Archive for the William Shockley Category

Planned Parenthood supporter: abortion for “preserving white countries”

Posted in Planned Parenthood Supporter, Pro-choice Logic, Pro-choice People, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

I stumbled upon a tweet that read:

    I unfollow anyone who is against the right to an abortion. Get over #plannedparenthood “scandals” and focus on preserving white countries.

Planned Parenthood racism support white countries abortion

In another tweet he suggested that pro-life people who oppose abortion be “ethnically replaced.”

Capture4

The tweets came from user Edgar Ulrich who supports Planned Parenthood.

He even retweeted one of their messages:

Capture

Edgar Ulrich’s support of Planned Parenthood is not surprising. The organization was founded in eugenics and focused on a desire to limit the population of non-whites.

Edgar’s tweet revealed his support of abortion for infanticide:

Capture2

This Edgar Ulrich Tweet below implies that abortion eliminates those whose IQ’s are not in par with “Whites.”

Capture3

Again, that idea came from supporters of Planned Parenthood.

In the 1970’s, Dr. William Shockley, a national committee member of Planned Parenthood and a featured speaker at at least one Planned Parenthood conference, agreed with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger that Blacks should be sterilized because their rates of reproduction was disproportionate.

William Shockly 1974 race

He also suggested that Black IQ was inferior to Whites:

William Shockly IQ Black

In 1967 the eugenicist and Nobel Prize caused a national uproar when he stated that it was a waste of taxpayer money to create better schools and welfare programs for what he called “Ghetto Negroes.”

Shockley advocated licensing women to have children.

He said what he called “unskilled Negroes” are reproducing at a much higher rate than unskilled whites.

He advocated birth control and said the Census Bureau would decide how many people could have children.

The Planned Parenthood speaker advocated Eugenics in this article – The Montreal Gazette – Dec 13, 1967:

Shockly license

He claimed to have research showing that people of African descent are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence and simply not smart enough to take advantage of programs designed to help them.

William Shockley Certificates to be pregnant

To save tax money, he proposed that the U.S. government implement forced birth control to lower the reproduction of the inferior classes and then issue certificates to become pregnant that would be sold on the New York stock exchange.

Mr. Ulrich would love for pro-life people to “get over the Planned Parenthood scandals” but that will never happen. He, by his own tweets is adding fuel to the “scandal” that the abortion biz was founded in racist eugenics.

Former Planned Parenthood prez Alan Guttmacher population control plan: limit births to two children

Posted in Garret Hardin, Guttmacher, License to breed, Limit Birth, Margaret Sanger Children, Margaret Sanger License to Breed, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization, Overpopulation, Parental Rights, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood abandons choice, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Global Family Planning, Planned Parenthood in minority community, Planned Parenthood limits choice, Planned Parenthood opposed by Blacks, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 3, 2014 by saynsumthn

guttmachr As late as 1970, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher called the idea of a limitation of families to only 2 children in America “desirable.”

Guttmacher endorses Force Full Article

The statement was made to a Sarasota paper while he was speaking under the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood of Sarasota County, Inc.

Alan Guttmacher, who was the residing president of Planned Parenthood World-Population at the time, sat down with Sarasota Herald Tribune reporter, Lee McCall for an interview.

Guttmacher told McCall that Planned Parenthood was an “excellent organization.”

McCall reports that Guttmacher pointed out that even though there have been discussions of limiting families to 2.2 children for what we would consider a forced population control system, Guttmacher said it was inadvisable for Planned Parenthood because it would essentially cause a public relations backlash among Americans and especially minorities who see this language as genocide and eugenics. Planned Parenthood was knee deep in Eugenics and Guttmacher knew the sensitivity of how the minority black community felt about population control which we have documented before (here).

Planned Parenthood president, Alan Guttmacher told the paper, “It would be difficult. In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this. So even though the plan may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time.”

Guttmacher endorses force

Guttmacher goes on to endorse a plan that he says would work, ABORTION, “If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies…”he stated.

