The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: fullautovalmet76 on August 15, 2010, 08:13:07 PM
-
An interview with Margaret Sanger in 1957:
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/sanger_margaret.html
She's seems to be so warm, so kind, so humanitarian in the interview...... ;)
-
Haven't gotten to the whole interview but at the top she talks about how she, ..."went among the people" [emphasis mine] I read that as "the little people".
-
Can't blame FQ there, I was the one who mentioned her, and her theories on Eugenics
Like George Bernard Shaw, and Hitler, She was a fatalist, assuming everyone's fate was more or less set, ( at least as a statistical probability ) by a persons "birth environment", if your Father was a farmer, chances were you, and your kids would be as well.
It fails to allow for personal initiative and ability.
-
She was also a socialist, and I sensed that every word she was saying was some form of a lie. Thanks alf, I habn't quite gotten that far in the interview, couldn't stand her arrogance and holier than thou attitude.
Reminds me of the time I met Margaret Mead, the famous anthropologist. She was famous mostly for being a woman in that field at that time (teens and 1920's) and was probably Franz Boaz' chippie at some point. When I met her, she was an arrogant, garrulous old woman living on her reputation. All of the other grad students worshiped the ground she walked on, though. I sat less than 5' away from her in the lounge and didn't see anything of interest - intellectually or otherwise.
-
Can't blame FQ there, I was the one who mentioned her, and her theories on Eugenics
Like George Bernard Shaw, and Hitler, She was a fatalist, assuming everyone's fate was more or less set, ( at least as a statistical probability ) by a persons "birth environment", if your Father was a farmer, chances were you, and your kids would be as well.
It fails to allow for personal initiative and ability.
Tom,
I was introduced to the ideas of Margaret Sanger in the early 80's via a documentary called "Silent Scream." That documentary made a huge impact upon me.....
In addition to what Path wrote about her, she was a very strident eugenicist- as in certain racial populations must be reduced or eliminated because they are breeding out of proportion to the other populations and they are inherently inferior.
She is also hailed as one of the founders of the pseudo-feminist (my term) movement. The very freedom she claimed to offer women with her philosophy actually enslaved them to a system that is very dark. Quaker in his naivete just doesn't see it or refuses to acknowledge it.
I'm going to read her autobiography, as I understand she "tells it like it is" in that one. I recommend you read Brave New World, which was written by Aldous Huxley. I think you will find it fascinating.....
-
She was also a socialist, and I sensed that every word she was saying was some form of a lie. Thanks alf, I habn't quite gotten that far in the interview, couldn't stand her arrogance and holier than thou attitude.
Reminds me of the time I met Margaret Mead, the famous anthropologist. She was famous mostly for being a woman in that field at that time (teens and 1920's) and was probably Franz Boaz' chippie at some point. When I met her, she was an arrogant, garrulous old woman living on her reputation. All of the other grad students worshiped the ground she walked on, though. I sat less than 5' away from her in the lounge and didn't see anything of interest - intellectually or otherwise.
Mead also, it turns out, faked a lot of her data on the "free love' stuff in Pacific Islanders.. She had an agenda to foster and didn't really care that she was twisng the facts. Some it was honest sloppy (seeing what she wanted to see), but some was just BS.
FQ13
PS as to Sanger, I think we're better off with easy acess to birth control (I'd think the same if I were pro-life). She did a lot, but was not someone I'd want to hang out with, putting it mildly. She was just a straight up eungenicist.
-
Tom,
I was introduced to the ideas of Margaret Sanger in the early 80's via a documentary called "Silent Scream." That documentary made a huge impact upon me.....
In addition to what Path wrote about her, she was a very strident eugenicist- as in certain racial populations must be reduced or eliminated because they are breeding out of proportion to the other populations and they are inherently inferior.
She is also hailed as one of the founders of the pseudo-feminist (my term) movement. The very freedom she claimed to offer women with her philosophy actually enslaved them to a system that is very dark. Quaker in his naivete just doesn't see it or refuses to acknowledge it.
