Breaking News: UCLA student group releases 2nd video exposing Planned Parenthood's racism

Thumbnail image for breaking.jpg5 weeks ago the UCLA student group The Advocate released a blockbuster video exposing Planned Parenthoods in various states accepting bucks specifically to abort black babies.

One of those PPs later issued a statement that acceptance of this $ was a 'serious mistake."

Well here are several more "serious mistakes." Today The Advocate released a 2nd video (in what it called "a series") exposing more PPs of the same Sangeresque genocidal money lust. These videos are so well done. Take a look:

This time the actor donor called clinics in OK and NM, asking to make a donation specifically to slice-and-dice a black baby. As you can hear, they are happy to oblige.

Irene Gray of PP of Albuquerqueresponded, "Yes, yes, it's a strange time for sure," in sympathetic tones to our actor's rant against affirmative action and how baby blacks need to be offed now so they can't upset his white child's college acceptance chances.

PP Tulsa staffer Susan Riggs responded, "We can definitely designate it for an African-American."

In the press statement accompanying the video release The Advocate editor Lila Rose outted the ACLU and NAACP for turning a blind eye to PP's obvious racism and called on Congress to investigate, particularly since PP receives over $300 million in federal funding annually.


Comments:

* the ACLU yawns *
* NACCP yawns *
* Barack Obama yawns *


..don't you people know that abortion is the liberal's holiest sacrament? Racism is A-OK if it fits into the liberal agenda.

Posted by: jasper at April 2, 2008 10:03 AM


Jasper you know they would take money if a black person wanted to donate to white people's abortions. And no one is forcing black women to abort. There is no law the says black women have to abort and white women can't. This whole act/lie makes it seem like black people are little animals white people have to care for.

Posted by: Jess at April 2, 2008 10:15 AM


Black people are just as smart as white people, we are all the same inside.

Posted by: Jess at April 2, 2008 10:16 AM


I must say that I am amazed that any staff person at PP is still getting "punked" by these crank callers.

Did the $20 million get wired into their bank account by the widow of the Nigerian Oil minister?

Posted by: anonymous at April 2, 2008 10:43 AM


Im willing to bet if someone offered money to the NAACP or Obama and prefaced it with a racist rant they'd still take your money - ditto for LaRaza - I bet if you waved some money in front of a Hillary fund raiser and said it was to keep a 'black man' from getting in the White House they'd take the money too ... in fact I bet McCaine would take donations from those g**** he said he hated so much. People who try to raise money from donations seem to see nothing but the $$$ at the end of the conversation.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 2, 2008 10:47 AM


This investigation exposes the godless agenda of liberals, the Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger.

When, when I ask, will people see the light?

You know how to determine who someone really is? Look at their fruit.

What is the fruit of liberals, the Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger? Here it is:
The muzzling of the church by 501c3 legislation.
God and prayer out of schools.
(These were fundamental to the sucessful implementation of the rest)
Black entrapment in poverty.
The devastation of black Americans as a whole.
Political correctness.
50,000,000 legally murdered children.
Homosexuality, a gross perversion of human behavior, classified as normal behavior. My God, these people now want to make homosexual marriage legal - an absolutely insane idea.
A public school system that can't complete with the rest of the world.
A country overrun by 12,000,000 illegal aliens needed because we killed out tax base.
A insatiable need to increase taxes because we killed our tax base.
An enormous deficit.
A whole generation of people burdened with the guilt of abortion, an inescapable reality.
Children who think oral sex isn't sex.
And the likes of Bill and Hillary, poster children for all of the above.

And this only scratches the surface of the damage these people have done to our country.

This is societal entropy defined.

If we don't wake up soon, our country is doomed.

Posted by: HisMan at April 2, 2008 10:53 AM


So much for the theory that Autumn Kersey was a rogue employee.

