Archive for Brave New World

Planned Parenthood’s abortion history and Margaret Sanger Timeline ( Part 1 of 4)

Posted in Abortion History, Abortion legalization by state, Abortion prior to Roe, Abortion Vintage, ACLU, Alan F. Guttmacher, American Law Institute, Eugenics, Frederick OSborn, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood History, Roe V Wade History with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 18, 2018 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood, abortion corporation

Believe it or not, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger did not introduce abortion to the organization. It was a man, Alan F. Guttmacher (after whom the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute is named), who did so. But Sanger has a very controversial history as an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics and as a member of the American Eugenics Society. The philosophy of eugenics not only fed her work within the Planned Parenthood movement, but her lesser known advocacy of euthanasia as well. The organizations Sanger founded, such as the American Birth Control League (ABCL), and later, Planned Parenthood, also have ties to many eugenics proponents. Under the philosophy of eugenics, minorities and the poor, as well as others deemed to be “feebleminded or unfit” were sometimes sterilized by the state. And at times, state sterilization boards used Planned Parenthood to commit these surgeries.

Sanger’s advocacy of eugenics reveals that her desire was initially to sterilize those she deemed “unfit.” It wasn’t until after these inhumane, eugenic methods were challenged in court that abortion was introduced into Planned Parenthood as an organization.

This clip from the documentary film, Maafa21, recounts a case in which eugenics courts utilized Planned Parenthood’s services to do the dirty work of eugenic sterilizations:

In 1921, Sanger founded the ABCL after opening her first birth control clinic in 1916. In 1923, according to the Margaret Sanger Papers, the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB) began as the Clinical Research Bureau (CRB), and on January 19, 1939, the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA) was formed through a merger of the ABCL and the BCCRB. At a special membership meeting held on January 29, 1942, the BCFA changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America Formerly BCFA

Sanger’s obsession with eugenics originated with her introduction to Henry Havelock Ellis in 1914, a psychologist and author of several books on sex, according to biographer Larry Lader. Lader once recounted that Sanger had “skimpy” knowledge about abortion, and that the topic caused a split between Lader and Sanger. “Ironically, I would eventually split with Margaret over abortion — only in a theoretical sense since, by 1963, she was too ill to carry on our old discussions,” Lader wrote in “Abortion II.” “Margaret had always opposed abortion…. Naturally, she was right in the context of her time,” he continued.

Image: Margaret Sanger (Image Credit Milwaukee Sentinel)

Margaret Sanger (Image Credit Milwaukee Sentinel)

Sanger believed in birth control to “stop the reproduction of the unfit”

Today, thanks to Lader and the media, Sanger is probably most well known for her push for contraception. But Sanger’s birth control agenda had a sinister eugenics plot behind it, as she admittedin 1919, when she stated:

Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control…. We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. …While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit… Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit…”

Sanger was a nurse by trade and had witnessed the horrors of illegal abortion. In fact, as early as 1912, before there were appropriate medicines to combat infection, Sanger witnessed a patient die from what she believed to be an illegal abortion. Sanger was not necessarily opposed to abortion, but as it had not yet been legalized, her focus was eugenic sterilization and birth control. In her book Woman and the New Race, published in 1920, Sanger suggests that birth control is a better choice than abortion:

When society holds up its hands in horror at the “crime” of abortion, it forgets at whose door the first and principal responsibility for this practice rests. Does anyone imagine that a woman would submit to abortion if not denied the knowledge of scientific, effective contraceptives? Does anyone believe that physicians and midwives who perform abortions go from door to door soliciting patronage? The abortionist could not continue his practice for twenty-four hours if it were not for the fact that women come desperately begging for such operations…The question, then, is not whether family limitation should be practiced. It is being practiced, it has been practiced for ages and it will always be practiced. The question that  society must answer is this: shall family limitation be achieved through birth control or abortion?”

Margaret Sanger talks abortion in Woman and the New Race

As abortion continues today despite the availability of multiple kinds of contraception, it appears that Sanger, in claiming women seek abortion only because they don’t have birth control, was wrong.

Sanger called birth control “less repulsive” than abortion

She goes on to admit, “In plain, everyday language, in an abortion there is always a very serious risk to the health and often to the life of the patient…. Frequent abortions tend to cause barrenness and serious, painful pelvic ailments. These and other conditions arising from such operations are very likely to ruin a woman’s general health.”

Poster from Birth Control Federation called Abortion Facts

Then, she briefly advocates for legalized abortion, while maintaining her focus on “prevention,” writing, “We know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient, and we also know that particular diseases can be more easily combatted after such an abortion than during a pregnancy allowed to come to full term. But why not adopt the easier, safer, less repulsive course and prevent conception altogether? Why put these thousands of women who each year undergo such abortions to the pain they entail and in whatever danger attends them?”

She goes on to claim that “every argument that can be made for preventive medicine can be made for birth-control clinics,” adding that without these, “the rapid increase of the feebleminded, of criminal types and of the pathetic victims of toil in the child-labor factories,” will continue.

Sanger understood that life begins at the moment of fertilization, writing this in her Family Limitationpamphlet, originally published in 1914: “Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called an abortion. No one can doubt that there are times where abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception.”

Margaret Sanger in Family Limitation noted life begins at fertilization.