I'm going to read her autobiography, as I understand she "tells it like it is" in that one. I recommend you read Brave New World, which was written by Aldous Huxley. I think you will find it fascinating.....
She was the Founder of "Planned Parent hood" and she intentionally placed the majority of the clinics in neighborhoods.
Looking at history, then looking around today makes it hard to argue with Eugenics.
-
The Islamist and Hispanics will out produce us and take over by atrition in reverse. No jokes here folks. We will have probably passed by then, but our children will have not, teach them well.
-
Based on birth rates , Europe is already gone.
-
Looking at history, then looking around today makes it hard to argue with Eugenics.
Tom, you really don't mean that or you really don't understand the implications- think NAZIs, concentration camps, forced euthanization of mentally disabled, etc......
-
Tom, you really don't mean that or you really don't understand the implications- think NAZIs, concentration camps, forced euthanization of mentally disabled, etc......
Yes, I mean that, flush the gene pool.
And don't give me that "Nazi" crap, they did the same things here, short of the camps and ovens.
-
Yes, I mean that, flush the gene pool.
And don't give me that "Nazi" crap, they did the same things here, short of the camps and ovens.
You're right they did do that here, Tom. We are not exempt. In fact, I argue, and Justice Ginsburg would agree, that Roe v. Wade was an extension of eugenics policy.
I think you really should rethink your ideas on this though. Don't think for a second you will be exempt from the list. Remember the people in charge of that program want to make the world in their "image." And you and I do not fit their template either.....
-
Oliver Wendall Holmes made some very telling comments about eugenics.
To get back (sort of ) to the topic, I haven't put a whole lot of thought into the subject beyond "retroactive abortion" for lawyers and politicians, but I stand by my opinion that if you actually look around at what our "nurturing" of the "less productive classes" has accomplished, it is darn difficult to come up with valid, non emotional, arguments against it.
-
Every time I read the thread subject, I see this...
'An interview with one of Quaker's herpes!'
;D
-
Every time I read the thread subject, I see this...
'An interview with one of Quaker's herpes!'
;D
Well, after all these years we still haven't gotten rid of her, so........ Just sayin. ;D
-
Oliver Wendall Holmes made some very telling comments about eugenics.
To get back (sort of ) to the topic, I haven't put a whole lot of thought into the subject beyond "retroactive abortion" for lawyers and politicians, but I stand by my opinion that if you actually look around at what our "nurturing" of the "less productive classes" has accomplished, it is darn difficult to come up with valid, non emotional, arguments against it.
I think that is getting to the problem. Stop the "nurturing" and that problem will tend to go away.
Without the government supporting the "less productive classes" they go away, either by starving or becoming productive enough to feed and support themselves, and there won't the generations after generation who are encouraged to bring additional "recipients" into the world for additional income.
Watching folks suffer until they die isn't easy, but it better than condemning generations of their descendants to the Welfare Rolls.
Drawbacks are that those who can't stand to watch the short term suffering can continue supporting the non productive by donating to local charities, but at least they will be doing it with their money rather than ours.
An objection to this plan will come from those politicians who won't think it is advisable to starve a large portion of their core voting block to death.
-
Herbert Spencer put this forward in 'Social Statics". Many other Utilitarians agred. Charity was irrational, they claimed, let them starve. Well......those underclasses weren't always chosen by self selection. Social policy played a large role. This was particularly true in 18th-19th century England.
The other problem is that Marx was also on board with this. At the end of the day, his theory is that the poor outnumber the rich and when things get bad enough revolution, with only one outcome, will occur. Numbers will determine it.
So I wouldn't be too quick to throw away social programs of the right sort. Education, job training, the GI Bill, Ameri-Corps, etc. Things that are an investment, not a dole. Lets not forget a sane immigration policy and not subsidizing companies to outsource overseas. And yes, a little (or a lot) of birth control spending to tell folks not to have more kids than you can feed is part of that. The octo-mom any one?
FQ13