Posted by: Carrie at April 2, 2008 10:53 AM


TR 10:47am

You are speculating on what some people MIGHT do, you can't compare that to what PP employees in fact did, several times over.
Even if all the other people you mention would indeed take racist tainted donations, does that excuse PP?

Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 11:36 AM


Jess: no one is forcing black women to abort.

There it is.

A black woman has an unwanted pregnancy, and wants an abortion. Why should she worry if she is helped by somebody who wanted the money to go specifically to blacks?

And why should she worry about the birth rate of blacks versus whites? The black birth rate is already a good bit higher than that for whites. Likewise, why should she worry about the rate of abortions among black women? Her pregnancy is unwanted; how other women feel may be of no great concern to her.

Posted by: Doug at April 2, 2008 11:39 AM


As I have said before, nobody would be crying racism if the money was for an academic scholarship only for blacks. How, exactly, is this different?

PS Maybe I will start recording calls to pro-life organizations offering a donation only if the money is used to prevent white abortions but not black ones. Anyone care to guess whether they might accept the money or not?

Posted by: Ray at April 2, 2008 11:56 AM


"If we don't wake up soon, our country is doomed."

People said that to the revolutionaries... that our country would be doomed if we betrayed loyalty to England

People said that to abolitionists... that our country would be doomed without the profit provided by slavery

Peple said that to the immigrants - the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, and now the Hispanic... that our country would be doomed by "those people" entering our country and "stealing" jobs

People said that to blacks...that our country would be doomed by giving them the right to vote and be counted as citizens

People said that to women...that our country would be doomed by giving women the right to vote

People said that in the 50's and early 60's - that our country would be doomed by allowing blacks to attend school alongside whites

People said that in the 60's and 70's...that our country would be doomed birth control and pot

People said that in the 60's... that our country would be doomed by young rockstars with long hair, or one particular man who moved his pelvis too much

People said that in the 80's and 90's...that our country would be doomed by the growing tolerance of homosexuals, and that it would "spread" to children simply because they were taught not to hate gays


.... and yet here we are HisMan....

The reactionaries keep predicting our doom and blaming it on social progressives.

Boy who cried wolf much?

Posted by: Amanda at April 2, 2008 12:21 PM


Ray,

I consider it racism either way. I believe students should be awarded scholarships on the basis of merit and need, not race or ethnicity. This notion that minorities "need" that little extra consideration is bigoted and patronizing.
Awarding scholarships is one thing, deliberating targetting people of a specific race for elimination is quite another.
Another thing Ray, I would find it just as repugnant if PL organizations agreed to prevent the abortion of a white baby but not a black.
Racism is racism. Why don't you make those calls and find out for sure.

Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 12:54 PM


Maybe I will start recording calls to pro-life organizations offering a donation only if the money is used to prevent white abortions but not black ones. Anyone care to guess whether they might accept the money or not?

Ray - have to laugh - perfect. Right on.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at April 2, 2008 1:02 PM


Just a question,

I thought it was illegal to record someone without their consent. Does this not count?

Posted by: Stephanie at April 2, 2008 1:03 PM


Amanda, 12:21PM

You may be too young to remember but abortion advocates were also prophets of doom and played on the fears and prejudices you mention in your post. You never appeal to reason, you appeal to emotion.

Abortion was needed to save women from back street hacks. In fact, the death rate from illegal abortion prior to Roe v Wade was at an all time low and most illegal abortions were done in doctor's offices.

The Catholic Church is the great enemy of women against which all abortion supporters could rally. Opposition to abortion was some Catholic connivance. Hey, what's a little bigotry in support of a good cause? In fact, the Catholic Church didn't oppose abortion any more than any number of other Chrisian and non-Christian faiths. The CC was selected because it had a very visible hierarchy that made a great target.
Also, what better way to unify people than to give them a common enemy. Just ask the Klan and the Nazis.

All these "unwanted" and inevitably abused children would flood our social services and cost our society millions.

