Does Feminism Portend the Rise of a New Master Race? (neo-eugenics alert!)

Were you taken back by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg's recent admission that Roe v. Wade was decided because persons were worried about "populations that we don't want to have too many of"?

Ginsburg's atavistic views can be traced back to the pioneering work of Margaret Sanger, the celebrated American feminist who later founded Planned Parenthood.

Beyond her feverish crusade to convince women to use birth control, Sanger was an unapologetic eugenicist. In her book The Pivot of Civilization she wrote, "More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief issue of birth control."

In 1934 she wrote her infamous Code to Stop Overproduction of Children that advocated, "no woman should have a legal right to bear a child without a permit...no permit should be valid for more than one child." (Think China's One-Child Policy.)

Nor could there be any doubt about Sanger's genocidal motivations. In 1926 she gave an impassioned speech at a New Jersey KKK rally and later established the euphemistically named "Negro Project." Sanger would later confide to a friend, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

But the long-standing feminist interest in promoting "good births" is not limited to race alone. Feminists regard women, especially white women, as a sort of uber-species, a superior breed of human-beings who are endowed with greater foresight, wisdom, and understanding.

One such advocate is Sally Miller Gearhart, author of The Future — If There is One — Is Female. Here's Miller's uniquely gendered solution to over-population: "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." In commemoration of Miller's accomplishments, a fund was later established in her name for the University of Oregon's women's studies program.

Valerie Solanas is another female supremacist. Author of the SCUM (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto, Solanas referred to men as a "biological accident" and called on women to "destroy the male sex." Upon her death in 1988, Solanas was lionized by the president of the New York State chapter of the National Organization for Women as an "outstanding champion of women's rights."

Mary Daly, former professor at Boston College, was one of the early proponents of the "goddess movement," which seeks to replace Christ-centered religion with a polytheistic pantheon that includes Earth Mother, Gaia, and other icons of womanist theology. In 2001 Daly wrote, "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this process will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."

But in one of history's supreme ironies, the feminist scheme to "decontaminate" the Earth by weeding out male undesirables backfired. It boomeranged largely due to feminists' own doing. As a result of widespread availability of abortion services and the decision of millions of pregnant women to abort their fetuses on the basis of sex, the lives of millions of unborn girls in India, China, and elsewhere have been tragically snuffed out.

As Charles Dickens once wrote in A Tale of Two Cities: "Every revolution eventually turns on itself."

But most gender supremacists are well-schooled in the methods of soft totalitarianism. They eschew the ham-fisted rhetoric of boot-jacked fascism in favor of kinder, gentler catch-phrases such as "female empowerment" and "gender consciousness-raising."

So rather than engage in a "drastic reduction" of the male population, feminists now implement laws and policies that are designed to incrementally stigmatize and ultimately marginalize men.

Let's start with NPR analyst Cokie Roberts' recent comment, "Men are just lesser beings." That misandrist attitude may be more widespread than persons like to admit.

Once a substantial minority of the populace comes to believe that men are "lesser beings," it becomes easy to jigger policies that make it harder for men to get a fair shake.

Take Obama's stimulus package — remember how the $787 billion was going to create "shovel-ready" jobs, rebuild the infrastructure, and restart the economy? As it turned out, the stimulus package will hire thousands of social workers, nurses, and teachers' aides, allowing women to commandeer 42% of all the new positions, even though four out of five persons who lost their jobs in the recession were male.

Consider the millions of dollars spent for "women's health" programs, even though men die 5 years sooner than women. And ponder the irony of colleges that sponsor "women's studies" programs, while the number of men in higher education continues to dwindle.

So is it far-fetched to countenance the quest for a new Master Race based on neo-eugenic feminist ideology? Columnist Jonah Goldberg offers this terse, if sobering answer in his recent opus: "The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism."

Two Margarets, Margaret Sanger and Margaret Mead were paid agents of influence and should be viewed together to get the broader picture. And the picture is chilling.

As always, when in doubt, follow the money. It ain;t pretty. Planned Parenthood is an euphemism for Planned Genocide

JAMESON TAYLOR 08/18/2009 09:58:16

Some of America's richest men are supporters of Planned Parenthood and its allies.

George Soros, worth a measly $4 billion, established the Program on Reproductive Health and Rights, which has given millions to pro-abortion causes.

Ellen Chesler, author of Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America, is director of the Soros-backed program.

