partner demands it.

And then suppose a political party claimed this killing was a social good. Just another kind of health care. Something to shout about with pride,” the ethicist asked.

“This party, it should go without saying, would be unsupportable,” he concluded.

Just so.

Sounds a lot like eugenics, doesn’t it?

More will follow on the Democrats’ views on abortion.

Western breakfasts have been dominated by cereal for decades.

How many of us knew that the Seventh-day Adventist sect indirectly influenced the rise of carbohydrate consumption through their practice of vegetarianism?

Seventh-day Adventists

The Seventh-day Adventist founders and early members were originally Millerites. William Miller, who lived in upstate New York, predicted the end of the world between 1843 and 1844. He was the Harold Camping of his day. Yet, our Lord tells us (Matthew 24:36):

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

After it was obvious that Miller had erred seriously, many Millerites returned to their original denominations. Others adhered to a form of Adventism, holding that

Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ’s entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second coming.

They believed this event was imminent.

Into this they combined legalism — obeying Mosaic dietary laws and encouraging vegetarianism — and other views that distinctly counter the New Testament, e.g. Saturday worship, the death of the soul and annihilationism. One of the four founders of Seventh-day Adventism, Ellen G White, whilst against women’s ordination, nonetheless was the group’s great prophet. Her writings continue to influence Seventh-day Adventists today.

They formally established themselves in 1863 in Battle Creek, Michigan. Later, their headquarters moved to Maryland and is currently located in the city of Silver Spring.

The Kelloggs

John Harvey Kellogg was a Michigan native. In 1860, when young John was eight years old, he and his family moved to Battle Creek. His father opened a broom factory in the town.

Kellogg earned a medical degree from the New York University School of Medicine in 1875. Having returned to Michigan, he practised medicine at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, which the Seventh-day Adventists owned. He was a committed Seventh-day Adventist and lay preacher. He was formally censured in 1878 for expressing panentheistic ideas — that God is alive in everything — and, in response, he gave an eloquent speech on the compatibility of the Bible and science. The General Conference accepted this and the matter was closed.

However, Kellogg continued with his panentheistic beliefs and voiced them openly at the General Conference of 1901. In 1902, the Battle Creek Sanitarium was destroyed by fire. Possibly sensing a connection between the two, Ellen White told Kellogg not to rebuild it. He saw differently and was able to take control of the board of directors.

In 1907, Kellogg wrote a book called The Living Temple, proceeds of which were to go towards rebuilding the sanitarium. After White read the book’s panentheistic sentiments, Kellogg was disfellowshipped from the Seventh-day Adventists.

The 1994 film, The Road to Wellville, explores Kellogg’s days at the sanitarium. He promoted cereal rather than eggs and meat for breakfast, a regular exercise regimen, sunbeds as well as specialist baths and enemas. What he advocated and practised is mainstream today: high-carb foods with fiber, thought to be better for intestinal health than animal protein.

His patients came from the upper and middle classes. They included President William Howard Taft, George Bernard Shaw, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison among other luminaries. It is no wonder that cereal and carbs became staple foods.

Kellogg’s brother, Will Keith Kellogg, sold brooms — probably his father’s — before joining him at the sanitarium. Together, they pioneered the manufacture of flaked cereal.

In 1897, the two founded the Sanitas Food Company and produced whole grain cereals. Their partnership broke up when the two could not agree on whether to add sugar to their products.

In 1906, Will Kellogg founded the Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company which we know today as the Kellogg Company.

Kellogg cereals

John Harvey Kellogg invented Corn Flakes in 1878, although he called them Granula. In 1881, he amended the product name to Granola. Because of a problem with patent rights, he then adopted the name Corn Flakes.

After he and Will argued about the addition of sugar, with the latter leaving to start his own company, John focussed his efforts on developing soy products.

Their rift lasted for decades. They fought in court over the rights to cereal recipes.

Near the end of his life in 1943, John wrote a letter to Will seeking to mend fences, but John’s secretary never sent it. Will received it only after John’s death.

Eugenics

Whilst Will established his W K Kellogg Foundation in 1930 to give back to society, was careful to add nutritional information to his product labels and bred Arabian horses in his spare time, John founded the Race Betterment Foundation.

John’s Race Betterment Foundation was the nucleus for the eugenics movement in the United States. He supported segregation, believing that intermixing with other races and with immigrants would weaken the gene pool. That said, he and his wife raised several black foster children. They had eight foster children and none of their own.

He published the periodical Plain Facts, which was anti-smoking and against masturbation. He also promoted sexual abstinence in marriage. In his early days, at least, he feared a food shortage, hence his promotion of more plentiful foods such as grain products and nuts.

The Battle Creek Sanitarium closed during the Great Depression. John moved to Florida where he opened a new clinic. He remained famous until his death.

Both Kellogg brothers are buried in Battle Creek’s Oak Hill Cemetery, not only near their parents but also two of the co-founders of the Seventh-day Adventists, Ellen White and her husband James White.

Charles William Post

Although not a Seventh-day Adventist, Charles William ‘C W’ Post was one of John Kellogg’s patients, started his own cereal empire and, interestingly, is also buried in the Oak Hill Cemetery.

Originally from Illinois, Post’s early career involved selling and manufacturing farm implements. He had a gruelling schedule which caused him to have a nervous breakdown. In an attempt to recover, he and his wife moved to Fort Worth, Texas, to help develop a new community called Riverside. There he became a real estate developer.

However, in 1891, Post suffered a second nervous breakdown. He believed strongly that digestion had an effect on a variety of health ailments. He toured Europe in search of a cure for himself. Finding none, he returned to the US and sought John Harvey Kellogg’s help.

Whether he visited the factory or was a patient of John’s, Post was intrigued by Kellogg’s cereals.

In 1895, he founded Postum Cereal Co. His first product was a cereal-based beverage called Postum.

Later developing more cereals, more about which below, Post plowed much of his earnings into developing more property in Texas, in Garza and Lynn counties. He also planned a new city, Post City. It became the Garza County seat.

As a successful business owner, Post was opposed to trade union disruption of work and the coercion that accompanied it.

Despite his fortune, Post continued to experience bouts of ill health. In 1913, he cancelled his public engagements. In March 1914, he was thought to have appendicitis and was sent on a nonstop train from his home in Santa Barbara, California, hundreds of miles away to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Accounts differ as to whether the Mayo brothers operated on Post. One says they determined they could do nothing for him and a 1955 biography of Post’s daughter says they performed a successful operation.