Guttmacher also said this, “We look forward to the time when out clinics can be closed, when the government can fund enough money to serve the poor and research new birth control methods.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Guttmacher VP AES article
The same year, Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher, who was a former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, told Boston Magazine that the United Nations should be the organization the United States used to carry out population control programs worldwide.

GuttmacherColorfulUNForce
Guttmacher explained his reasoning, “ If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.

Earlier in 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war and told the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families “It may be taken out of the voluntary category“, Guttmacher said.

That created a huge backlash which set off accusations again by minority communities that Planned Parenthood was wanting to limit families especially black ones.

In an attempt to squelch that – Guttmacher denied that he wanted family limitation- and the media published the lies hook, line and sinker.

Guttmacher denies wanting to limit families

In 1971, Guttmacher again railed on about the importance of government limiting the size of families and said the government had been “niggardly” in their attempts to combat over-population. By then the backlash against force had begun so, Guttmacher began to advocate for “Volunteerism” as a PR way to get his population control measures received.

In a 1969 article in Medical World News Reports, Guttmacher sees the possibility that coercion will be used to control population, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion,” writes Guttmacher, “and determine when and how it should be employed. At present the available means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible. ”

Sanger Farms and Open Spaces

Guttmacher was following in the steps of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who in 1932, called for the U.S. government to set aside farms and what she called “open spaces” where certain groups of people would be segregated from the rest of society. She proposed that, among others, the illiterate, the unemployed and the poor should be forcibly kept in these areas until they developed “better moral conduct.” ~ The documentary film Maafa21.

Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once wrote that no one should have the right to bear a child and no permit for children shall give a couple the right the have more than one birth, requiring parents to obtain a “license to breed.”

In her “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger writes:

A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or State authorities to married couples , providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

This strange idea was opposed opposed by many.

License to Breed Sanger Bizarre Ideas

Maafa21 details the use of force for population control.

The idea of Forced Population Control not a new concept as I detail here.

Hardin AES

In another example from 1969, a professor at the University of California, Dr. Garrett Hardin, called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society and an outspoken advocate of government enforced birth control saying that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society. In 1980, he was given Planned Parenthood’s highest national award.

shockley In 1967 when eugenicist and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, caused a national uproar when he stated that it was a waste of taxpayer money to create better schools and welfare programs for what he called “Ghetto Negroes.” He claimed to have research showing that people of African descent are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence and simply not smart enough to take advantage of programs designed to help them.

To save tax money, he proposed that the U.S. government implement forced birth control to lower the reproduction of the inferior classes and then issue certificates to become pregnant that would be sold on the New York stock exchange. Shockley was a national committee member of Planned Parenthood and a featured speaker at at least one Planned Parenthood conference.
William Shockley Certificates to be pregnant
___________________________________________

Donald Minkler was the president of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians and a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Like many of those in the eugenics movement, he understood that their plans would not always be voluntarily adopted and that the use of governmental coercion, or even force, might one day be necessary.
Minkler Quote Article

In 1972, Minkler made this astonishing statement, “We hope that the restraint of population growth can come about through voluntary means: but, if it does not, involuntary methods will be used.”

Back to Alan Guttmacher

Most people have no idea that the organization he started the Guttmacher Institute is the official research arm of Planned Parenthood and quoted nationally.

Obama Adviser Argued: Kids from Big Families Have Lower IQs , is this a blast from the past when they accused blacks of the same ?

Posted in Eugenics and IQ, Holdren, IQ, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 23, 2012 by saynsumthn

The last time “IQ” was an issue in America, they weer saying Blacks had lower “IQ”, where is the outrage when the Obama’ admin Science Czar ( Who has advocated for population control measures in the past) makes this ridiculous claim ? NOTE- William Shockley was a speaker at Planned Parenthood conferences !!!

Obama Adviser Argued: Kids from Big Families Have Lower IQs
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 22, 2012

White House science adviser John P. Holdren speaking at Bauman Moscow State Technical University on March 3, 2011.
(CNSNews.com) – John P. Holdren, the top science adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote in a book he co-authored with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich that children from larger families have lower IQs.