In 1921, Sanger proclaimed that “the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aim of eugenics.”

In 1926, as Live Action News has previously detailed, Margaret Sanger met with the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan, entertaining additional invitations, according to her own report of the meeting. The event took place in Silver Lake, New Jersey, and Sanger described in it in her autobiography:

I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…. I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…. I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…. In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

Sanger called that event “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.”

Sanger’s writes about meeting the Klan in autobiography

Sanger believed having children was a privilege (granted by the state), not a human right

In 1934, Sanger suggested requiring a “license” to have children. To the likes of Sanger, the concept of becoming a parent was never one of “choice” but rather something reserved only for the privileged few and only if they obtained the approval of either the government or eugenics leaders.

License to Breed Margaret Sanger

In her publication, “A License for Mothers to Have Babies” with the subtitle, “A code to stop the overproduction of children.” Sanger outlined her plan article by article, which read in part (emphasis mine):

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

Then, in 1936, Julian S. Huxley, brother of novelist Aldous, who authored Brave New World, published an article in the Eugenics Review, where he proclaimed that birth control had to be taught to the so-called “lowest strata” of society who were “reproducing relatively too fast.” Sanger once said that Huxley “brings to the Birth Control movement the most distinguished intellectual background England can boast.” Huxley wrote:

First comes the prevention of dysgenic effects. The upper economic classes are presumably slightly better endowed with ability – at least with ability to succeed in our social system – yet are not reproducing fast enough to replace themselves, either absolutely or as a percentage of the total population. We must therefore try to remedy this state of affairs, by pious exhortation and appeals to patriotism, or by the more tangible methods of family allowances, cheaper education, or income-tax rebates for children. The lowest strata, allegedly less well-endowed genetically, are reproducing relatively too fast.

Therefore birth-control methods must be taught them; they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization, or at least relief should be contingent upon no further children being brought into the world; and so on. That is to say, much of our eugenic programme will be curative and remedial merely, instead of preventive and constructive.

Huxley was an outspoken elitist on population control who, in 1946, became UNESCO’s first Director-Genera. He was the vice president of the Abortion Law Reform Association, and like Sanger, he once endorsed euthanasia. Then, in 1959, Huxley was awarded for his work by Planned Parenthood.

Julian HUxley spoke to Planned Parenthood

Julian Huxley spoke to Planned Parenthood (Image credit: Maafa21 documentary)

Interestingly, months later in 1937, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially recognized birth control as an integral part of medical practice and education. Then, North Carolina became the first state to include birth control in a public health program. We later learned that they were also heavily influenced by the eugenics movement.  

In 1938, Sanger set up a “Committee on Planned Parenthood,” announcing it in her publication, the American Birth Control Review, writing, “As a first step in a campaign to expand the nation-wide activities and services of the American Birth Control League, the Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood will conduct a fund-raising campaign for $263,990 this Spring in metropolitan New York.”

Image from Sanger's publication

Committee on Planned Parenthood 1938 ABCL

By 1940, the group had raised over $118,000 for the cause with $10,000 coming from Albert D. Lasker.

Planned Parenthood once touted birth control as a way to reduce abortion… but it hasn’t

In 1939, the New York Times used the term “Planned Parenthood” in an article headline, quoting Sanger as claiming that, “The only way to halt the increasing abortion rate and strike at the roots of a racket… is through medically guided birth control advice.”

Image of article

Planned Parenthood mentioned in 1939 in NYT

Behind the scenes, Sanger’s organization was trying to gain the trust of the Black community. Her work in eugenics and her members’ continued advocacy of the very racist movement created some ambivalence.  The problem they faced was that the Black community saw birth control and abortion as genocide. But Sanger had a solution: to use Blacks themselves to introduce and promote “birth control.”

Thus, in 1939, Sanger created her “Negro Project,” as described in a letter she penned to Clarence Gamble regarding her desire to use Black ministers in furthering her organization’s agenda, because, she said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” and if it did, these ministers could “straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Excerpt: Margaret Sanger Letter to Clarence Gamble, Negro Project

Then, on March 6, 1942, the NYT announced that the BCFA had changed its name to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood founded in 1942 (Image: New York Times)

In 1946, Frederick Osborne, a founding member of the American Eugenics Society (AES) who signed Margaret Sanger’s “Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood” was elected president of the AES.

Osborn once wrote, “Eugenic goals are most likely attained under a name other than eugenics.” Some speculate that Planned Parenthood’s infamous slogan, “Every Child a Wanted Child,” may have originated with Osborn. It is no wonder that Osborn also said that “Birth Control and abortion are turning out to be the great eugenic advances of our time.”

1950’s Planned Parenthood Logos

A few years later, in 1950, Margaret Sanger proclaimed in a letter to Mrs. Stanley McCormick, “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. Contraceptive research needs tremendous financial support…”

The push to add voluntary abortion for “medical, eugenic, and humanitarian reasons” began

Then, in 1959, the American Law Institute (ALI) proposed permitting legal therapeutic abortions. The ALI’s Model Penal Code on abortion was the premise of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision.

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code on Abortion (Image: Chicago Tribune, 1966)

In 1960, Psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Kummer and Zad Leavey, Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles, suggested at an annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA), that abortion laws be changed to allow for, as the New York Times reported, “medical, eugenic and humanitarian reasons.”