On May 9, 1914, Post took the decision to end his own life. In great pain, he shot himself fatally.

His only child, Marjorie Merriweather Post, aged 27, inherited his company and his fortune. She became a household name and married financier E F Hutton. She later sold her huge New York estate, Hillwood, to Long Island University. In 1954, the C W Post Campus opened. The year marked the centenary of his birth. The campus has 8,500 students and 100,000 alumni.

Post cereals

After the success of Postum, C W Post then developed cereals. He premiered Grape Nuts in 1897. The name was derived from the fruity scent produced in the manufacturing process and the crunchy texture of the finished product. A legal hiccup occurred in 1907, when Collier’s Weekly, a popular American magazine, took exception to the claim that Grape Nuts could cure appendicitis. Post retaliated by slurring the author of the article. The libel case came to court in 1910. Post was fined $50,000 — a huge sum in those days. The decision was subsequently overturned and Post withdrew the advertising claims.

In 1904, he came out with his own brand of corn flakes. He called them Elijah’s Manna then renamed them in 1908 to Post Toasties.

John Kellogg accused Post of stealing the Corn Flakes recipe from the Battle Creek Sanitarium safe.

Brother Will probably said, ‘Told you so’. Before John showed Post the flaked cereal manufacturing process, Will warned him not to. Not surprisingly, he wanted their unique process kept secret, even though John gave factory tours to anyone who was interested. Post’s rapid success was another factor in Will’s decision to open his own company in 1906.

Postum Cereal Co. became Post Cereals, which evolved into General Foods.

Conclusion

I was most surprised to discover how much influence Seventh-day Adventist teachings have had on Western health.

The result is that we are inundated with carbohydrates in the form of grain and soy products, which could well be adversely affecting not only our physical but our mental health. I wrote about this last week and will continue to do so in future. I cannot help but wonder if this provoked Post’s physical and emotional maladies.

Another interesting fact came to light whilst I was researching this entry. The Seventh-day Adventist George McReady Price is the father of the modern Creationist movement. He was inspired by a vision Ellen Price had.

Hmm.

John HoldrenJohn Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Obama administration, has chilling notions on families.

Holdren is married and the father of two children. He also has five grandchildren.

In 2009, he said that the government could propose to seize babies from mothers who refused to have abortions.

Now Fox News unearthed another quote of his concerning reproduction (see penultimate paragraph in the left hand column). If this isn’t straight out of the Third Reich, what is? Emphases mine below:

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

This is staggering. Suppose someone had enacted that against one of his children? He would be minus one or two grandchildren.

God gave us the capacity to reproduce. He wants His creation in this world. It is staggering that a scientist serving an American president could have suggested such a thing. Also, how can he be certain that removing this demonic capsule will allow a woman to bring a child to term? What happens if the child is deformed or mentally incapacitated?

Take it further, however. What if certain people are targeted with this capsule, should it come to fruition? Christians, for example, because America has enough of them, let’s say. Furthermore, let’s say, they’re deemed stupid (I believe such a survey exists). The United States doesn’t need more of their type.

I do not think this will happen any time soon, but we should be aware that one of today’s ‘experts’ has posited it.

Whilst Westerners have been concerned with possible world overpopulation since the 1960s, the rest of the world believes in life and having it abundantly.

This is the real key to understanding tensions in the West over immigration, the elephant in the room. Very few Western families are large, often for pragmatic financial reasons. Meanwhile, non-Westerners moving to our countries continue to reproduce. The tension here mostly involves the unanswerable question of how many of them are on benefit and, a second concern, how much a strain on resources (e.g. water, health care and housing) this produces. In certain places, such as Greater London, this is a valid worry. Building more housing is a problem when water companies have shut down several reservoirs.

That aside, however, only a Westerner really listens to messages about population control. Indeed, two generations of us (if we use the traditional definition of 25 years) have had this drummed in from our childhoods. I certainly did.

Along with the birth control message is that of sustainability, another thing that interests only Westerners. This meme relies on man being all-powerful over his environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, we’re all going to die and, second, we cannot stop natural — or even our own industrial — disasters.

Nevertheless, this does not stop those of a eugenecist and/or environmentalist bent yammering on in error.

The latest is the elderly David Attenborough. He would do better to spend his autumn years giving thanks for all the blessings God has given him during his life.

But no. Instead, Attenborough continues his belief that man is all powerful. Last week, he warned — and remember that evolution is still only a theory, even today:

Human beings have stopped evolving and should be persuaded not to have large families, Sir David Attenborough has said.

The TV naturalist, 87, said that he was not optimistic about the future and that “things are going to get worse”.

He said he did not believe that humans will become extinct but told the Radio Times: “I think that we’ve stopped evolving.

“Because if natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, is the main mechanism of evolution – there may be other things, but it does look as though that’s the case – then we’ve stopped natural selection.

“We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 95 – 99% of our babies that are born.

“We are the only species to have put a halt to natural selection, of its own free will, as it were.”

That is an illogical argument. Man cannot stop Nature (God, the author thereof). Therefore, if there is something to natural selection, it will continue.

Heaven forbid, an old-fashioned natural plague might control population. Considering how unhygienic the environmentalist agenda is (reuse plastic wrap, use dirty tote bags for groceries), this possibility becomes ever more likely.

However, we don’t know for certain. In any case, if necessary, whatever it is will surely be out of everyone’s (including government’s) control.

In closing, you would think that Attenborough would be thrilled that more and more people are living to his ripe old age. You would also think he would rejoice at the 95% – 99% birth rate and that most of those infants will grow up to raise their own families.

What’s the saying about ‘old’ and ‘fool’?

For a secular perspective on this topic, see Heresy Corner‘s ‘David Attenborough’s Population Problem’.

For anyone who grew up in the US in the 1960s or 1970s, the future was bright. This continued through part of the 1980s.

