M. Sanger wrote:“Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.
“As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
Top
Hello there Walker. The reason I posted that video --- and Lana is a White Nationalist and is working to confront and undermine many levels of argument that hinder Europeans from having and holding to strong identity-positions (just FYI) --- was only with the intention of dispelling one small calumny. What I notice, and perhaps you notice it too, is that it often happens that someone who opposes some aspect of another's position or ideas will deliberately distort what they have said or written and make it appear in the worst light. It is an underhanded tactic and very destructive to discourse.
Because I have read Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard (Harvard-associated researchers from just after the turn of the 20th century whose ideas on culture, race and eugenics were indeed very popular) I understand sufficiently well the ideology that stands behind the desire to protect a given population (a white European population in the main) from racial and cultural contamination from (as they would say) 'the brown world', and today, at this point in my research, these arguments make abstract sense to me. That is, when examined abstractly they have a great deal of sense in them. Therefor, I am of the opinion that the deliberate 'browning' of America, especially as a result of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, was a national and cultural mistake. I am also of the opinion, and I share this with the White Nationalists, that every ideological construct that undermines White Identity as a valid and moral object must be confronted and challenged and reversed. To define what it is that has come to form an anti-White ideology in our present is, the more that I look into it, a complex and difficult topic. One could refer to the undermining influence of 'cultural Marxism'; one could refer to the guilt-complex within the European mind and soul as a result of meditation on the destruction of Europe as a result of 2 devastating wars, and then especially the guilt and unease about the meaning of the ethnic cleansing project that occurred in Europe (the Shoa). Many factors flowed together to influence the self-destructive turn against 'identity' as I would define it.
Though I recognize it as problematic, and an extremely hot topic in today's climate of opinion and idea, I am capable of recognizing a superior type of person, within any race or culture, from an inferior one. True indeed that one cannot, today, employ these terms given their history. This much I accept. But in a cold, rational and philosophical discussion, and one for which there will be no consequence to me (i.e. getting branded, fired, hurt financially, etc.) I must insist that I do observe people and I am capable of noting the effect of good breeding. Pretty much it is as simple as that. My eyes are open and they see. It is very clear, and I say this from a 'civilization perspective' (I recognize this needs substantial definition) that if uncontrolled reproduction occurs at the lower levels and there is limited reproduction at the higher (better, 'superior') levels, that in time the lower element will overswamp the higher and with real consequences. I say this cooly and coldly because it appear --- with no doubt at all --- to be true. If it is a crime to see what I see, to understand what I understand, then I will need to accept the responsibility.
Therefor this statement: "...the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective", is not a morally-repugnant statement. It is a
problematic statement, that much is certain, and for the obvious reasons.
Having offered this explanation, or this defense of you will, of eugenic principles, can you point out to me what about it is defective from your perspective?