In 1962, Alan Guttmacher, M.D. began his years as president of Planned Parenthood. The following year (1963) Betty Friedan published her book, The Feminine Mystique. Then, in 1964, the platform of the American Eugenics Party was presented and read in part, “The United States is already over-populated. We must stop all immigration and impose birth controls.”

Harriet Pilpel and Alan Guttmacher

In 1965, Harriet Pilpel, general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union who later became chairwoman of the Law Panel International of Planned Parenthood Federation, according to the New York Times, published The Right to Abortion, calling abortion “the most widespread… method of fertility control in the modern world.”

Pilpel added, “If we really want to cut our population growth rate on a voluntary basis, we should make abortion available on a voluntary basis, at least in the early stages of pregnancy.”

That same year, more pressure was applied to the AMA to adopt a resolution in support of abortion. Sitting on the AMA’s Committee on Human Reproduction was Dr. Mary S. Calderone, a leader in the Planned Parenthood movement and director of SEICUS at the time. She argued, according to the New York Times, that, “A woman should not have to go through with having a baby she will shudder to see.”

Sanger died in 1966, several years before abortion was decriminalized in most states. That same year, Lader published his infamous book, Abortion.

Margaret Sanger Dies 1966

In 1967, Lader and Nathanson hijacked the women’s movement and influenced Betty Friedan to add an abortion plank to NOW. Soon after, in 1969, Lader helped to found NARAL.

Also in 1967, the AMA approved a measure to adopt an abortion policy that would allow therapeutic abortions for the health of life of the mother, to prevent the birth of a child with a physical or mental defect, and to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

That same year, California, Colorado, and North Carolina modified their statutes on abortion as well.

The next year, Planned Parenthood would also approve abortion and call for liberalizing laws that criminalized abortion.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

This was part one in Live Action News’ series on the history of Planned Parenthood’s move to committing abortions. You can read part twopart three, and part four in additional articles. 

Brave New World author on overpopulation , death control, brainwashing

Posted in Aldous Huxley, Communist with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 25, 2014 by saynsumthn

The Mike Wallace Interview: Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley, social critic and author of Brave New World, talks to Wallace about threats to freedom in the United States, overpopulation, bureaucracy, propaganda, drugs, advertising, and television.

HUXLEY: I should say that there are two main impersonal forces, er…the first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries. This is the force which in general terms can be called overpopulation, the mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources.

WALLACE: Uh-huh.

HUXLEY: Uh…this, of course, is an extraordinary thing; something is happening which has never happened in the world’s history before, I mean, let’s just take a simple fact that between the time of birth of Christ and the landing of the May Flower, the population of the earth doubled. It rose from two hundred and fifty million to probably five hundred million. Today, the population of the earth is rising at such a rate that it will double in half a century.

WALLACE: Well, why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well, in a number of ways. I mean, the…the experts in the field like Harrison Brown, for example, pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries actually the standard of living is at present falling. The people have less to eat and less goods per capita than they had fifty years ago;
and as the position of these countries, the economic position, becomes more and more precarious, obviously the central government has to take over more and more responsibility for keeping the ship-of-state on an even keel, and then of course you are likely to get social unrest under such conditions, with again an intervention of the central government.

So that, I think that one sees here a pattern which seems to be pushing very strongly towards a totalitarian regime. And unfortunately, as in all these underdeveloped countries the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, it looks rather as though they will be the heirs to this unfortunate process, that they will step into the power…the position of power.

WALLACE: Well then, ironically enough one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.

HUXLEY: Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true. There is, er…, it’s an extraordinary situation actually. I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from a biological point of view: the whole essence of biological life on earth is a question of balance and what we’ve done is to practice death control in the most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end. Consequently, the birth rates remain as high as they were and death rates have fallen substantially. (COUGHS)

Rest of Transcript

WALLACE: All right then, so much, for the time being anyway, for overpopulation. Another force that is diminishing our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called of overorganization. Er…As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations, and incidentally the advance of technology is being accompanied by an advance in the science of organization.

It’s now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before, and so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracy, either the bureaucracies of big businesses or the bureaucracies of big government.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Now the devices that you were talking about, are there specific devices or er…methods of communication which diminish our freedoms in addition to overpopulation and overorganization?

HUXLEY: Well, there are certainly devices which can be used in this way. I mean, let us er…take after all, a piece of very recent and very painful history is the propaganda used by Hitler, which was incredibly effective.

I mean, what were Hitler’s methods? Hitler used terror on the one kind, brute force on the one hand, but he also used a very efficient form of propaganda, which er…he was using every modern device at that time. He didn’t have TV., but he had the radio which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people. I mean, the Germans were a highly educated people.

WALLACE: Well, we’re aware of all this, but how do we equate Hitler’s use of propaganda with the way that propaganda, if you will, is used let us say here in the United States. Are you suggesting that there is a parallel?

HUXLEY: Needless to say it is not being used this way now, but, er…the point is, it seems to me, that there are methods at present available, methods superior in some respects to Hitler’s method, which could be used in a bad situation. I mean, what I feel very strongly is that we mustn’t be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology.

This has happened again and again in history with technology’s advance and this changes social condition, and suddenly people have found themselves in a situation which they didn’t foresee and doing all sorts of things they really didn’t want to do.