We had a vibrant space programme, we put men on the moon, we were taught that — thanks to technological advances — we’d have the shortest work week in history and we’d have much more leisure time to spend with friends and family. Our cars were gorgeous, our televisions state-of-the-art. We also made friends from other social classes and economic groups. We believed that we’d grow up and sit around drinking Coca-Cola with half the world, singing in perfect harmony. And we could go out to eat whenever and wherever we liked, getting there by a Jetsons-like space car. We figured most of us would be able to fly Concorde at some point in our lifetime. No surprise, then, that we kids felt as if the world were our oyster.  Truly, it was an exciting time to be alive.

It was the same in the UK. Nick M and his readers discuss it on Counting Cats in Zanzibar (language alert). The television show Tomorrow’s World was hosted by Raymond Baxter, who was a

Wartime Spitfire pilot, rally driver, commentating on everything … and presenting Tomorrow’s World in an age where tomorrow’s world was going to be a huge advance in man’s capabilities rather than a massive disaster brought on by man’s hubris.

So where did it all go wrong and is it any wonder that those of us who grew up then are so cranky now?  Nick M notes:

Being able to buy “organic” sprouts at ASDA is no recompense for the lack of a jetpack.

Our generation seems to have got it wrong.  We betrayed our gorgeous future by turning against each other in a most appalling way.

Back to Nick M (emphases mine throughout):

You took my life (I was born between Apollo 11 and Viking) and puked it out of the conservatory window. For what? What did we get in exchange for it? I want to know. Where did your imagination fail? Where? C’mon tell me right now. Tell me right now why the overseas aid budget is ring-fenced at 0.7% of GDP (practically none of which shall get to the poor) but you can’t afford to fund Skylon.

I’ve only been waiting 37 … years.

… This is the twenty-first century and we’ve got the iPad.

Well, yeah, great.

I guess there’s an app for that.

I don’t want an app. I want a space elevator.

Then there’s our generation of politicians who have turned from being servants to their consituents to controllers of our every move.  Is it any wonder songs like this have appeared on YouTube (sorry, another language alert)?

Along with them are those living high off the hog who will never have to worry about household budgets, cutting back on food or paying their mortgages. James Higham at Nourishing Obscurity objects to the notion of imposed ‘austerity’:

… there are the people whose own greed er keeping up with the joneses er naivety in buying the bankers’ la dolce vita er aspirations landed them in trouble, come the recession.

Then there are the people who did absolutely nothing wrong, played the game as it should have been played and lost their pensions, their savings and who were penalized for doing the right thing and on behalf of these – I’m very, very angry …

Now people are losing jobs, public sector employees are being laid off and it’s not good in our fair land at this time whilst, at the same time, banksters, quango heads and politicians are raking in big money – even now

They need a population which is working long hours for little money or else not working at all, hit hard by the law if they dare to step out of line in the least little way, whose food produces obesity, who content themselves with East Enders and the X Factor, … who are on drugs and screwing around, who cannot relate on an intimate level any more, resulting in people living alone in little boxes and so on and so on.

The last thing the PTB want is a fit, healthy, educated, self-thinking population who rigorously and vigorously debate the issues of the day, including the PTB.

Well, no, you cannot debate anymore.  When was the last time you had an intense discussion about matters socio-political with anyone other than a spouse or a close family member? People are either too afraid to speak up or they continue to tell themselves that the MSM is the same friendly, objective news source as it was 30 or 40 years ago.  Nothing to see here — move along, move along.

And saying something to a wider audience in public? Only last weekend an American rabbi, Nachum Shifren, who is a candidate in the California State senate race, wanted to say a few words at London’s famous Speaker’s Corner.  Police prevented him from doing so.  He was sandwiched in between two groups, socially and politically poles apart.  One group was acting as his host, the other thinks it has exclusive rights to Speaker’s Corner.  This shouldn’t be happening.  I have no interest in either group, but Speaker’s Corner is for everyone to have five or 10 minutes sharing his perspective with the public.

Journalists, in particular, know that they have to couch their language carefully when discussing multiculturalism. Around the same time Rabbi Shifren was prohibited from Speaker’s Corner,  Louis Jacob wrote the following for the Irish Independent, musing on Angela Merkel’s recent comments about the failures of multiculturalism.  Note how he has to couch his words:

Before we get off on the wrong foot, I want to establish an exact meaning according to the dictionary: multiculturalism is the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.

The reason I find this definition so important is because I am not entirely comfortable with what I have to say and I don’t want it to be misconstrued. Like everyone else, I am infused with the fear of political incorrectness that now runs deep in the veins of western society.

I remain convinced that a diversity of ethnic groups is essential to the health of a modern nation and I am passionately in favour of free movement. However, I have also come to believe in the need for ethnic groups to embrace a single culture as citizens of whatever host country they choose and to accept the social fabric of that country as pre-eminent.

In an article in Newsweek in November 1994, George F Will wrote that: “Multiculturalism is a campaign to lower America’s moral status by defining the American experience is terms of myriad repressions and their victims. By rewriting history, and by using name-calling (‘Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!’) to inhibit debate, multiculturalists cultivate grievances, self-pity and claims to entitlements arising from victimisation”.

As I read this, I thought, ‘And who were the people responsible for that?  Who was walking the corridors of power — whether in schools, universities, offices, public institutions — in 1994?  Why, none other than our wonderful generation who threw away all the hopes and dreams of their childhood for authoritarian control over each other and generations to come.’

Jacob cites European examples in his editorial.  Not one ‘victim’ group he cites really wishes to fit in with the majority of society.  If they did, they would no longer be victims. And this is, in my mind, a Catch-22 of multiculturalism and victimisation.  They are a vicious cycle, going hand-in-glove.

Jacob writes:

The worst part of it being that most of them wouldn’t dream of contributing to the society that they demand keeps them, and prefer instead to live in a cocoon.

This is the inherent flaw of multiculturalism — that the people for whose benefit multiculturalism is so often wheeled out are seldom so concerned with equality and fairness themselves.

In that way, those of us on the other side who pander and are wracked by our conscience are essentially little more than useful idiots, being continually slapped in the face.

But, as bad as that is, there’s also the sting in the tail of the victim being more precious than society at large (emphases mine):

A few years ago I was surprised to hear that Polish mass was being said in Irish churches. It seemed ridiculous that when we had so much in common, we still found the need to pander to this urge for ethnic identity and separatism. It was a sham. I put it to a Polish friend of mine. He told me that I didn’t really understand how important mass was to Polish people.