The book—”Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions”—argued that the United States government had a “responsibility to halt the growth of the American population.”

It surely is no accident that so many of the most successful individuals are first or only children,” wrote Holdren and the Ehrlichs, “nor that children of large families (particularly with more than four children), whatever their economic status, on the average perform less well in school and show lower I.Q. scores than their peers from small families.”

Holdren and the Ehrlichs published “Human Ecology” with W.H. Freeman and Company in 1973. In June 2000, a study published in American Pyschologist debunked the notion that children in larger families have lower I.Q.s. But when Holdren appeared in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in 2009 for a confirmation hearing on his appointment to run the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he continued to argue for the benefits of “smaller families” on other bases.

In “Human Ecology,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs concluded: “Population control is absolutely essential if the problems now facing mankind are to be solved.

Political pressure must be applied immediately to induce the United States government to assume its responsibility to halt the growth of the American population,” they wrote.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs also called in “Human Ecology” for redistributing wealth on a global basis. “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being,” they wrote in their conclusions.

In a section of the book entitled, “Solutions,” in a chapter entitled, “Population Limitation,” the future Obama White House science adviser joined with the Ehrlichs in writing: “Any set of programs that is to be successful in alleviating the set of problems described in the foregoing chapters must include measures to control the growth of the human population.”

The authors then questioned the values of parents who have large families.

“Certain values conflict directly with numbers, although numbers may also be considered a value by some people, such as businessmen (who see bigger markets), politicians (who see more political power), and parents of large families,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

Those who promote numbers of people as a value in itself, however, may be overlooking the cheapness such abundance often brings,” they said.

One form of conflict between values and numbers arises in the choice between having many deprived children or having fewer who can be raised with the best care, education, and opportunity for successful adulthood,” they said on pages 228-229. “This dilemma is equally acute whether it is posed to a family or a society. It surely is no accident that so many of the most successful individuals are first or only children; nor that children of large families (particularly with more than four children), whatever their economic status, on the average perform less well in school and show lower I.Q. scores than their peers from small families.”

In a footnote to this passage, Holdren and the Ehrlichs cite a “[r]eport of a National Academy of Sciences Study Panel” that “includes several articles on the advantages to children of being first-born or in small families.”

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

In this Clip from the TV program 21st Century (Walter Cronkite) Harrison Brown, who raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense” . Interestingly enough, Harrison Brown and James Bonner co-wrote a book together in 1957 titled, The Next Hundred Years.

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

Here are some of the “ideas” John Holdren published in his book Ecoscience:


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future recommended was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

Maafa21 exposes racism, eugenics, and elitism all connected to Black Genocide in 21st Century America

Posted in Abortion, Africa, African Countries, African Nations, Agenda 21, Alva Myrdal, Alveda King, American Birth Control League, American Eugenics Society, Bill Gates, birth control in water, Black Abortion Stats, Black Babies, Black Church, Black Conservative, Black Deaths, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Neighborhood, Black Panthers, Black Pastor, Black Victims, Black Women, Brian Clowes, Charles Davenport, Civil Rights, Clarence Gamble, Clenard Childress, Clinton, compulsory birth control, Connie Eller, Conspiracy, Constitution, Darwin, Davenport, Democrat, Dr. James Watson, Ehrlich, Elaine Riddick, Elite, Ernst Rudin, Eugen Fischer, Eugenics, Evolution, Faye Wattleton, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Galton, Garret Hardin, Garrett Hardin, Ginsburg, Guttmacher, Haiti, Harry Laughlin, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, holocaust, Huxley, Jesse Jackson, Johnny Hunter, Joyce Tarnow, LBJ, Leon Whitney, Levon Yuille, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, MLK, NAACP, Nazi, Nobel Prize, North Carolina Eugenics, NSSM200, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Poor woman, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Ravenholt, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Republican, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, RU-486, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Yette, Slavery, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, United Nations, Urban League, Walte Ashby, Warren Buffet, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

Know the Truth- Get Maafa21 here

Maafa21 racism and abortion movie: the film Planned Parenthood does NOT want you to see !