WALLACE: And well, what…what do you mean? Do you mean that we develop our television but we don’t know how to use it correctly, is that the point that you’re making?

HUXLEY: Well, at the present the television, I think, is being used quite harmlessly; it’s being used, I think, I would feel, it’s being used too much to distract everybody all the time. But, I mean, imagine which must be the situation in all communist countries where the television, where it exists, is always saying the same things the whole time; it’s always driving along.

It’s not creating a wide front of distraction it’s creating a one-pointed, er…drumming in of a single idea, all the time. It’s obviously an immensely powerful instrument.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. So you’re talking about the potential misuse of the instrument.

HUXLEY: Exactly. We have, of course…all technology is in itself moral and neutral. These are just powers which can either be used well or ill; it is the same thing with atomic energy, we can either use it to blow ourselves up or we can use it as a substitute for the coal and the oil which are running out.

WALLACE: You’ve even written about the use of drugs in this light.

HUXLEY: Well now, this is a very interesting subject. I mean, in this book that you mentioned, this book of mine, “Brave New World,” er…I postulated it a substance called ‘soma,’ which was a very versatile drug. It would make people feel happy in small doses, it would make them see visions in medium doses, and it would send them to sleep in large doses.

Well, I don’t think such a drug exists now, nor do I think it will ever exist. But we do have drugs which will do some of these things, and I think it’s quite on the cards that we may have drugs which will profoundly change our mental states without doing us any harm.

I mean, this is the…the pharmacological revolution which is taking place, that we have now powerful mind-changing drugs which physiologically speaking are almost costless. I mean they are not like opium or like coca…cocaine, which do change the state of mind but leave terrible results physiologically and morally.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, in your new essays you state that these various “Enemies of Freedom” are pushing us to a real-life “Brave New World,” and you say that it’s awaiting us just around the corner. First of all, can you detail for us, what life in this Brave New World would you fear so much, or what life might be like?

HUXLEY: Well, to start with, I think this kind of dictatorship of the future, I think will be very unlike the dictatorships which we’ve been familiar with in the immediate past. I mean, take another book prophesying the future, which was a very remarkable book, George Orwell’s “1984.”

Well, this book was written at the height of the Stalinist regime, and just after the Hitler regime, and there he foresaw a dictatorship using entirely the methods of terror, the methods of physical violence. Now, I think what is going to happen in the future is that dictators will find, as the old saying goes, that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them!

WALLACE: (LAUGHS)

HUXLEY: But, if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled, and this they will do partly by drugs as I foresaw in “Brave New World,” partly by these new techniques of propaganda.

They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.

I mean, I think, this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn’t to be happy.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you this. You’re talking about a world that could take place within the confines of a totalitarian state. Let’s become more immediate, more urgent about it. We believe, anyway, that we live in democracy here in the United States. Do you believe that this Brave New World that you talk about, er…could, let’s say in the next quarter century, the next century, could come here to our shores?

HUXLEY: I think it could. I mean, er…that’s why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the…the new advances in technology. I mean the…for example, in the regard to the use of the…of the drugs.

We know, there is enough evidence now for us to be able, on the basis of this evidence and using certain amount of creative imagination, to foresee the kind of uses which could be made by people of bad will with these things and to attempt to forestall this, and in the same way,

I think with these other methods of propaganda we can foresee and we can do a good deal to forestall. I mean, after all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

WALLACE: You write in Enemies of Freedom, you write specifically about the United States. You say this, writing about American political campaigns you say, “All that is needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere; political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate, the way he is projected by the advertising experts, are the things that really matter.”

HUXLEY: Well, this is the…during the last campaign, there was a great deal of this kind of statement by the advertising managers of the campaign parties. This idea that the candidates had to be merchandised as though they were soap and toothpaste and that you had to depend entirely on the personality.

I mean, personality is important, but there are certainly people with an extremely amiable personality, particularly on TV, who might not necessarily be very good in political…positions of political trust.

WALLACE: Well, do you feel that men like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Nixon, with knowledge aforethought were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

HUXLEY: No, but they were being advised by powerful advertising agencies who were making campaigns of a quite different kind from what had been made before. and I think we shall see probably, er…all kinds of new devices coming into the picture. I mean, for example, this thing which got a good deal of publicity last autumn, subliminal projection.

I mean, as it stands, this thing, I think is of no menace to us at the moment, but I was talking the other day to one of the people who has done most experimental work in the…psychological laboratory with this, was saying precisely this, that it is not at the moment a danger, but once you’ve established the principle that something works, you can be absolutely sure that the technology of it is going to improve steadily.

And I mean his view of the subject was that, well, maybe they will use it up to some extent in the 1960 campaign, but they will probably use it a good deal and much more effectively in the 1964 campaign because this is the kind of rate at which technology advances.

WALLACE: And we’ll be persuaded to vote for a candidate that we do not know that we are being persuaded to vote for.

HUXLEY: Exactly, I mean this is the rather alarming picture that you’re being persuaded below the level of choice and reason.

WALLACE: In regard to advertising, which you mentioned just a little ago, in your writing, particularly in “Enemies of Freedom,” you attack Madison Avenue, which controls most of our television and radio advertising, newspaper advertising and so forth. Why do you consistently attack the advertising agencies…

HUXLEY: Well, no I…I think that, er…advertisement plays a very necessary role, but the danger it seems to me in a democracy is this…I mean what does a democracy depend on? A democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest, in any given circumstance.