I was floored. He was basically telling me that their form of Catholicism was purer than ours. I’ve been to mass in Poland and bar a few minor details, it is identical to ours. Prior to that I was of the opinion that multiculturalism was the tonic for all evils. Now I see things differently.

I remain an idealist but even I can see that when an ideal doesn’t work, there comes a time when you have to stop shoving it in people’s faces.

Yes, I, too, thought multiculturalism would solve all our ills.  It’s only made everyone’s lives worse, even when they don’t realise it.  It’s controlling and authoritarian.  Over the past couple of years, various articles have even appeared suggesting that our thoughts be controlled, too. We must be saved from ourselves. News flash: only God’s grace, faith and the Word can do that.

Speaking of authoritarianism, I ran across this gem a couple of days ago about miniskirts being banned in an Italian seaside resort by the mayor, a member of the People of Freedom party.  You couldn’t make it up.

But, hey, this is all about the ‘wrong’ type of people, the ‘wrong’ type of behaviour, the ‘wrong’ everything about humanity — fallen man in a fallen world.  Where did our generation go so wrong in deserting our dreams for a constant condemnation of each other?  Is it really all the Fabianism and Frankfurt School stuff we learned at school?  Did something else bolt on to it? Where? When? How?  Only tongue-in-cheek here, but is this what a fluoridated water supply does to people?

Finally, we have Barbara Harris who is paying addicts and other volunteers who don’t ‘fit’ £200 if they have themselves sterilised.  Eugenics writ large but in a ‘concerned’ way.  If you’ve caught any of the comments on this, you’ll find a number of people who think it’s a great idea.  Nathalie Rothschild analysed this for Spiked!:

You might say that in targeting drug addicts, Harris is saying that some people – Them – have no right to become parents. But the overpopulation debate is also riddled with prejudice about the ‘wrong’ kind of people having too many kids, whether it’s working-class people in Britain or black and Asian families in the developing world. Harris’s organisation is only saying more explicitly what the respectable Malthusians have learned to spin in the language of saving the planet and empowering women. Here is a woman who just comes right out and says it: some people are not worthy of having children. No mollycoddling, no subtle nudging; just a couple of hundred quid, a snip, and the problem is solved.

Of course, for the mainstream Malthusian lobby, talk of sterilisation sounds too much like eugenics; campaigning for couples to have just one child sounds too much like Chinese authoritarianism; and only criticising oversized Third World families is too much like colonialism. They far prefer … moral blackmail to financial blackmail, warning us again and again that if we don’t stop breeding, the world will become an uninhabitable place. Is such baseless fearmongering about fecundity really that much better than giving cash to junkies on a Glasgow estate? In both cases, the aim is the same: to put pressure on people to stop breeding.

And the other convenient thing about these laws, campaigns and societal trends is that the finger inevitably points at someone else, never ourselves.  Increasingly, instead of singing in perfect harmony over a Coke, we’re labelling the world’s Western population as undesirables in one way or another: breeders, druggies, smokers, racists, homophobes.  ‘There ought to be a law against them!’  At the rate we’re going, there probably will be.  It wasn’t so long ago — just before the Baby Boomers were born — that this actually happened.  Will a war be fought this time around or will the world simply acquiesce?

In all this self-righteousness — and I’ve had colleagues who were eugenics supporters, by the way — aren’t we forgetting Jesus’s commandment to love one another?  Is restricting speech, imposing taboos on procreation and enforcing impoverishment ‘loving our neighbour’?

Somewhere along the line, Boomers, Jonesers — and now our progeny — really lost the plot.  We’ll look at this in more detail next week, starting with the Church.

James Delingpole, Telegraph blogger and Spectator columnist, is keen on debunking the Church of Gaia.

So, it was no surprise that he latched on to Harold Lewis’s resignation letter from the American Physical Society, whose position on climate change can be found here. The position statement is the one to which Professor Lewis refers to below. (Thanks to Dick Puddlecote for featuring the Delingpole column.)

Since then, it appears that Professor Lewis will be joining The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Here are excerpts from Professor Lewis’s letter (emphases mine throughout):

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood … Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that …

As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce … an honest appraisal of the situation at that time …

How different it is now. The … money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1/ … In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.

2/ The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry … and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider itIn response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety … The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe.

3/ In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4/ So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science … I might note that it was not easy … you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5/ To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses … The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6/ As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it … I think it is the money … to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department … would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.

And so would Tobacco Control, another leviathan spanning the world.  But we’ll look at the spurious science behind that in another post.

It’s all money and job-generating stuff.  And, as my readers have seen, it’s also all about Church unity.  No dissension, no discussion, only agreement.  After all, when funding and your job are at stake, what’s to discuss?

About this, Dick Puddlecote writes:

I have looked at tobacco control ‘science’. Just about all of it. And everything described by Lewis is not only replicated therein, but is more duplicitous, more resistant to debate, more mendacious, more money-oriented, and more corrupt, than anything Lewis will have witnessed.

Based on this experience, I can also offer a prediction. Lewis will be ostracised, his name blackened, his previous work dismissed as eccentricity, his future work dismissed as funded by oil companies. He will be expunged from the scientific community and threats of similar treatment will be issued to all who dare to commission him.

Or maybe, as one of Dick’s readers noted, they’ll just say he was ‘gaga’ or an ’embittered’ old man.  I hope not, but this is how these guys work.  And they’re always in it for the long Gramscian game.

Delingpole’s blog post generated nearly 1,800 comments when I read it.  It may have more now.  A reader, Henrybrubaker, cited in the blog Banned, had this to say (brief excerpt below):

… Eco-fascists are … extreme and they are willing to go to any lengths to protect their criminal schemes. If they are not confronted, discredited and defeated could the future bring us an eco-genocide? There are those on the side of ‘gaia’ who think that is exactly what should happen.

The greenies will scream at me ‘How dare you compare us to the Nazis, we are not the same, we don’t want to build the death camps etc…’. Perhaps not, perhaps the majoity … don’t want to kill us all. However, these people are the tools, the useful idiots, of the extremist eco-fascists. They do the ground work for people with views like Pentti Linkola, the Finnish eco-fascist who wants to destroy the majority of humanity and essentially enslave the rest …

Mr Brubaker’s comment received 54 recommendations from his fellow readers.