Abortion advocates played on "chicken little" fears such as over-population, poverty, racism, child abuse, environmental concerns, and the cost of the poor to promote what was seen as an easy solution to our problems. Of course there's no magical solution to longstanding social problems, but like I said you appeal to emotion, not reason. We all go for what is promoted as the easiest "solution"

You should have heard the wailing and teeth gnashing by these doomsayers when medicaid funding of abortion was cut. The very foundations of our society were certainly going to collapse.

You were saying something about crying "wolf".

Most telling is what Ron Weddington, who argued Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court, wrote to the President -elect Clinton and urged the use of abortion "to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our society".

He was no aberration Amanda, he represented the mentality promoted by abortion advocates, that these problems would be solved, or at least greatly reduced by legal abortion.

Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 1:16 PM


Stephanie, it depends on the state. Likely The Advocate researched before calling the 7 states it did. These states likely have the "1 party" rule - if 1 of the people on the call knows it is being recorded, the recording is legal. PP hasn't cried, "Illegal!" so that must be the case.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 2, 2008 1:17 PM


I'm confused. So, if I called someone and recorded him, it would be legal because I knew the call was being recorded?

That's not right.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 2, 2008 1:23 PM


TR 10:47am

You are speculating on what some people MIGHT do, you can't compare that to what PP employees in fact did, several times over.
Even if all the other people you mention would indeed take racist tainted donations, does that excuse PP?


Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 11:36 AM
**************************
I wasnt making any excuses. I was making an observation.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 2, 2008 1:56 PM


I believe students should be awarded scholarships on the basis of merit and need, not race or ethnicity.

I used to believe that too. As a smart, white girl, I thought I should be selected over some mediocre black boy or girl. I thought affirmative action was totally wrong.

Then I moved to a more diverse neighborhood, where I realized there are a lot of situations which hold back a child from reaching their potential. Things like poverty, uneducated parents, working parents, single-parent households, racism FROM teachers (yes, I have seen that one in action), and a whole society telling people of a certain race that they are lazy, criminals, unattractive, and just not good people.

And then I thought about it, and I thought, if I was in a disadvantaged situation, yes, I would want someone to look past my greed or income and help me up too. That's what affirmative action is there for. It's to help get those people of color into higher education and into the workplace so that we can experience more diversity and less racism.

Yes, it looks racist on the surface, but it is absolutely necessary until we do have equal representation of the races throughout our society.

Posted by: Edyt at April 2, 2008 2:07 PM


Substitute "greed" for merit. Oh, I should stop trying to watch TV and type at the same time.

Posted by: Edyt at April 2, 2008 2:09 PM


Yes, it looks racist on the surface, but it is absolutely necessary until we do have equal representation of the races throughout our society.

Posted by: Edyt at April 2, 2008 2:07 PM
*****************
But why is a caucasian raised in the same circumstances less deserving? I think poverty is the issue - not ethnicity. I have trouble believing a minority child growing up in poverty is somehow 'more' harmed by it than a caucasian child. And in a lot of ways I think "making concessions" for minorities when it comes to what is expected of them is racist and insulting. 'We just cant expect as much from you' Im also offended by the 'You really never made any effort in the classroom but you get a free scholarship because you can play some childrens game really well' attitude - again, regardless of ethnicity I find that offensive.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 2, 2008 2:21 PM


Jess: no one is forcing black women to abort.

There it is.

A black woman has an unwanted pregnancy, and wants an abortion. Why should she worry if she is helped by somebody who wanted the money to go specifically to blacks?

And why should she worry about the birth rate of blacks versus whites? The black birth rate is already a good bit higher than that for whites. Likewise, why should she worry about the rate of abortions among black women? Her pregnancy is unwanted; how other women feel may be of no great concern to her.