But what these people are doing, I mean what both, for their particular purposes, for selling goods and the dictatorial propagandists are for doing, is to try to bypass the rational side of man and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surfaces so that you are, in a way, making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice on rational ground.

WALLACE: Of course, well, maybe…I…you have just answered this next question because in your essay you write about television commercials, not just political commercials, but television commercials as such and how, as you put it, “Today’s children walk around singing beer commercials and toothpaste commercials.” And then you link this phenomenon in some way with the dangers of a dictatorship. Now, could you spell out the connection or, have…or do you feel you’ve done so sufficiently?

HUXLEY: Well, I mean, here, this whole question of children, I think, is a terribly important one because children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grownup; and again, suppose that, er…that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children, who after all are going to grow up and be adults quite soon. I do think that this is not an immediate threat, but it remains a possible threat, and…

WALLACE: You said something to the effect in your essay that the children of Europe used to be called ‘cannon fodder’ and here in the United States they are ‘television and radio fodder.’

HUXLEY: Well, after all, you can read in the trade journals the most lyrical accounts of how necessary it is, to get hold of the children because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. But I mean, again you just translate this into political terms, the dictator says they all will be ideology buyers when they are grownup.

WALLACE: We hear so much about brainwashing as used by the communists. Do you see any brainwashing other than that which we’ve just been talking about, that is used here in the United States, other forms of brainwashing?

HUXLEY: Not in the form that has been used in China and in Russia because this is, essentially, the application of propaganda methods, the most violent kind to individuals; it is not a shotgun method, like the…the advertising method. It’s a way of getting hold of the person and playing both on his physiology and his psychology until he really breaks down and then you can implant a new idea in his head.

I mean the descriptions of the methods are really blood curdling when you read them, and not only methods applied to political prisoners but the methods applied, for example, to the training of the young communist administrators and missionaries. They receive an incredibly tough kind of training which may cause maybe twenty-five percent of them to break down or commit suicide, but produces seventy-five percent of completely one-pointed fanatics.

WALLACE: The question, of course, that keeps coming back to my mind is this: obviously politics in themselves are not evil, television is not in itself evil, atomic energy is not evil, and yet you seem to fear that it will be used in an evil way. Why is it that the right people will not, in your estimation, use them? Why is it that the wrong people will use these various devices and for the wrong motives?

HUXLEY: Well, I think one of the reasons is that these are all instruments for obtaining power, and obviously the passion for power is one of the most moving passions that exists in man; and after all, all democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one man or any one small group have too much power for too long a time.

After all what are the British and American Constitution except devices for limiting power, and all these new devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses.

WALLACE: Well, you ask this question yourself in “Enemies of Freedom.” I’ll put your own question back to you. You ask this, “In an age of accelerating overpopulation, of accelerating overorganization, and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual?” You put the question, now here’s your chance to answer it Mr. Huxley.

HUXLEY: Well, this is obviously…first of all, it is a question of education. Er…I think it’s terribly important to insist on individual values, I mean, what is a…there is a tendency as a…you probably read a book by Whyte, “The Organization Man”, a very interesting, valuable book I think, where he speaks about the new type of group morality, group ethic, which speaks about the group as though the group were somehow more important than the individual.

But this seems, as far as I’m concerned, to be in contradiction with what we know about the genetical makeup of human beings, that every human being is unique. And it is, of course, on this genetical basis that the whole idea of the value of freedom is based.

And I think it’s extremely important for us to stress this in all our educational life, and I would say it’s also very important to teach people to be on their guard against the sort of verbal booby traps into which they are always being led, to analyze the kind of things that are said to them.

Well, I think there is this whole educational side of…and I think there are many more things that one could do to strengthen people, and to make them more aware of what’s being done.

WALLACE: You’re a prophet of decentralization?

HUXLEY: Well, the…yes…if it…it’s feasible. It’s one of the tragedies, it seems to me. I mean, many people have been talking about the importance of decentralization in order to give back to the voter a sense of direct power. I mean…the voter in an enormous electorate field is quite impotent, and his vote seems to count for nothing.

This is not true where the electorate is small, and where he is dealing with a…with a group which he can manage and understand…and if one can, as Jefferson after all suggested, break up the units, er…into smaller and smaller units and so, get a real, self-governing democracy.

WALLACE: Well, that was all very well in Jefferson’s day, but how can we revamp our economic system and decentralize, and at the same time meet militarily and economically the tough challenge of a country like Soviet Russia?

HUXLEY: Well, I think the answer to that is that there are…it seems to me that you…that production, industrial production is of two kinds. I mean, there are some kinds of industrial production which obviously need the most tremendously high centralization, like the making of automobiles for example.

But there are many other kinds where you could decentralize quite easily and probably quite economically, and that you would then have this kind of decentralized, like after all you begin to see it now, if you travel through the south, this decentralized textile industry which is springing up there.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, let me ask you this, quite seriously, is freedom necessary?

HUXLEY: As far as I am concerned it is.

WALLACE: Why? Is it necessary for a productive society?

HUXLEY: Yes, I should say it is. I mean, a genuinely productive society. I mean you could produce plenty of goods without much freedom, but I think the whole sort of creative life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom, of initiative, creation, all these things which we value, and I think value properly, are impossible without a large measure of freedom.

