I'd like to draw attention to the following quotes from Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Murdererhood and proponent of Eugenics. Hat tip to Chris Arnzen of Iron Sharpens Iron.
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts)
"Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, NJ...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366-367 )
"Everywhere we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be borne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born." (Margaret Sanger: The Pivot of Civilization, P. 279).
For more information...
12 comments:
So, knowing that Sanger is a goddess of the Democrat Party and that Obama is one of those recruited colored ministers to spread the gospel of numerical racial quotas ("I don't want my daughter punished because of a mistake"), do you think that anyone is really paying attention to the reason for the "friendship" of separtist organizations like the Dems and the Black Liberators who are actually racial enemies? What do you suppose is the end-game? This whole scenario is very reminicent of the convenient "alliances" that eventuated the Third Reich. Sanger was a rabid fascist not unlike the fascistic mentality that accompanies Wright's diatribes. Obama knew and knows the trajectory of the fascist racial separtism of Cone and Black Liberation Theology, how could he not? If he doesn't he more than unfit for the Presidency. The question really is, why do the people not know what Obama or the Democrats represent? The Democrat party made a reversal in the 1960's from an explicitly racist party to the hearalds of social justice (their entanglements with European "societies" was well established before this). The social justice movement was fully embedded in the progressivism, i.e. fascism, of the turn of the Twentieth Century America and remains a cover for the ideological base. Just like the progressivist, social gospel, movements of the early 1900's, the Democrat Party refashioned itself and relabelled itself. The term progressivism has made a comeback as of late. Interestingly, it was the same in Europe following the failings of the proto-fascists of the turn of the Century. Fascism was retooled as a social/welfare reform movement trumpeting civil rights and equality. The ascending and falling and reassemblege repeats itself, laying in wait, I believe, for the proper time.
I don't know, but it seems to me that all too many people have no clue as to the state of politics, really.
The question remains to be asked: would the followers of Obama continue their support if they knew? I don't know that it would make a difference. The ethnic and racial cleansing of Germany and the USSR, when it began, did not dissuade the people from agreeing with ideal state promised in utilitarian population reductions.
"The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be borne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born."
According to the ACLJ, Planned Murdererhood received 300 or 400 million in tax-payer dollars last year, or some obscene amount, to carry out genocide. Who knows, who cares?
If you will look NAL, that was a quote from Margaret Sanger who Obama's party loves. Don't hang the racist label on me, it is Obama who associates himself with racists like Sanger and Wright. Next time read the entirety of the post and comment before you display your ignorance. If you think that Obama was not recruited by the Murderer Party, you really are one of those who have no clue as to the state of politics in America. And by the way, it is still the NAACP, isn't it? I guess the NAACP then is what you said I am, right? If you wanna play bigot bigot whoda bigot, I think you've tipped your hat.
This whole scenario is very reminicent of the convenient "alliances" that eventuated the Third Reich.
Only if you have a particularly myopic view of history combined with a comically parochial view of politics.
M Sanger said, in one of the quotations I posted:
We should hire three or four colored ministers...
NAL, you are a fool. And an idiot. And quick to condemn. In short, nearly worthless. Someone taps you on the knee, you kick 'em in the balls b/c you love your liberal party SSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much. Pitiful.
Strong Tower:
My mistake. I apologize.
Sanger is a goddess of the Democrat Party?
Not that I know of, and I am a democratic activist.
"Someone taps you on the knee, you kick 'em in the balls..."
Hey, I didn't know you were allowed to say "balls." Neat.
Out of curiosity, can you watch R-rated movies, like Die Hard or Knocked Up or Basic Instinct?
When you start with balls, who knows what you can build to.
JN,
You're a political activist, eh? Cookie jar again.
Are you consistent with your self-label "nihilist" in anything? I'm serious.
Yes, I can say balls. Often in conjunction with, say, ping pong, tennis, football...
"Can" I? I have two eyes and enough money to rent a DVD, if that's what you're asking, yes.
If I am permitted to? I'll quote the Apostle Paul - all things are permissible for me, not all things are beneficial.
I like Die Hard. Knocked Up looks putrid, as does Basic Instinct, so no.
I read reviews of movies before I see them. If they contain much sex or nudity, for example, I don't see them.
Being a political activist in no way contradicts my philosophical nihilism. The United States is a representative democracy. As such, in a very real and tangible sense, the US government works for the citizenry. As a US citizen, given the fact that the government works for me, I have a right to petition the government to enact policies consistent with my interests. Whether my political opinions hit upon objective truth is irrelevant; because the government works for me, I have a right to petition it on behalf of my interests.
Notice that I do not entangle myself in the affairs of, say, China. The Chinese government does NOT work for me. As such, that government ought not to have any regard for my opinions: They are not relevant.