Posted in Abortion, Alveda King, Black Babies, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Pastor, Clarence Gamble, Clenard Childress, compulsory birth control, Connie Eller, Davenport, Elaine Riddick, Ernst Rudin, Eugen Fischer, Eugenics, Evolution, Fairchild, Forced Sterilization, Frederick OSborn, Garrett Hardin, Ginsburg, Guttmacher, Harry Laughlin, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, holocaust, Jesse Jackson, Johnny Hunter, Joyce Tarnow, Leon Whitney, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Lyndon B Johnson, Maafa21, Madison Grant, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, Movies, NAACP, Nazi, Nobel Prize, North Carolina Eugenics, NSSM200, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Poor woman, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Quotes, Racism, Ravenholt, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, RU-486, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Yette, Slavery, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, United Nations, Video, Walte Ashby, Warren Buffet, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 24, 2010 by saynsumthn

They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.

But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America’s wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.

What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don’t think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it’s happening right now.

It is called Maafa21, a Swahili word which means “A terrible tragedy” and used to define the time of the middle passage during the slave trade and “21st century” because it reveals the “Maafa” has not ended but is still being carried out today through abortion.

Maafa 21 shows the connection from slavery and eugenics to birth control, abortion and black genocide today and is routinely called “stunning,” “breathtaking,” and “jaw-dropping.” Many viewers have said they were left “speechless” by what they saw and several have told us that it filled them with anger. One African-American pastor and 1960’s civil rights activist said, “I had always been suspicious about some of this stuff, but this film connects the dots in a way I never really understood before.” Another described it as “lightening in a bottle” and said that for the first time in his life he has a tool to educate the African-American community about the abortion lobby’s real agenda.

Maafa21 proves with irrefutable documentation that abortion is simply an extension of racism and eugenics targeting blacks for centuries. After watching Maafa21, viewers often comment that it “connects the dots.”

Maafa 21 features noted African American leaders such as Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Pastors Johnny Hunter and Clenard Childress leaders of the nation’s largest African American pro-life organization LEARN, Dallas Pastor Stephen Broden and others. Maafa21 was the featured film in the March 2010 Jubilee Film Festival in Selma, Al. to commemorate the right to vote and remember the historic “Bloody Sunday” anniversary of the Bridge Crossing Civil Rights march from Selma-to-Montgomery In addition, Maafa21 was featured in the 2010 Real Life Film Festival in Sudbury, Ontario. Audiences across the United States are gathering for showings of Maafa21 in homes, churches, theaters, Universities, and community centers.

The 2.5 hours of stunning documentation included in Maafa21 was gathered from original transcripts, video, books, libraries, and the papers of the American Eugenics Society, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and many others. We encourage you to view Maafa21’s “credits section” to see just how credible the information presented in Maafa21 is.

Gripping Interview:

Don’t miss Maafa21’s emotional interview with an African American Woman
who was eugenically sterilized by the State of North Carolina’s Eugenics Board

The film is called Maafa 21 and it exposes a plan to create “racial purity” that began 150 years ago and is still being carried out right now.
It’s about the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement and today’s “family planning” cartel.
It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.
Maafa 21 will show you things the media has been hiding and politicians don’t want you to know.
So if you’re ready to see the real agenda behind “choice,” fasten your seatbelts …

Sample quotes from the film:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg July 2009

Under the cover of an alleged campaign to ‘alleviate poverty,’ white supremacist Americans and their dupes are pushing an all-out drive to put rigid birth control measures into every black home. No such drive exists within the white American world.” Black Unity Party, 1968

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.” Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

Author of black genetic inferiority e-mail graduates this week from Harvard

Posted in Black Genocide, Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2010 by saynsumthn

This week is Harvard’s commencement for the class of 2010.

As one of the most renowned and liberal institutions in the world, it’s always hurtful and harmful — both to the campus milieu and the school’s reputation — when racist and sexist acts occur at Harvard University.