WALLACE: Well, Mr. Huxley, take a look again at the country which is in the stance of our opponent anyway, it would seem, anyway it would seem to be there, Soviet Russia. It is strong, and getting stronger, economically, militarily, at the same time it’s developing its art forms pretty well, er…it seems not unnecessarily to squelch the creative urge among its people. And yet it is not a free society.

HUXLEY: It’s not a free society, but here is something very interesting that those members of the society, like the scientists, who are doing the creative work, are given far more freedom than anybody else. I mean, it is a privileged aristocratic society in which, provided they don’t poke their noses into political affairs, these people are given a great deal of prestige, a considerable amount of freedom, and a lot money.

I mean, this is a very interesting fact about the new Soviet regime, and I think what we are going to see is er…a people on the whole with very little freedom but with an oligarchy on top enjoying a considerable measure of freedom and a very high standard of living.

WALLACE: And the people down below, the ‘epsilons’ down below…

HUXLEY: Enjoying very little.

WALLACE: And you think that that kind of situation can long endure?

HUXLEY: I think it can certainly endure much longer than the situation in which everybody is kept out; I mean, they can certainly get their technological and scientific results on such a basis.

WALLACE: Well, the next time that I talk to you then, perhaps we should investigate further the possibility of the establishment of that kind of a society, where the drones work for the queen bees up above.

HUXLEY: Well, but yes, but I must say, I still believe in democracy, if we can make the best of the creative activities of the people on top plus those of the people on the bottom, so much the better.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, I surely thank you for spending this half hour with us, and I wish you God speed sir.

HUXLEY: Thank you.

WALLACE: Aldous Huxley finds himself these days in a peculiar and disturbing position: a quarter of a century after prophesying an authoritarian state in which people were reduced to cyphers, he can point at Soviet Russia and say, “I told you so!” The crucial question, as he sees it now, is whether the so-called Free World is shortly going to give Mr. Huxley the further dubious satisfaction of saying the same thing about us.

Is transhumanism (humans mixed w/ animal DNA) the cause of a wave of Zombie cannibal like attacks?

Posted in Animal Human Hybrid, Brave New World, Transhumanism, Zombie with tags , , , , , , , , on June 4, 2012 by saynsumthn

recent wave of attacks from people on people eating their victims is causing me to wonder if society has been unleashed with Transhuman like animals. Scientists have been experiencing with the mixing of Human DDA with Animal DNA – could these “creatures” be a science experiment gone wrong?

Reuters Here

In a scenario that a panel of scientists with the Academy of Medical Sciences warned bears resemblance to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” British scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in secret research conducted in British laboratories.

According to the Daily Mail, 155 “admixed” embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created over the past three years by scientists who said stem cells could be harvested from the embryos to be used in research into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.

The secret research was revealed after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare scenario in which the creation of human-animal hybrids could go too far.

Read Rest here

More on the above story here : Police: Homeless Woman Snatches Baby From Stroller, Tries to Eat Its Arm

Miami Police Kill Man Eating Another Man’s Face—Rudy Eugene, 31, was shot and killed by Miami-Dade Police after he refused to stop eating another man’s face in Miami, Saturday, May 26, 2012. The victim remains hospitalized in critical condition.

DEAD MAN EATER! MD Suspect Admits To Eating Mans Body Parts, Heart, And Brain -Alexander Kinyua, a 21-year-old Morgan State University student, allegedly admitted to killing his roommate, Kujoe Bonsafo Agyei-Kodie, and then eating his heart and portions of his brain. Kinyua has been charged with first-degree murder.


Montreal police said on Wednesday, May 30, 2012, they have identified Luka Rocco Magnotta, 29,as a suspect in the gruesome case of severed body parts discovered in packages mailed to Ottawa, Ontario, and in a garbage heap in Montreal.

Man Accused Of Eating Wife’s Lips
A former employee of a Swedish medical university is accused of cutting his wife’s lips off and eating them. The unnamed man allegedly flew into a rage after he became suspicious that his much younger wife was having an affair. A source said the man ate the lips because “he didn’t want the lips to be able to be sewn back on.”

( H/T) : While humanizing animals in the name of medical research offers valuable insights into the way human bodies work and diseases develop, clear regulations are needed to make sure humanization of animals is carefully controlled.

Extreme scenarios, such as putting brain cells into primates to create talking apes, may remain science fiction, but researchers around the world are constantly pushing boundaries.

Chinese scientists have already introduced human stem cells into goat fetuses and U.S. researchers have studied the idea of creating a mouse with human brain cells — though they have not actually done so.

Such controversial research needs special oversight, according to a report from Britain’s Academy of Medical Sciences on the use of animals containing human material.

Experiments fail: Controversial human-animal hybrid embryos ‘will not deliver medical benefit’

Controversial attempts to create human-animal hybrid embryos for medicine may be doomed to failure, scientists say.

Tests suggest that combining human DNA with an egg cell taken from a female rabbit or cow does not work.

Although the human-animal hybrids looked normal under the microscope, they were genetically flawed, meaning they may be of little use to medicine or science.

In 2009, British cloning pioneer Sir Ian Wilmut described the findings – published today by a team of U.S. researchers – as ‘very disappointing’.