Stewart Cowan of Realstreet does an outstanding job of dissecting ethical issues.  In ‘Is Prince Charles a eugenicist? Are you without realising?’ he explores why the heir to the throne thinks the way he does:

Prince Philip wrote in the foreword to If I Were an Animal (1986),

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.

He notes that the Prince of Wales wishes to be known as Defender of Nature when he becomes king:

Defender of Nature? The worry is: how much do his beliefs match his dad’s?

Cowan believes that the Church of Gaia is part of eugenics:

This is how the world’s elites view humanity – as a virus; a cancer spreading across the planet and killing it. I believe the main purpose of the environment movement is to sear images like these into people’s minds so that they will either willingly accept, or more likely, be forced to go along with a managed reduction in population: eugenics.

On the 10:10 campaign, he writes:

… They really seemed to believe as Prince Philip does and also appeared to revel in the bloody murder of those who won’t go along with them.

It seems that the only difference between the Nazis and the Ecofascists is the targets to be eliminated.

The mysterious Georgia Guidestones suggest the world’s population should be limited to half a billion people. These elite atheist globalist “Ten Commandments” are as follows. (Some of these should already be familiar as the groundwork was begun a long time ago)

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.

Whoever was responsible for these words clearly thought that at least nine out of ten people must be eliminated.

Notice how much prominence that second “commandment” has in western society today: Guide reproduction wisely.

The only ‘guidestone’ that makes any sense is Number 7, however, I suspect that would be used against us instead of for us.

He notes that ‘family planning’ has been around for many decades now:

It has been made to appear totally acceptable, even wholesome.

As I have written about before, Marie Stopes, “pioneer” of Britain’s abortion clinics, used to send her poetry to Adolf Hitler in adoration, while calling for the compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.

While that hasn’t quite happened yet, family planning is considered normal and many people believe that killing unborn humans is acceptable, even a “woman’s right”. This particular cull deprives many millions a year of their part in history.

I didn’t know that about Marie Stopes, did you?

What’s next?  What about:

… a euthanasia industry to match the effectiveness of the abortion factories?

This should easily be achieved in this age of family breakdowns and the seemingly increasing disrespect for the elderly. Old folk will be told it is their right to be terminated in cases of illness, even a spot of depression or a harelip. They will be encouraged to feel they are a burden to the rest of society and the environment and eventually they’ll be volunteering to jump off cliffs (or ride their wheelchairs over). There will be posters in doctors’ surgeries alongside the family planning ones.

Who knows? Euthanasia may even be incorporated into family planning. For example, if you want four children, you should plan to have all the grandparents killed off by the time the fourth child arrives. It could be promoted as a double celebration: a new life comes into the world and an old timer gives his life for the planet so as to maintain humanity in perpetual balance with nature.

Cowan’s conclusion is chilling:

You could live with that, couldn’t you? Ask yourself how many of their lies you have bought up until now.

I can think of a group with whom they might start.  Can you? Hint: it’s the only minority group worldwide that has no legal or state protection anywhere, increasingly deprived of housing, recreation and employment.  If you think you know who it is, do leave a comment.

Last week I featured a post on eight-year old Domenic Johansson of Sweden who was forcibly removed from his parents’ loving home. It is a heartbreaking story and so that we can keep up with it, I have added a site about his plight — Friends of Domenic Johansson — to the blog roll.

Thanks to Labour, similar stories are commonplace in Britain. Although, like many of my fellow Britons, I have read about children being taken away from good parents to be turned over to the state, I had no idea what forced adoption really is.

A British businessman who lives in Monaco, Ian Josephs, is a former Conservative councillor who is championing the rights of parents to regain custody of their children from the state. (Mr Josephs also holds a Law degree from Oxford University.) Please note that these are not abusive parents but those who want the best for their children and have had them taken away after encounters with doctors or Social Services.

Mr Josephs’s website — Forced Adoption — invites parents affected by this social engineering tragedy to contact him (information listed at the link).  Some children are quietly removed from their mothers at birth.  Others after an accident requiring a trip to casualty (ER).  Social Services and the courts decide the fate of these youngsters with, at most, minimal input from the parents.  Social Services may threaten parents with a gag order, forbidding them from discussing the case.  Meanwhile, the child languishes in care and is sent either to a care home, to foster parents or is put up for adoption.

Social Services denies there are any such things as adoption targets, but something is going on which is quite murky and terribly sad.

Those familiar with British child abuse cases resulting in fatalities over the past decade will ask why those children weren’t taken from their homes instead.  Mr Josephs explains:

Well, physically injured children like Baby P, Victoria Climbié and others are not good adoption material. They are in any case avoided like the plague if there is a brutal and often drunken boyfriend or stepfather on the premises to intimidate the social workers. Such children are more often than not, callously left to die! Meanwhile social workers move on to easier targets and accuse respectable and more compliant parents (especially single mothers) of posing a “risk of emotional abuse” to their children, and even to their unborn babies! That is how the ‘SS’ work now.

Mr Josephs discusses the case of Maureen Spalek, which journalist Christopher Booker highlighted earlier this month in the Telegraph:

Mrs Spalek, the former wife of a naval officer, lost her children some years ago after one of her sons was taken to hospital with a broken leg from a bicycle accident. When she complained about the attitude of a doctor who was treating her son, social workers were called in. When she then, in turn, complained about the “hostile” attitude they had shown to her, the affair escalated to the point where her three children were taken away, on the grounds that she had “problems working with professionals” – even though it was agreed in court that she was an “excellent mother”, that the children were well-behaved and well-looked-after and that they had suffered no physical or emotional abuse. Two were adopted, one lives with their father.

In a follow-up to the story, Booker tells us of more cases of this indescribably unpleasant phenomenon:

One is that of Sarah White, repeatedly arrested for attempting to contact her “stolen children”, including an instance when she was jailed for a month for waving to her son when she unexpectedly saw him across the street. Two weeks ago, she was again held in custody for five hours, after her brother posted a YouTube video describing her plight.

Julie Cipriani is another mother arrested for waving to her child in the street and forbidden from further contact after reading out in court her daughter’s loving birthday card.

When another mother threatened with having her baby abducted recently fled to Ireland, her family were repeatedly visited by police, demanding to know her whereabouts. She is now receiving much more humane treatment from Irish social services.