Bill Gates, valued at $76 billion, has given $57 million to the United Nations Population Fund; almost $14 million to International Planned Parenthood; $4 million to the Population Council and millions more to other related causes.

Ted Turner, valued at $79 billion, earmarked $1 billion from 1997 to 2007 for UN health and population control efforts and is reportedly “close to creating a new film and television production company committed to making documentaries about…ecological responsibility and population control.”

The David and Lucille Packard Foundation, possessing assets of $13 billion, is almost exclusively concerned with population control and similar issues.

And finally, Warren Buffet, currently worth $28 billion, plans to dedicate almost his entire fortune, once he and his wife die, to—you guessed it—“population control.”

Already, the Buffet Foundation has committed $20 million to IPAS (International Project Assistance Services), makers of the handheld abortive suction pump; $2 million to Family Health International; and an additional $1.4 million to Planned Parenthood. The Foundation also has intimate ties with the Population Council, inventors of NORPLANT and holders of the U.S. patent rights to RU486.

The largesse of these contemporary cradlerobber barons, however, fails to measure up to the granddaddy of them all: John D. Rockefeller.

Accounting for time and inflation, Rockefeller would be worth an astounding $200 billion today.

Founded in 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation's vaguely stated mission is to “promote the wellbeing of mankind throughout the world.” For both John D. and the Foundation, “wellbeing” was defined primarily in a physical and economic sense.

Unfortunately, Rockefeller thus approached the problem of global poverty as if he were a shepherd caring for his flock. For Rockefeller, the proper care of sheep — or, in this case, sheeple — requires nothing more than an equalization of supply with demand.

If supply —i.e. food, water and space— cannot meet demand, supply must be increased and demand must be decreased. The Rockefeller Foundation has used this twopronged approach to great effect.

The supply shortage has been addressed by improving the quality of life for many through advanced medical practices and increased crop yields. The demand problem has been solved by culling the herd via birth control and abortion.

“Our Cause”: Sanger and the Rockefellers

From its inception, the Rockefeller Foundation was at the vanguard of the birth control movement. One of the Foundation's first official acts was to take over and expand the Bureau of Social Hygiene.

The Bureau had been founded two years earlier by Rockefeller “Junior,” with the stated intention of investigating the evils of prostitution.

In 1913, the Foundation formally took charge of the Bureau and gave it the task of conducting “research and education on birth control, maternal health, and sex education.”

“Cettie,” Junior's mother and John D's wife, eagerly furthered the project by giving $25,000 to “promote instruction in social hygiene for female students around the country.”

At least as early as 1924, under the leadership of Katharine Davis, the Bureau began funding Margaret Sanger's proposal for birth control clinical studies by the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.

The Rockefeller family also took a very personal interest in Margaret Sanger's activities, as the following excerpt from a September 1930 letter to Abby Rockefeller, Jr.'s wife, reveals:

“I wish you could come down and visit us some morning or afternoon in the near future. I know how you may hesitate to do this thinking of publicity, etc., but I wish to assure you that nothing of the kind would happen…The object of this letter, however, was not to tell you my woes, but to thank you for your help and your fine interest, and to tell you how much I appreciate it at this particular time.”

Apparently, this friendship between Sanger and Rockefeller only grew stronger throughout the years. As Abby's biographer notes, “Margaret Sanger was one of the last of her friends in Arizona to see her [before Abby's death].”

After Abby's death, Sanger wrote to Rockefeller Jr., to express her condolences: “It was such a joy to me to have had a nice laughing talk with Mrs. Rockefeller the morning you left for New York. I felt then how fortunate you and your children were to have had good rich years of her…care and companionship… her silent backing of our cause gave me great confidence through the years of darkest night.”

The Rockefeller Foundation, to this day, continues to provide significant support to Planned Parenthood.

The International PP Medical Bulletin, for example, is primarily underwritten by the Foundation and is even linked to the Rockefeller Foundation website.

The Foundation has also sponsored New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project. Most importantly, the Rockefellers determined the very tenure of U.S. and international discussions about birth control and abortion.

First, through funding population research and control initiatives at prestigious universities, such as Harvard, Baylor, Case Western Reserve, Chicago, the University of Chile, Columbia, Cornell, Hacettepe University in Turkey, the University of Michigan, North Carolina, Princeton, Tulane and the University of Washington.

And, second, through the establishment of the Population Council, the world's first truly global population control foundation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.