Posted by: Doug at April 2, 2008 11:39 AM
**********************
Exactly. I see her as a woman in trouble who needs help. Some people see it as 'keeping a black baby from being born'. It can also mean letting a black woman finish school, take care of children she already has, keep a job that lets her support herself, or avoid a pregnancy which could be detrimental to her health. I doubt if a pregnant woman is going to indulge in sociological speculation.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 2, 2008 2:26 PM


It is not that they are less deserving. The idea is that a caucasion has innate privileges. Affirmative action seeks to level the playing field.

I don't think any child should just be awarded a scholarship based on race. But if you examine a white child's grades (say a 3.6) and a black child's grades (3.0) of equal IQ, there's a likely possibility that the black child has external forces holding him or her back.

It's not the problem of growing up in poverty that holds a child back. It's that their parents may not be as educated (studies show there is a monumental vocabulary gap between children with educated parents and those without, as they enter kindergarten) ... which has nothing to say of a child's intelligence or capacity to learn. If they have not been exposed to the words, it is not their fault.

Second, consider a child growing up in a single-parent household. That child is more likely to work and go to school at the same time, which can lead to lower grades.

We are not far enough away from the civil rights movement to claim there are not still residual affects, that black people and people of color are not still being held back. They are, and it is apparent every day on our televisions and in the way they are represented in the media.

Affirmative action is in place so that the natural advantage being white gives a person in getting an education, getting a job, living the "American Dream" is taken away, thus trying to speed up the process of equality. The reason is has opposition is because white people are unwilling to give up their natural privilege, all the while admitting they do not have it.

Posted by: Edyt at April 2, 2008 2:36 PM


Two observations:

* Not one of the women on those recordings corrected the donor when he said "Black babies". Political correctness would have obligated them to interrupt and say, "Excuse me, sir, you mean African-American FETUSES."

*Just speculating, what if one of those "yes, yes" gals had been African-American herself? Would they have still taken the money after his little rant? Wonder if Lila and company attempted that.

Posted by: carder at April 2, 2008 2:47 PM


Edyt, 2:07PM

I don't agree. When you look for a doctor, lawyer, or accountant do you look for the best qualified person, or do you want someone only of a particular race, ethnicity, or gender? I look for the very best person with no regard to any of the above.

Diversity, contrary to popular belief is nothing new. I sat in the same classrooms with children of every race, religion,ethnicity, and social background. We all had to meet the same expectations, we were all subject to the same discipline, and no excuses were made or accepted.
Guess what? We all learned equally, many minority students being considerably smarter than me. And racism and anti semitism was certainly alive and doing well back then.
Also, we had the good fortune of not having these self proclaimed "experts" on diversity to "teach" us how to respect each other. We even managed to figure out for oursevles how to talk to one other without the political correctness police.

Sending half literate kids to college on preferential scholarships isn't doing them any favor. It sets them up to fail. Not granting scholarships to students who will succeed is equally unacceptable.
I wasn't qualified to get into the state's top university. I went to another one. My daughter went to community college. There will always be people who are more intelligent, talented, gifted, and motivated. Live with it.


The problems you mention Edyt will not be resolved by looking past merit and income. Resolving these problems have to come from the community itself. I read the account of one young black teacher who was having her first parent teacher conference. She was very enthused and and set up her room with all the children's work. Only two parents showed up. Why weren't parents standing in line to see her? What could they possibly have been doing that night that was more important? Lest I be accused of racism, the late black journalist Carl T. Rowan, a man of great accomplishment, expressed the same sentiments. He was very distressed over this mentality in too many black schools that succeeding is "being white" and black students who excel are subject to ridicule and harassment. Oh, and being ignorant, lazy, and uneducated is "being black"? Now just who is promoting the racist, inferior, and lazy mentality Edyt?
What I can't understand is why the very outstanding history of black Americans isn't emphasized. A history of valuing education, family, hard work, contributions to the arts, medicine, and science, as well as doing all this in the face of the most overwhelming odds.
Maybe because race hucksters would have to find another way to make a living.

Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 2:51 PM


TR 2:21PM

For the first, and likely the last time we are in total agreement. Very well stated.

Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 2:55 PM


amanda ".... and yet here we are HisMan....

The reactionaries keep predicting our doom and blaming it on social progressives.

Boy who cried wolf much?
"

Amanda...and now we killed 50,000,000 of our own. we are doomed.

Posted by: jasper at April 2, 2008 2:56 PM


I'm african-american and I want to know why isn't any of our "leaders" doing any thing see, this is why I can't vote for Obama. Does he know about planned parenthood. If not he's to dumb to be president and if so he's too dangorous and sick! I hope this video will pull their funding away and any other video you put up against planned parenthood. they should do some undercover work and see what really goes on in thoes abortion mills.

Posted by: Adlyn at April 2, 2008 3:02 PM


"TR 2:21PM

For the first, and likely the last time we are in total agreement."

LOL, Mary.


Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 2, 2008 3:03 PM


But why is a caucasian raised in the same circumstances less deserving? I think poverty is the issue - not ethnicity. I have trouble believing a minority child growing up in poverty is somehow 'more' harmed by it than a caucasian child. And in a lot of ways I think "making concessions" for minorities when it comes to what is expected of them is racist and insulting. 'We just cant expect as much from you' Im also offended by the 'You really never made any effort in the classroom but you get a free scholarship because you can play some childrens game really well' attitude - again, regardless of ethnicity I find that offensive.

Oh snap, TR, I completely agree with you.

I don't know how it could be either, I'm just as baffled as you, but I have found something we do agree upon.

People should be rewarded for their hard work and success, not because their skin color says so.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 2, 2008 3:16 PM


Adlyn, 3:02PM

Jesse Jackson at one time opposed abortion, referring to it as black genocide. He turned tail when his political ambitions took center stage, even walking hand in hand with PP president Faye Wattleton in demonstrations promoting abortion. I can only assume that Ms. Wattleton, a black woman, was blissfully ignorant of Margaret Sanger's history, especially when she spoke of her admiration of her.

Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 3:20 PM


TR 2:21PM

For the first, and likely the last time we are in total agreement. Very well stated.

Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 2:55 PM
***********
Aw - it might happen again ...

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 11:21 AM


Adlyn, 3:02PM

Jesse Jackson at one time opposed abortion, referring to it as black genocide. He turned tail when his political ambitions took center stage, even walking hand in hand with PP president Faye Wattleton in demonstrations promoting abortion. I can only assume that Ms. Wattleton, a black woman, was blissfully ignorant of Margaret Sanger's history, especially when she spoke of her admiration of her.

Posted by: Mary at April 2, 2008 3:20 PM
******************************
Sanger died about 40 years ago
She died before Roe V Wade
When she founded PP she was trying to get information on contraception to ALL poor women and race didnt have a thing to do with it
She was trying to help women prevent pregnancy AND prevent having abortions
The attitudes towards race in 1908 are not going to be the same as the attitudes towards race in 2008. Harping on Sangers attitudes in 1908 makes as much sense as harping on the number of slave owners who helped frame the BOR and Constitution

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 11:25 AM


TR,

Please explain to me why Sanger would go through so much hassle to address the women's auxiliary of the KKK. How nice the ladies could take a day off from terrorizing black citizens, spewing anti-semitic hatred, and burning crosses to attend. Was she that desperate for an audience? She couldn't have been that oblivious to the Klan and their antics, as well as what they stood for, considering they functioned very openly and with no fear of legal action.
Tell me TR, would you go to so much trouble to speak to a group of people who's racist and anti-semitic antics you find so repulsive? Apparently Sanger had a very friendly audience with the klan ladies and the klan went through some hassle to maintain secrecy and enable Sanger to speak. I wonder why.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 12:20 PM