Last month, a lengthy e-mail written by a third-year student and an editor on the Harvard Law Review, Stephanie Grace, was printed by the legal blog abovethelaw.com. In that email, Grace wrote that she thought blacks might be genetically inferior to whites: “I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent,” she said. (Grace’s comment came following a private dinner conversation about affirmative action and race.)

As we all know, affirmative action has always been a hot-button issue. At a basic level, it’s an attempt to take race, gender, and ethnicity (to name only a few factors) into consideration to promote a level playing field for all. But the subtext in all affirmative action debates is the fallacious belief that blacks selected to benefit from it are hopelessly and helplessly genetically inferior — that their DNA is chromosomally deficient, if not defective.

The myth of genetic inferiority of people of African ancestry is centuries old, tracing back to when the first slave boat arrived on our shores in 1619 in Jamestown, Virginia. The myth of genetic inferiority of people of African ancestry not only legitimatized slavery, but also biblically sanctioned it. It was aided by people like Nobel Laureate William Shockley, who in 1956 voiced his theory of a genetic basis for racial inferiority. As part of his theory on the biology of ethnicity, Shockley stated that people of African ancestry belonged to a lower species of humanity, and deserved sterilization.

The idea of sterilizing blacks — because we supposedly belonged to a “lower species of humanity” — was part and parcel of the American eugenics movement, which started in 1926. Even Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger — an iconic figure for the women’s reproductive rights movement — espoused eugenics theory, backing the 1939 “Negro Project,” which was a precursor to what eugenists wanted to implement on a much larger scale.

As Sanger told the Senate in 1932, “The main objectives of the [proposed] Population Congress is to…apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

(BLOGGER’S NOTE- This is true – get the film: Maafa21 for proof clip below )

Debates about genetic inferiority are not new, and perhaps will continue, especially in light of ongoing debates about affirmative action. But it’s surprising to find them at an institution of learning like Harvard.

Read Rest Here

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Full text of Stephanie Grace’s e-mail

April 30, 2010

An e-mail sent by a Harvard Law student that questioned the intelligence of blacks caused outrage when it was leaked and spread on the Internet this week. Here is the full text of the original e-mail message written by Harvard Law student Stephanie Grace to her two friends, followed by a letter from Harvard Law dean Martha Minow, and Grace’s apology.

“.. . .. I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.

I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.

In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.

Please don’t pull a Larry Summers on me.”

Letter from Harvard Law dean Martha Minow:

“Dear members of the Harvard Law School community:

I am writing this morning to address an email message in which one of our students suggested that black people are genetically inferior to white people.

This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to intellectual pursuit and social justice. The circulation of one student’s comment does not reflect the views of the school or the overwhelming majority of the members of this community.

As news of the email emerged yesterday, I met with leaders of our Black Law Students Association to discuss how to address the hurt that this has brought to this community. For BLSA, repercussions of the email have been compounded by false reports that BLSA made the email public and pressed the student’s future employer to rescind a job offer. A troubling event and its reverberations can offer an opportunity to increase awareness, and to foster dialogue and understanding. The BLSA leadership brought this view to our meeting yesterday, and I share their wish to turn this moment into one that helps us make progress in a community dedicated to fairness and justice.

Here at Harvard Law School, we are committed to preventing degradation of any individual or group, including race-based insensitivity or hostility. The particular comment in question unfortunately resonates with old and hurtful misconceptions. As an educational institution, we are especially dedicated to exposing to the light of inquiry false views about individuals or groups.

I am heartened to see the apology written by the student who authored the email, and to see her acknowledgement of the offense and hurt that the comment engendered.

I would like to thank the faculty, administrators, and students who have already undertaken serious efforts to increase our chances for mutual understanding, confrontation of falsehoods, and deliberative engagement with difficult issues, and making this an ever better community.

Sincerely,

Martha Minow”

The text of the apology that Stephanie Grace sent to the leadership of Harvard’s Black Law Students Association:

“I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my email. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back.

I emphatically do not believe that African Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive.

I would be grateful to have an opportunity to share my thoughts and to apologize to you in person.