The research team claimed that if the same results are repeated elsewhere, it would mean the protracted debate over the ethics of human-animal hybrids over the past couple of years would have been a waste of time.

Researchers want to create embryo clones as a source of unlimited valuable stem cells – the ‘parent cells’ in an embryo that can turn into any other type of tissue, from heart muscle to brain cells.

These stem cells could be used to treat a host of diseases – including heart problems, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s.

But because of the shortage of human egg donors, the hybrids were proposed as a way of creating large numbers of human embryo clones to harvest stem cells in bulk.

However, the new study, published in the journal Cloning And Stem Cells, suggests animal-human clones are unlikely to succeed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1134483/Experiments-fail-Controversial-human-animal-hybrid-embryos-deliver-medical-benefit.html#ixzz1wqUlpfSg

All sounds like Huxley’s Brave New World:

Tom Horn interview, by Alex Ansary

Vodpod videos no longer available.

TRANSHUMANISM , eugenics , evolution , Genetica…, posted with vodpod

(H/T) Transhumanism, a movement which advocates the need to develop better humans (or posthumans) by means of eliminating aging and enhancing human’s intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities, strongly support the ongoing researches to create human-animal hybrids.

The Academy of Medical Sciences which published a report in July, examining the use of “animals containing human material” (ACHM) in researches, explains the need to create human-animal hybrid which they term as ACHM.

The paper denies “likely” cross fertilization of humans and animals by means of fusing human eggs or sperms with animals’ reproductive mechanism.

“Human reproductive tissues can be implanted in various places (such as under the skin) in the recipient animal rather than into its own reproductive system, so there is little possibility of fertilization.” Nevertheless, if in case an “inadvertent” cross fertilization occurs, “it is very unlikely that the event would result in a viable embryo.”

Researchers admits the possibility of “human appearance or behavioral traits” in ACHMs and express their concern about “blurring of these (physical looks and behavior) boundaries” and calls for national expert advice in proceeding with any ACHM research involving creation of what is being popularly called as “human-animal hybrid monsters.”

They also answer the issue of introducing human memory to primates. If there is any uncertainty over “possible changes to an animal’s brain function following a procedure, the work should proceed cautiously and incrementally, and should be subject to additional oversight by a national body of experts.”

Aldous Huxley – The Ultimate Revolution (1962)

Posted in Aldous Huxley with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 14, 2012 by saynsumthn

Aldous Huxley renowned futurist, eugenicist, and author of “Brave New World” and many other books, gave a now infamous speech at UC Berkley in 1962 titled: The Ultimate Revolution.

In his presentation Huxley gave historical evidence, and future predictions on how the New World Order would be achieved by the ruling Oligarchy via their use of State Sponsored Terrorism to implement their desired Lock Step Police State to control the Proletariat (that’s you and me!) by the fear of ever increasing terrorism as a pretext to the citizens of Western Society willingly sacrificing their essential freedoms and liberties for the promise of temporary security.

The first 45 minutes is the speech, the next 35 minutes are questions from the public and reporters.

Eugenics is in the news today !

Posted in Abortion, Black Genocide, egg donations, Eugenics with tags , , , , , , , , , on December 21, 2010 by saynsumthn

Today I came across 2 articles on Eugenics – I found them both of interest and I will share a portion with you:

The first published in The New Statesman:
The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget,
By: Victoria Brignell
Published 09 December 2010

here is an exert:

This story begins 150 years ago. In 1859 Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking book Origin of Species which expounded his theory of evolution by natural selection. It wasn’t long before scientists and political theorists began to apply Darwin’s theory to human beings. With the spread of ideas about “the survival of the fittest”, social Darwinists started to question the wisdom of providing care to the “weak” on the grounds this would enable people to live and reproduce who were not meant to survive. They feared that offering medical treatment and social services to disabled people would undermine the natural struggle for existence and lead to the degeneration of the human race.

Such views took hold not only in Germany but also particularly strongly in America and Britain. The existence of disabled people was increasingly seen in the UK and USA as a threat to social progress. Darwin himself wrote in his 1871 treatise, The Descent of Man, “We civilised men…. do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick.. .Thus the weak members of society propagate their kind.”

It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: “The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?”.

Galton was convinced a person’s mental and physical abilities, like the plant and animal traits described by Darwin, were essentially inherited from one’s parents. He grew concerned that eminent British people were marrying late and having too few children. Galton wrote in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius: “Let us do what we can to encourage the multiplication of the races best fitted to invent, and conform to, a high and generous civilisation, and not, out of mistaken instinct of giving support to the weak, prevent the incoming of strong and hearty individuals.”

Galton argued that early marriage between healthy, mentally strong families should be encouraged by financial incentives, and reproduction by the “feeble-minded” should be curtailed. In his mind, superior mental and physical capabilities were advantageous not only to an individual but essential for the well-being of society as a whole. To try to spread his ideas, he even wrote a novel Kantsaywhere, about a society ruled by a Eugenic College that followed a eugenic religion designed to breed fitter, more intelligent humans. Galton’s views were not regarded as eccentric or offensive at the time. Far from it. In fact, he received many awards during his career. He was made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1860 and was knighted shortly before he died.