The Daily Mail followed that last case closely over the last year.  A young couple (engaged to be married) from Fife in Scotland had to flee to Ireland in the latter stages of the lady’s — Kerry Robertson’s — pregnancy.  Social Services told Ms Robertson that she had mild learning difficulties.  Well, many mothers have mild learning difficulties, so why target Ms Robertson?  Fortunately, for Ms Robertson and her fiancé, Ireland’s Social Services are giving the young family the help they need.  Watch their story on YouTube in this short video (no sound needed):

Christopher Booker says that Tory (Conservative) MP Tim Meo is championing parents who have fallen into the abyss of the forced adoption spiral.  You can see a video here where he spoke on this subject in Parliament in November 2009.  Shamefully, only one or two MPs are present! 

Is it corruption, money or targets feeding this monster with taxpayers’ money?  All three?  Brian Gerrish, ‘a retired Royal Navy officer and anti-submarine warfare expert, who, together with colleagues throughout the country, has conducted detailed research into Common Purpose, a mysterious collective which seeks to by-pass the British democratic system by setting up unelected quangoes with extreme European federalist agendas’.  He says that forced adoption is part of the Fabian (socialist) plan to re-engineer society through the state and eugenics.  I pray that our new coalition government can investigate this matter urgently. Let us remember these children and their parents in our prayers, including a petition for them to be reunited. 

I leave you with a nine-minute video excerpt of a talk Gerrish gave earlier this year on the subject:

For more information:

No2Abuse: ‘Yvonne’s Story – UK Social Services Tried to Take my Granddaughter – A Families Hell’

Justice for Families Campaign Group

Brian Gerrish on Common Purpose: ‘Child Stealing by the State’ (full set of videos from aforementioned talk)

The health care bill hasn’t been voted into law yet, and the August recess is almost here for America’s ‘Congresscritters’. 

If you are American or have family living in the US and haven’t had a chance to read this bill, you might want to.  It’s unlikely US legislators have.  And they’ll be voting on it! 

Here are parts which might pose ethical dilemmas or issues for you or your families.  I’ve taken this pretty much verbatim from the link:

  • Page 65, Sec 164 — a payoff subsidised plan for retirees and their families in unions and community organisations (e.g. ACORN)
  • Page 95, Lines 8-18 — The Government will use groups, e.g. ACORN and Americorps, to sign up individuals for the Government Healthcare plan
  • Page 170, Lines 1-3 — Any NON-resident Alien is exempt from individual taxes, so Americans will pay
  • Page 203, Line 14-15 — ‘The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.’ Yes, it says that
  • Page 239, Line 14-24 –The Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
  • Page 241, Line 6-8 – Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty they have, they’ll all be paid the same
  • Page 253, Line 10-18 — Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc., their value as humans?
  • Page 272, Sec 1145 — TREATMENT in CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!
  • Page 298, Lines 9-11 — Doctors who treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission will be penalised by the Government
  • Page 354, Sec 1177 – Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs, e.g. DOWNS SYNDROME, people!
  • Page 425, Lines 4-12 — Government MANDATES Advance Care Planning Consultation. Think Senior Citizens’ end of life?
  • Page 425, Lines 22-25, page 426 Lines 1-3 — Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you to death
  • Page 427, Lines 15-24 — Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends
  • Page 430, Lines 11-15 — The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of your life
  • Page 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?
  • Page 472, Lines 14-17 — PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANISATION. 1) a monthly payment and 2) a community-based org. Like ACORN?
  • Page 489, Sec 1308 — The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Government into your marriage.

I have read that there is a provision for mandating the period of time that must elapse between pregnancies, but I haven’t found that particular line.  The Advance Care Planning Consultation, from what I have read, is about counsellors advising the elderly about death.  There are to be five counselling sessions to make sure the elderly patient is comfortable with the idea.  So, this sounds nice but also quite sinister. 

There’s more at the link, including arranging for payment, which enables the government to see your financial details. To what extent is unclear.

For a doctor’s perspective, please click here.  Dr Vliet suggests a few things you can do today, before it’s too late.

But, hey — everything’s for the ‘common welfare’, right? 

‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’  Very postmodern.

(In case you’re wondering, this bill seems much more restrictive than the NHS in the UK, but then the NHS came about in 1948.  And, in the UK, we can have private health insurance if we wish.  We also don’t have community-based organisations like ACORN involved.)

TheWorldInACoinOver the past couple of weeks, several news items made me recall past conversations with two Europeans.  Both people come from socially well-placed families and are well-educated.  

One conversation concerned a controversial UK government policy seemingly designed to undermine the social fabric of the country.  The person with whom I was discussing it paused, then said, ‘These matters don’t concern you.  You shouldn’t be questioning government policy.’  Oh.  So, my opinion doesn’t matter in the larger scheme of things.  I am too ordinary.  Never mind that I vote and still believe our ‘masters’ are elected to serve us, we the people. 

The next conversation took place a couple of years later, with the second person.  Whilst discussing the changes in Europe over the past 40 years, this person said, ‘I’m not worried for my future.  My family are part of the elite.  We can open doors others can’t.’ 

These are both actual quotes.  If you are reading this as a card-carrying member of the elite, my congratulations. Godspeed.  For the rest of us, here’s what lies ahead. 

This post isn’t meant to be preachy but is designed to get us — the non-elite — thinking critically about our votes and the policies we are forced to accept.  Current progressive policies in the West inextricably and inevitably put Christianity in the crosshairs. Look at history over the past 110 years, social as well as political. 