Interesting...your take on R-rated movies. For a while, several months back, out of morbid curiosity, I visited the website www.capalert.com, which features fundamentalist Christian movie reviews. That reviewer basically implies that watching "sinful" activity on the screen is little different from engaging in the activity oneself. So, he basically bemoans every film ever made. Kinda comical.
And, yes, Die Hard is quite the film. "Yippie kai yay [maternal fornicator]...."
JN, or should I say Gay Scientist. Which might be more apropos. But then, scientism doesn't really fit the sense of hihilism, either. In fact to make a statement about objective truth is to betray the confused chaos that is nihilism.
We are representative democracy, but you misdefine it. It is not to individuals but civil rights that the representation is in respect to and not the narcissistic desires of self-consummation. Representatives are elected not as you infer to secure the individual largess, but to do what is right and just in making secure civil liberties. That is, civil rights are civil rights precisely because they do not belong to the individual but to all individuals equally. It is not therefore for you to petition the government to secure your own petty desires with jaundiced bigotry of thinking yourself more deserving of anything over against the rights of your neighbor, (the Democrat way), but to secure for your neighbor what you would want for yourself. And in that is liberty, the right to own property including life and to be safe and secure in it; republicanism is to defend the rights of another. In a representative democracy then the representative does not work for the people, he represents the people, stands in their place as their champion. More precisely he represents the right and good administration of those rights which are held by the civil populace, equally. It is therefore the antithesis of representative democracy to usurp rights by programs such as affirmative action which pits one groups rights against that of another based upon some prejudiced view of superiority or a right that does not inhere in all. Or as in the supposed right to abortion where a woman's superior right is exalted over the rights of the unborn simply because of status. When this becomes the case, as it is with the DNC (but then nothing has changed since before the sixties) the only thing keeping you alive is that you have not yet been relegated to an inferior status by populist decision.
But, along with your deconstruction of the terms, your proposal is classic DNC propaganda. Notably that the government is there to protect individual rights and not the civil rights of its citizens. To that end the National socialist party and all forms of nihilistic fascist socialism prey upon the woes of the people. Instead of defending the rights of the industrialist and laborer, the DNC projects itself as the defender of the prey from the preditor. In a representative democracy it is not one groups (individual) rights over against another's, it is civil rights that are defended against those who would remove them whether baker or banker.
In short your interests, if they are not the interest of everyone, are merely selfish interests and a threat to the security of the interests of others.
It amazes me that a nihilist would even posit truth, for what is truth, and therefore, what is self-interest?
Strong Tower,
Your attempted deconstruction notwithstanding, several things should be made clear.
Foremost among them is that, although I am a nihilist, I do not broadly deny the existence of truth (nor does nihilism mandate such a denial). I deny the existence of truth with respect to moral issues. Central to this denial is the fact that there is no clear way to discern what facts might be relevant in judging an action virtuous or wicked. Are facts of happiness and suffering relevant to moral concerns? Possibly, but that has not been proved, and I see no way it possibly could be. More generally, I recognize we are merely an advanced species of animal that happened to evolve on this planet (a planet that, itself, just happened to form). Existence is meaningless and all our actions, in the final analysis, have no enduring consequence. The cosmos cares nothing for us—as a species or as individuals—and, as such, there is no reason to attach great significance to our silly doings. However, our brains are sufficiently evolved to grasp some truths, however tentatively: truths of science, history and mathematics come to mind. The cosmos exists and, of uppermost importance, it exists in a particular way. Where there is regularity and particularity, there is truth to be discovered.
Second, given the fortunate happenstance of our species' evolution, there surely is no such thing as "human rights" written into the stars. Human rights…civil rights…natural rights…these are invented ideas, with no known scientific basis. [The universe’s physical constants are a good example of truths that seemingly are written into the stars.] Luckily, as citizens of the United States, rights were invented for us and spelled out in our Constitution. Because our government operates thereunder, these rights always shall be protected (unless they are amended away or a tyrannical government, with high court complicity, rides roughshod over them). Apart from diligently working within the Constitution's framework, though, our government's definitional role is not promotion of rights, advancement of liberties or communal welfare.
Our government, a representative democracy, serves at the pleasure of the individuals of the country. District by district and state by state, we designate representatives to be our voice in the halls of power. No civil monolith exists, however much you might wish to imbue your arbitrary political whims into such an entity. There are 300 million people in the United States--individuals voicing multifarious desires--and our system of governance allows each to be heard out.
No concern is more or less proper: I advocate abortion rights without restriction. You presumably oppose abortion rights. I advocate the immediate termination of the Iraq debacle. You presumably oppose terminating the aforementioned mindless debacle. No matter.... We both are equally entitled to express these views (in the hope government will react) and entitled to seek representatives reflective of our interests.
Selfishness is built into the DNA of democracy, which is little more than following the capricious whims of the majority of engaged individuals.
Post a Comment