TR,

Please explain to me why Sanger would go through so much hassle to address the women's auxiliary of the KKK. How nice the ladies could take a day off from terrorizing black citizens, spewing anti-semitic hatred, and burning crosses to attend. Was she that desperate for an audience? She couldn't have been that oblivious to the Klan and their antics, as well as what they stood for, considering they functioned very openly and with no fear of legal action.
Tell me TR, would you go to so much trouble to speak to a group of people who's racist and anti-semitic antics you find so repulsive? Apparently Sanger had a very friendly audience with the klan ladies and the klan went through some hassle to maintain secrecy and enable Sanger to speak. I wonder why.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 12:20 PM
*************************
And this happened when?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 12:24 PM


From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

In 1926, in what she called "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," Sanger even gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, a group she found so ignorant she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[5] Sanger's talk was well-received by the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan and as a result "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[5] In September 1930, she received at home the Nazi anthropologist Eugen Fischer.[6][7]

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 12:29 PM


TR 12:29

Your post says it all.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 12:35 PM


TR 12:29

Your post says it all.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 12:35 PM
***********
Yes, in 1936 she lectured them on birth control and found the group to be poorly educated and apparently not real bright. That was 1936, 14 years before I was even born and 4 years before my parents were even married. What do you imagine that has to do with 2008?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 12:47 PM


TR,

I just wonder why these racist groups would be so anxious to hear from her. Birth control for who? Was Ms. Sanger really this desperate for an audience? She received a Nazi anthropologist in her home, one of the scientists who promoted the theory of racial purity used to justify the extermination Jews and gypsies and who promoted the forced sterilization of thousands of those deemed unfit. I'm sure the KKK would support this theory as well, maybe that's why they asked Margaret to speak more often.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 1:23 PM


TR,

Another thing, I wasn't talking about 2008. I questioned how Fay Wattleton, the first black president of PP could speak of such admiration for a woman who likely would have viewed her as a racial inferior.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 1:35 PM


TR,

Another thing, I wasn't talking about 2008. I questioned how Fay Wattleton, the first black president of PP could speak of such admiration for a woman who likely would have viewed her as a racial inferior.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 1:35 PM
*******************
And you know that how?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 2:35 PM


TR,

I just wonder why these racist groups would be so anxious to hear from her. Birth control for who? Was Ms. Sanger really this desperate for an audience? She received a Nazi anthropologist in her home, one of the scientists who promoted the theory of racial purity used to justify the extermination Jews and gypsies and who promoted the forced sterilization of thousands of those deemed unfit. I'm sure the KKK would support this theory as well, maybe that's why they asked Margaret to speak more often.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 1:23 PM
************************
She lectured these women on contraception. She lectured a lot of womens groups on contraception. Birth control for whom? Who do you think? Just how often did she lecture the KKKs womens auxilliary on contraception? I only found a reference to one lecture. She entertained a Nazi anthropologist in her home in 1930. Why shouldnt she? Are you simply illiterate about history, and the national attitude towards Germany and the Nazis in 1930?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 2:42 PM


This is from Wiki but its still informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism


These attitudes were shared by well educated, intelligent individuals. Trying to judge these attitudes in the context of the society which gave birth to them by 2008 standards is ridiculous.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 2:47 PM


My error - she lectured in 1926 not 1936

Posted by: TexasRed at April 3, 2008 3:15 PM


TR 2:35PM

Because many years ago I read an article where she expressed her admiration.

TR 1:23PM

Of course. My grandmother and other relatives who lived in that era regularly entertained Nazis in their homes, especially prominent eugenicists such as Fischer. I understand Margaret also had great admiration for Adolph Hitler, and he for her.
Certainly no connection between the philosophy of the Nazis and the KKK ladies. I question if the lecture on contraception concerned birth control for the KKK ladies or the undesirable minorities, for which Sanger and the KKK would share a mutual contempt.