Even beforehand, I want to extend an apology to you and to anyone else who has been hurt by my actions.”

“Maafa 21” Exposes Black Genocide

Posted in Abortion, American Birth Control League, American Eugenics Society, Anti-abortion, Bill Gates, birth control, birth control in water, Black Crime, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Panthers, Black Victims, Brian Clowes, Charles Davenport, Church, Civil Rights, Clenard Childress, Cold Spring Harbor, compulsory birth control, Connie Eller, Constitution, Darwin, Davenport, Dictatorships, Ehrlich, Elaine Riddick, Eugenics, Evolution, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Frederick OSborn, Galton, Garrett Hardin, Guttmacher, Hilda Cornish, Hitler, Jesse Jackson, Joyce Tarnow, Life Dynamics, Lothrop Stoddard, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Mark Crutcher, NAACP, Nazi, New World Order, Pastor Stephen Broden, Pelosi, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, Richard Nixon, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, RU-486, Samuel Yette, Slavery, Sterilization, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Sterilizing agents in water, Supreme Court, William Bouie Haden, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on January 8, 2010 by saynsumthn

Written by Rebecca Terrell Published in The New American
Thursday, 07 January 2010 19:00

The documentary Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America is an explosive exposé of the racist eugenics agenda of the abortion industry in the United States. It makes the case that, though abortionists claim to advocate privacy, women’s rights, and reproductive choice, their true motive is racial genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Even more alarmingly, the film maintains that this agenda began not with the birth of Planned Parenthood in the early 1900s but more than 150 years ago before slavery as an institution in America came to an end. Literature for the documentary reads, “It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.”

Producer Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, a pro-life organization, explained the title Maafa 21 in an August interview on LIB Radio. During research for the film, he found the Swahili word maafa, which literally means “great disaster” or “tragedy.” It is used to define the time of African enslavement in America. “The crucial issue is the maafa may have begun when the first African was shackled in the bottom of a slave ship,” explained Crutcher, “but it did not end with slavery. It continues to this very moment.” He said the number “21” in the title refers to the fact that the abortion industry perpetuates maafa into the 21st century.

Crutcher offered several statistics to support his claim. He pointed out that even though African-American women make up only 12 percent of the population, they account for 37 percent of women who have abortions. He also said a black child in the United States is five times as likely to be aborted as a white child. He maintains that more African-American children die in abortion mills in less than four days than the number of African-Americans killied by Ku Klux Klan in 150 years, or the number of black soldiers killed in seven years of the Vietnam War. “The most dangerous place for a black child in the U.S. is his mother’s womb,” Crutcher asserts.

This did not happen by accident, according to Crutcher, and he produced Maafa 21 to lay out his case in a chronological timeline describing the evolution of black eugenics in this country.

The documentary begins in the mid-1800s with Francis Galton, the British statistician who coined the word “eugenics,” or “selective breeding as proposed human improvement.” From there, Maafa 21 weaves a chilling tale of the efforts of racists in the United States to eliminate African-Americans from the population. Hitler credited them with influencing his European agenda. Through the 20th century these influential bigots planned tactics such as injecting a sterilizing agent into public water supplies. The documentary explains how their racist efforts continue to the present day and provides a legitimate explanation of the relatively unchanged size of the black population as compared with other races in the United States.


Obviously guilty parties, such as Planned Parenthood, are highlighted in the film, but Crutcher does not shrink from pointing the finger of blame at less expected perpetrators. Maafa 21 exposes support of the abortion industry and the eugenics movement from both Democrat and Republican sources, including a disturbing recording in which Richard Nixon expresses racial prejudice and his approval of black eugenics through abortion.

Crutcher said Maafa 21 began as a single chapter in a book he was writing about abortion. As he dug deeper into researching eugenics, he realized it was a much more comprehensive subject than could be covered in one chapter of his book. The result is this two-hour documentary, a professionally produced and convincingly related narrative told in a succession of interviews and quotes from the actual perpetrators of this double-holocaust of abortion and eugenics.

See the preview for Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America here ( Below)