Whilst not all of the items below relate to Christianity directly, they will be life-changing to greater or lesser degrees:

  • New world currency: InsightAnalytical reports that on July 10, G8 leaders saw a sample of the new world currency.  According to Bloomberg, Russian President Medvedev said that the test coin (pictured in his hand) ‘means they’re getting ready’ and a ‘good sign that we understand how interdependent we are’.  If you think this is pie-in-the-sky, visit the United Future World Currency website.  Luc Luycx of the Belgian Mint, designed the obverse (‘Unity in Diversity’), and Laura Cretara, former artistic chief of the Italian State Mint, designed the reverse (‘Tree of Life’). Schoolchildren between the ages of 7 and 18 have submitted suggestions for a name and a symbol for the new currency. Recall that one of the cardinal rules of the Progressives is to work through children. Actress Sophia Loren and ET creator Carlo Rambaldi will be among the judges, along with a few currency-oriented people.  Didn’t you know about this?  Don’t worry — you weren’t meant to.  Never mind that anyone who’s brought up the words ‘global currency’ over the past few years has been ridiculed and told to make himself a tinfoil hat.  
  • Climate change: Meanwhile, just so we all get used to the one world idea, the High Priest of Climate Change and Father of the Information Superhighway, Al Gore, says that the proposed US Cap and Trade Bill will usher in ‘global governance’.  Foundingfather1776 has more here.  Al Gore doesn’t have to worry about the elite; he’s a member of it.  Americans will be paying more in tax for their lives of luxury (read: just trying to live).  Meanwhile, Al — an environmentally-sensitive Democrat —  has a fab houseboat he bought last year.  He claims it is environmentally-friendly, yet, as the Pajamas Media link notes, the results remain to be seen.  After all, his house renovations actually increased his electrical consumption by 10%.  Oh, by the way, you might also want to read about Mr Gore’s interests in Occidental Petroleum detailed here.  Yet, we’re all supposed to be preaching the Gospel of the Church of Gaia as handed to us by Mr Gore and his many expert acolytes.  But it’s much more than that.  The Wall Street Journal reports that left-wing Evangelicals and Catholics in the US are buying up ad spots on Christian radio stations to make Americans more aware of the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.  They are using Scriptural passages and homiletics to get their point across: ‘God’s creation cries out for relief!’  They are also distributing pamphlets to pastors around the nation to preach the gospel of the Church of Gaia.  Resist the urge to be taken in.  Focus on avoiding sin and the promise of salvation.   
  • Sex education in schools: Did you know that your school-age child has a ‘right’ to ‘an orgasm a day’?  If you lived in the UK they would be facing the spectre of reading a pamphlet entitled Pleasure which the NHS (National Health Service) is distributing to state school pupils.  The NHS has not asked the British taxpayers if they approve of such a pamphlet, even though they are paying for it involuntarily.  Pleasure offers positive advice, such as: ‘An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away’ and ‘Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes of physical activity three times a week.  What about sex or masturbation twice a week?’  The Daily Mail observes that 40,000 teens in the UK become pregnant every year.  Of these pregnancies, more than half end in abortion.  Don’t forget that atheists Margaret Sanger and Madalyn Murray O’Hair were strong advocates of compulsory sex education in state schools. 
  • Artificial sperm: On July 7, the BBC and other major news outlets reported that scientists in Newcastle have succeeded in creating artificial sperm from embryonic stem cells, a project they have been working on for a number of years.  Ostensibly to help infertile men, who knows how this could be used in future?  We already have designer babies in certain countries.  I’ve worked in this industry, and I understand how the messages to the public can be manipulated.  Just as abortion helps a ‘nice girl get out of a mistake’, well-meaning medical staff and researchers will always talk about the ‘heartbreak of infertility’ or say ‘no, we would never use this technique for cloning’.  Yes, it presents ethical issues.  Whilst today, artificial sperm might be used in a helpful life-giving way, what does it say about the future of men? What happens when techniques advance from this point?  What happens when they are used by doctors with weak or non-existent morals? 
  • Eugenics: And, finally, we come to our theme of this week, which has focused on the Progressive elite’s, the experts’, plans for our reproduction.  Several blogs have reported that President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, advocates forced abortions, mass sterilisations via food or water, the seizure of children from single mothers and a ‘transnational Planetary Regime’ to control not just the economy but the way you live — including reproduction — enforced by international police.  Don’t you understand?  If you did, you’d be an expert — part of the elite deciding the fate of the lower orders.  Don’t be scared, though, just obey.  Remember, if you have nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear, right?   You can view Holdren’s professional credentials here and read what he has written here (or, if that’s down, here and here).  He got his ideas in the early 1970s from Anne and Paul Ehrlich.  If you’re 50+, you’ll remember their book, The Population Bomb.  Find out more here.  It is related, oddly enough, to today’s Church of Gaia

These are issues we and our children will need to deal with in future.  We also need to do a bit more research before we vote next time.  Really read about what each party is saying — not just their pamphlets and TV or radio spots — but pore through online resources available to us. 

(If you don’t have the time to do this, then please nominate a family member or friend.  You’re being kept busy at work  just to keep your head above water.  When you’re busy at work, you don’t have time to read about what’s happening in the world.  Work can be misused in a culture to pull the wool over your eyes. Think about the popularity and necessity of being in the office at all hours of the day in the US. That culture is spreading to Europe. If you’re not a part of it, you’re labelled as being ‘lazy’ and ‘shiftless’. Remember ‘Arbeit macht frei’?  ‘Work sets you free’.  Think about how that ended.)  

Most importantly, let’s remember to read the Bible, pray for guidance and — above all — trust in the Lord.

Margaret Sanger answerscomIf you missed the first part of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s biography, please click here.  It will put this second and final part into perspective.

Beginnings of respectability

Once she returned home to New York from England, Margaret employed age-old radical forms of public relations she had learned from her Socialist friends.  These are still used today, most recently in America’s 2008 general election, as codified in Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals.  By skillfully drumming up public support, Margaret was able to get herself off charges of violating the Comstock Laws.  She then used this new fame and notoriety to good effect in a public-speaking tour, which took her across America for three-and-a-half months. 

In the 1920s, New York had large numbers of European immigrants.  Margaret decided to open a birth control clinic in one of the largest immigrant enclaves, Brownsville, a district in Brooklyn. Although the authorities closed it down within two weeks and sentenced her and her sister to a month in the workhouse, upon her release, Margaret launched a new publication, The Birth Control Review.  A respectable-sounding publication would help her build the reputation she needed to open new clinics.  She was right.  It wasn’t long before she had the ear and the support of prominent socialites who could help further her cause. She was also able to commission guest pieces from well-known authors and innovators such as Pearl Buck, H. G. Wells and Karl Menninger.  By 1922, the name Margaret Sanger became a household word. In 1925, she was able to hold an international conference about population control. 

Her book which came out at the same time, The Pivot of Civilisation, advocated the elimination of ‘human weeds’, a ‘cessation of charity’ and the sterilisation of ‘genetically inferior races’.  Why was she against charity?