TR 2:47PM

One could say the same about the supporters of the Holocaust, many of whom were educated, intelligent people such as Margaret's friend Fischer. I suppose judging the Holocaust in the context of the society that gave birth to it by 2008 standards is ridiculous as well.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 4:01 PM


Edyt: If they have not been exposed to the words, it is not their fault.

Right on - years back I read an interesting article detailing somebody's study of child perormance in school. There was a direct correlation between the number of books in the child's home and how well they did in school, on a very consistent basis.

Posted by: Doug at April 3, 2008 9:52 PM


One could say the same about the supporters of the Holocaust, many of whom were educated, intelligent people such as Margaret's friend Fischer. I suppose judging the Holocaust in the context of the society that gave birth to it by 2008 standards is ridiculous as well.

Posted by: Mary at April 3, 2008 4:01 PM
******************
You could say all sorts of incredibly stupid things if you chose to do so ... and frequently you do so choose. I notice you dont have what it takes to stick to the subject at hand which doesnt surprise me.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 9:12 AM


Of course. My grandmother and other relatives who lived in that era regularly entertained Nazis in their homes, especially prominent eugenicists such as Fischer. I understand Margaret also had great admiration for Adolph Hitler, and he for her.
*****************************
As I said, youre apparently illiterate regarding the attitude of this country towards Germany in 1930. Hitler didnt even come to power until 1930. Did your parents regularly entertain well educated European visitors? if not then the parallell is stupid. You rely on your ignorance of facts and your inventions. Obviously thats more tolerable to you than the truth.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 9:15 AM


TR 9:12am

I simply applied YOUR reasoning to another situation.

Posted by: Mary at April 4, 2008 9:16 AM


TR 9:12am

I simply applied YOUR reasoning to another situation.

Posted by: Mary at April 4, 2008 9:16 AM
*************
No, you tried to draw attention away from the subject being discussed because apparently you couldnt deal with it. But the fact of the matter is both social darwinism and the nazi attitude towards 'undesirables' are viewed with shocked amazement in 2008. It's hard to believe anyone could think that way. Trying to draw parallells between attitudes in 1908 or 1928 with attitudes in 2008 is absurd. Whimpering that attitudes held by Sanger in 1908 'prove' anything about PP today is idiotic.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 10:42 AM


correction - hitler came to power in 1933

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 10:43 AM


One could say the same about the supporters of the Holocaust, many of whom were educated, intelligent people such as Margaret's friend Fischer. I suppose judging the Holocaust in the context of the society that gave birth to it by 2008 standards is ridiculous as well.

**********************
Care to tell us all what 1930 had to do with the holocaust? Hitler didnt even come into power until 1933.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 10:46 AM


TR,

Before the Nazis came to power, Fischer, like Margaret Sanger, was promoting the mentality of racial superiority and elimination of the defective, that led to the Holocaust. The state was already eliminating the "defective" prior to the Nazis coming to power, the Holocaust was just a continuation of this mentality. The Nazis did not originate this idea, though they certainly did nothing to stop it.

TR 9:12am

You haven't addressed my question. You say, and I quote "trying to judge these attitudes in the context of the society that gave birth to them by 2008 standards is ridiculous". OK, does that statement apply across the board and include the Holocaust?

TR 9:15am

She entertained a Nazi anthropologist who supported theories of racial superiority and elimination of the defective in her home. Since you seem to find nothing unusual about Sanger having this person in her home, I was being facetious concerning my relatives and trying to point out that entertaining Nazis in one's home was not an everyday occurance

Also TR stop asking me if I'm illiterate. I think you can figure out by now that I am capable of reading and writing.