Galton’s writings played a key role in launching the eugenics movement in the UK and America. Supporters of eugenics called for government policies to improve the biological quality of the human race through selective parenthood. They linked physical and learning disabilities to a range of social problems including crime, vagrancy, alcoholism, prostitution and unemployment. Eugenics quickly gained many backers on both sides of the Atlantic, including leading politicians and opinion formers.

It wasn’t just figures on the extreme right of politics who backed the eugenics philosophy. Some of British socialism’s most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics – Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. They hoped that a eugenic approach could build up the strong section of the population and gradually remove the weak. In July 1931, the New Statesman asserted: “The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics.”

Many early left-wing thinkers wanted government to direct social policy towards “improving” the human race by discouraging reproduction among those sections of society deemed to have undesirable genes. Supporters of state planning often found the idea of a planned genetic future attractive. As Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, comments: “The Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning.” Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be “the most important question of all” while her husband remarked that “no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist”.

Similarly, George Bernard Shaw wrote: “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man.” Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded “procreation tickets” to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of “detrimental types and characteristics” and the “fostering of desirable types” instead.

Read rest here

The brave new world is here, written by a Hamilton, NJ Lawyer: Gregory J. Sullivan .

Sullivan writes, In a recent edition of The Wall Street Journal, there were two thoroughly chilling articles that reflect a grave moral transformation that is taking place with virtually no legal regulation or even public concern. The Journal reports on the aggressive use of reproductive technologies that are commodifying children and relegitimizing eugenics. The brave new world is now, in many concrete ways and without exaggeration, our world.

In “Assembling the Global Baby,” the Journal reports on the developing international network of egg and sperm donors and surrogate mothers who provide babies to order. The article concentrates on one particular California company, PlanetHospital.com LLC, which brokers this service. The Journal notes that, because of its international reach “” that is, its willingness to exploit poor women in Third-World countries — PlanetHospital is a comparatively inexpensive option for infertile and homosexual couples: Its “services run from $32,000 to around $68,000, versus up to $200,000 for a U.S. surrogate.”

Indeed, the Journal writes that “PlanetHospital’s most affordable package, the “India bundle,’ buys an egg donor, four embryo transfers into four separate surrogate mothers, room and board for the surrogate, and a car and driver for the parents-to-be when they travel to India to pick up the baby.”

The “parents-to-be” can be anyone who has the money to buy the service. The standards are not, to say the least, exacting. PlanetHospital’s chief executive is a cretin named Rudy Rupak. “‘Our ethics are agnostic,’ Mr. Rupak says in an example of his moral rigor. “How do you prevent a pedophile from having a baby? If they’re a pedophile, then I will leave that to the U.S. government to decide, not me.'” Still, even Rupak found a point beyond which he would not go: “In one case, he suspected a woman wanted to use her own eggs and her son’s sperm. “Whatever the case was, these people weren’t honest. It worried us, so we said no.'”

The potential for abuse on many levels is big,” according to Arthur Caplan, the tiresomely omnipresent director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, in an obtuse and almost comical understatement. “You’re straddling all these [international] boundaries to buy the ingredients and the equipment.” Caplan refers to this area as the “wild, wild West of medicine.”

It certainly is. More important, our enslavement to reproductive technologies has thrust us into the wild, wild West of moral understanding. And the radicality of our predicament is clear in the Journal’s second article, “Donors With Dossiers (and Star Looks).”

When a child is transformed from gift to commodity and the “parents” treated as consumers, then consumer choice becomes paramount. When it comes to children, that means eugenics “” in other words, genetically selective breeding to create the best possible baby. American elites enthusiastically pursued eugenics in the early 20th century. Once the Nazi regime revealed where this enthusiasm led, the popularity of eugenics receded in this country. With the explosion in reproductive technologies in recent decades, it has come roaring back.

In its companion article, the Journal looks at California Cryobank, which is a sperm bank. The eugenic aspect is paramount: “Last month, California Cryobank began selling donor information packages, on top of free information like medical histories and personal information. For $145, customers can buy three months of access to detailed profiles, childhood photos and a feature called “Express Yourself,’ which allows the donor to write anything from a letter to poetry.”

The Journal continues: “On California Cryobank’s website, a “Celebrity Look-A-Like’ section lets women choose from a long list, including approximations of Adam Sandler, Bill Gates, Andy Gibb, Ben Affleck, Garth Brooks, Colin Firth and Conan O’Brien.”

Silly, to be sure, but this selection process is anything but silly. It will become increasingly ruthless as more genetic traits “” height, eye and hair color, health potential, intelligence “” become more precisely identifiable. Couples who reproduce by copulation will be seen increasingly as ignorant consumers who deserve what they get.

Children as consumer products; parents as consumers of these products. We are not headed in this direction; we have reached this destination. The issue is whether we have the moral wherewithal to resist a complete envelopment in this consumerist and Darwinian universe and maintain at least a residual commitment to the intrinsic worth of children and the integrity of reproduction.

And I again remind you of the powerful Eugenics documentary: Maafa21, which shows how Darwin, Galton, and the Elites are trying to control reproduction of the so-called ” Unfit”

Aldous Huxley warns of a coming “series of techniques will enable the controlling oligarchy to get people to love their servitude”

Posted in Huxley, New World Order, Occult with tags , , , , , , , , on June 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Aldous Huxley warns of a coming “seri…", posted with vodpod