Philanthropy is a gesture  characteristic of modern business lavishing upon the unfit the profits extorted from the community at large. Looked at impartially, this compensatory generosity is in its final effect probably more dangerous, more dysgenic, more blighting than the initial practice of profiteering.

Eugenics and left-wing ideology

Never forget that Socialism and Fascism are inextricably linked: both are left-wing ideologies.  Sanger maintained her support among eugenicists, many of whom served on the board of her American Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood.  Other political groups which supported eugenics at the time were the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis (National Socialists).  Both groups believed that governments were best placed to control family decisions and reproduction.  Only the government knows whether a woman should have children or how many.  These decisions are often made on the basis of gender, health or race.  Discrimination is always part of the eugenicist’s plan, which is rooted in power politics.  Think of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Mao and their cults of death.

You read in a preceding post about the Negro Project.  Sanger also wanted similar restrictions on ‘Hispanics, Amerinds, Fundamentalists and Catholics’.  Even religion entered into the picture for her.  Remember that, like the dictators of the 20th century, she, too, was an atheist.

Post-war ‘successes’ continue

After the Second World War, Sanger’s organisation held an international meeting in Bombay with eugenicist societies to define what the new Planned Parenthood, renamed in 1942, would do.  The name was purposely chosen to sound non-threatening and nice.  Together, they put together a philosophy of what Planned Parenthood programmes were to be about:

  • Advocating ‘legal access’ to ‘unrestricted abortion’
  • Coercive government action to force eugenic sterilisations and limits on births
  • Lobbying for legal and economic reproductive incentives and disincentives: maternity leave, child ‘tax’
  • ‘Value-free’ sex education for children, including the use of pornography, active encouragement of sexual activity and discouraging long-established family values.

On the last point, Madalyn Murray O’Hair — the atheist who had school prayer banned in the US — also advocated compulsory sex education in schools.

Planned Parenthood applauds the ‘success’ of restricted births in China, calling it a ‘stunning success … worth our attention and awe‘.  As for abortion, even in countries where it is illegal, they have ways of working around the law.  In the Phillipines, for example, Planned Parenthood can perform a ‘menstrual extraction’.  It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out this is actually an abortion.  In Brazil, which forbids sterlisation, the organisation performs as many as 20m of these procedures annually in its field clinics.

In the UK, Planned Parenthood issued the following advice internally:

Family Planning Associations and other non-government organisations should not use the absence of the law or the existence of an unfavourable law as an excuse for inaction; action outside the law, and even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change. 

Abortion becomes a Catholic issue

Around the world, Western countries adopted Planned Parenthood projects.  Even the United Nations began subsidising them in developing countries as far back as 1958.  

It seemed that Planned Parenthood had only one opponent: the Catholic Church, namely in Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae.  And, from that moment, abortion became inextricably linked with the Catholic Church.  Never mind that some Protestant denominations and other major world religions also strongly oppose the practice.  It doesn’t matter in progressive PR and rhetoric, which has been used to discredit the Church — and Catholics — with dramatic and devastating effect.

Just one more thing — SEX!

Meanwhile, what of Margaret Sanger’s private life during this time?  Well, before the Second World War, her daughter died of pneumonia while Margaret was away from home.  Her two sons were left to their own devices.  Margaret suffered the effects of being without her loving husband.  She turned to libidinous relations and alcohol to ease her woes.  Her lovers were many, yet even increased sex couldn’t dull the pain. 

Then she met conservative Episcopalian J Noah Slee of the 3-in-1 Oil fortune.  He couldn’t have disagreed more with Margaret’s organisation and her personal philosophy but he fell in love with her in a big way.  So big, in fact, that he proposed to her and would share his $9m fortune with her in marriage. Yes, it was a lot of money in those days. And, if there was one thing that Margaret loved as much as sex, it was money.  She didn’t feel about Slee the way he felt about her, so she drew up a hard-hearted pre-nuptial agreement whereby he would have to ring her on the phone to even see her!  She would have her own apartments in his home and would be free to come and go as she pleased.  Best of all, she would have access to cold, hard cash. 

And one final thing — MONEY!

She was still miserable as Mrs Slee, but, hey, at least she had money again!  Slee’s fortune helped Margaret open doors and fight battles she couldn’t have done previously.  She opened a clinic as a ‘research bureau’ to avoid legal tangles.  She smuggled diaphragms into the US from Holland.  She lobbied doctors and won them over.  She secured bigger and better grants from the Rockefeller, Ford and Mellon foundations.  She testified before Congressional committees advocating social planning and birth control.  Imagine doing all this during the Depression and Second World War.

The post-war period enabled her to work on the psyches of ordinary, middle-class Americans.  She knew they were eager to live in nice houses, drive cars and participate in the new consumer society.  In order to enjoy these things, they would need a secure, safe and clean environment.  So, she emphasised the values that accompany these: patriotism, personal choice and family values.

To make Planned Parenthood a part of the Establishment and a household word, Sanger enlisted celebrities, corporations and charities.  Of course, she could not have done it without Slee’s money.  She returned to her radical roots in New York City and London to get the activist youth interested and on-side. She was even able to get tax-exempt status for the organisation, so that it was like a charity or a church! 

Like a true leftist, Margaret Sanger was tenacious in her efforts and skilled in her propaganda.  And it worked.  Planned Parenthood is part of our lexicon of today’s received wisdom.

Let us learn from this

Despite all this, her affairs continued as did her use of alcohol and, now, drugs.  She also became deeply interested in the occult.  None of this brought her happiness.

Meanwhile, back at Planned Parenthood, the organisation teetered on the brink of bankruptcy.  She didn’t pay the bills on time and failed to give an account of her financial mismanagement to her benefactors.  Although the Planned Parenthood board was able to remove her from the board several times, they couldn’t do without her services completely.  So, they kept her on for her genius in promoting the organisation.

Yet, one sin begets another and, with the lack of belief in God, Margaret Sanger believed in sex, money, the occult, mind-altering substances and control.  This led to lust, avarice, distorting the truth and advocating violence towards women. 

Margaret Sanger died just before her 87th birthday on September 6, 1966.  By then, she had lost friends, family and peace of mind.      

Slee’s money had run out.  And time was called on Margaret Sanger. 

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but to lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mark 8:36-37) 

Source: Killer Angel, by George Grant, Ars Vitae Press (1995)

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

September 2021
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,658,370 hits