Posted by: Mary at April 4, 2008 1:09 PM


TR,

Before the Nazis came to power, Fischer, like Margaret Sanger, was promoting the mentality of racial superiority and elimination of the defective, that led to the Holocaust. The state was already eliminating the "defective" prior to the Nazis coming to power, the Holocaust was just a continuation of this mentality. The Nazis did not originate this idea, though they certainly did nothing to stop it.
******************
I dont believe that was part of Hitlers political platform before he came to power. Pay attention to the US in 1930 and Germany in 1930. In 1930 what did being a 'Nazi' mean? Hitler didnt even become chancellor until 1933.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 1:35 PM


TR 9:12am

You haven't addressed my question. You say, and I quote "trying to judge these attitudes in the context of the society that gave birth to them by 2008 standards is ridiculous". OK, does that statement apply across the board and include the Holocaust?

************
I did address your question. I pointed out that both the Nazi attitudes and social darwinism are incomprehensible by todays standards. But you cant compare social darwinism in the US with what the Nazis did. People at the time would have been horrified by what was going on if they'd known the extent of it. Killing the Jews, the Poles, the Gypsies had nothing to do with 'social darwinism'. Whimpering that Sanger was a 'racist' is absurd in the context of society in the 1900s. Racism was a part of American culture. So was sexism and homophobia. The attitudes of 1908 have nothing to do with 2008. You cant compare the two. Trying to pretend that PP in 2008 "has to be racist" because of attitudes widespread thru the US in 1908 is absurd.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 1:42 PM


She entertained a Nazi anthropologist who supported theories of racial superiority and elimination of the defective in her home. Since you seem to find nothing unusual about Sanger having this person in her home, I was being facetious concerning my relatives and trying to point out that entertaining Nazis in one's home was not an everyday occurance

Also TR stop asking me if I'm illiterate. I think you can figure out by now that I am capable of reading and writing.

Posted by: Mary at April 4, 2008 1:09 PM
**********************
She entertained in her home a well educated renouned gentleman in her home who was visiting the US from Germany. Gibbering that he was a 'Nazi' in 1930 is meaningless. In 1930 the term didnt have the connotations it has in 2008. Why dont you read up on history during that time frame? In 1930 Hitler didnt even have any real political power. He didnt become chancellor until 1933. No one had a crystal ball and could tell the future of Germany 10 years down the road. As for the word 'illiterate' you might be well advised to look THAT word up too and see what it actually means. Thats one more thing you dont seem to understand.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 1:46 PM


This is how Hitler was seen in 1930 - the people of the US did not view him as some kind of 'monster' and Nazis were not seen as monsters

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/elect.htm

Posted by: TexasRed at April 4, 2008 1:56 PM


TR 1:35PM

It may or may not have been part of Hitler's platform, but the Nazis did nothing to stop the killing of the "defective" in Germany when they did come to power. If anything, they only extended it. The Nazi party was stirring up trouble in Germany and slowly rising to power. I'm well aware that Americans paid little credence to Hitler in 1930. Hitler was not taken very seriously anywhere, which proved to be a huge mistake.

Sanger supported eugenics, which was the philosophy of Fischer. He was one of those responsible for the Nazi German scientific theories of racial hygiene. Whether Sanger knew or cared about Naziism itself, she was certainly a supporter of Fischer's theories. Would either of them have been horrified or surprised at the end result? Who knows? HIstory has certainly shown us time again what happens to those deemed unworthy of living for whatever reason. Sanger admired Hitler and he admired her. I would assume this was after he came to power since few Americans paid him much heed prior to that time. Draw your own conclusions from that.
Racism certainly existed in the US. That must mean we cannot view the klan, lynchings, and Jim Crow from a 2008 perspective but rather accept and understand it from the perspective of the early 1900s. Is that correct?

TR 1:46PM

She entertained a man who's theories on racial superiority and eugenics she shared, which is likely why she was entertaining him! I didn't "gibber" that he was a Nazi, you pointed that out in your post.

As for illiterate it does indeed mean inablility to read and write. What you don't understand is that if you want to apply illiterate to a lack of knowledge in a certain area you must say "artistically illiterate", "musically illiterate" or "historically illiterate".

Posted by: Mary at April 4, 2008 4:03 PM