This post contains a sampling of documented quotes by Margaret Sanger on the topics of race and eugenics. I say “documented” because (unlike most other Web pages citing Sanger) in each case I provide a direct link to scanned pages from the original editions of books she wrote featuring these quotes, which have been put online by a politically neutral academic library whose impartiality is unimpeachable; furthermore, I provide photographs of each quote in situ from her various books, along with accurate transcriptions.

The reason for these extreme steps is that one must be very careful when researching online the intersection of Margaret Sanger, eugenics and race, because her modern defenders (that is, Planned Parenthood and other “pro-choice” advocates) do everything they can to suppress and deny Sanger’s racism, while on the other hand her detractors (“pro-life” advocates) often cite abbreviated quotes from her in order to make it look like she was only racist against blacks — when in fact she was also racist against immigrant groups, other minorities, and “defectives” of any skin color, all of whom threatened what Sanger saw as the “purity” of the educated white middle and upper classes.

The following quotes are all taken from two of Margaret Sanger’s books: The Pivot of Civilization, published in 1922; and Woman and the New Race, published in 1920. There are countless other Sanger quotes about race and eugenics, not just in these two books but in many of her other books as well, not to mention various letters and essays of hers which have been preserved. The quotes you see here, therefore, are not a thorough examination of her views on these topics, but rather just a few verified examples which researchers, pundits and advocates on either side can use, cite, republish, download or link to freely.

The Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger (1922)
Available online here in its original format at Open Library
or as searchable text at Project Gutenberg.

That Margaret Sanger was an enthusiastic eugenicist, and that her beliefs were essentially racist (and classist), is beyond dispute. Take for example this random quote from pages 175-6 of The Pivot of Civilization:

“[Eugenics] sees that the most responsible and most intelligent members of society are the less fertile; that the feeble-minded are the more fertile. Herein lies the unbalance, the great biological menace to the future of civilization. Are we heading to biological destruction, toward the gradual but certain attack upon the stocks of intelligence and racial health by the sinister forces of irresponsibility and imbecility? This is not such a remote danger as the optimistic Eugenist might suppose. The mating of a moron with a person of sound stock may, as Dr. Tredgold points out, gradually disseminate this trait far and wide until it undermines the vigor and efficiency of an entire nation and an entire race. This is no idle fancy.”

Sanger summarizes her guiding “Principles” on page 279, in which she declares that low-class children are “unwanted types” who “should never have been born”:

“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be borne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born.”

Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to counteract the influence of the typical “maternity center” of the day, whose pro-life advice to lower-class pregnant women

“…encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

The phrase “human waste” in the quote above was no fluke; in fact, Sanger made a habit of describing the lower classes (i.e. children of immigrants and minorities) as “human waste“:

Sanger’s reflexively low opinion of blacks can be seen on pages 131-2 of The Pivot of Civilization, where she first writes

“Evidence of racial and biological degeneracy are apparent to this observer”

and then goes on to approvingly quote another eugenicist who claims that factory work has degraded the intellect of the British lower classes to the level of (gasp!) “the African negro”:

“‘Compared with the African negro,’ he writes, “the British sub-man is in several respects markedly inferior.”

There’s no question that in this context “negro” is cited as the benchmark for racial inferiority, a degenerate state to which the white British man is unfortunately descending.

On pages 84-7 of Pivot, Sanger once again reveals her true opinions by using the example of a black family to illustrate how “feeble-minded” women contaminate society with their criminal offspring:

“Here is a typical case showing the astonishing ability to ‘increase and multiply,’ organically bound up with delinquency and defect of various types: ‘The parents of a feeble-minded girl, twenty years of age, who was committed to the Kansas State Industrial Farm on a vagrancy charge, lived in a thickly populated Negro district which was reported by the police to be the headquarters for the criminal element of the surrounding State….The mother married at fourteen, and her first child was born at fifteen. In rapid succession she gave birth to sixteen live-born children and had one miscarriage. …’”

The quote then goes on for several paragraphs to list how nearly all of the black woman’s children had become scourges on society:

“‘…The eighth, a boy who early in life began to exhibit criminal tendencies, was in prison for highway robbery and burglary. The ninth, a girl…had also been arrested several times for soliciting. The tenth, a boy, was involved in several deliquencies. … The twelfth, a boy, was at fifteen years of age implicated in a murder…’”

and so on for all sixteen black children. Sanger concludes,

“The notorious fecundity of feeble-minded women is emphasized in studies and investigations of the problem….Feeble-minded women constitute a permanent menace to the race….”

[Click on image to view full-size]

Woman and the New Race, by Margaret Sanger (1920)
Available online here in its original format at Open Library

In her 1920 tract Woman and the New Race, Sanger sometimes expressed the kind of deep racism typical of the era which was so thoroughly intertwined with her worldview that it usually didn’t even need to be mentioned because it was the starting point of the discussion.

For example, when talking about how large family sizes lead to illiteracy on page 38, Sanger casually describes white people as being of “pure stock” whereas the high rate of Negro illiteracy merits an “of course” which needs no further explanation:

“Moreover, there were in the United States in 1910, 5,516,163 illiterates. Of these 1,378,884 were of pure native white stock. In some states in the South as much as 29 per cent of the population is illiterate, many of these, of course, being Negroes.”

On page 31 of the same book, Sanger reveals a view of racial hierarchies which in modern terms would be deemed incredibly racist: At the bottom are “Negroes, Indians, Chinese,” all of whom count as “colored”; next comes not only anyone born outside the United States (mostly immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, as the text later reveals) but also their American-born children, all of whom still nonetheless count as “of foreign stock”; and at the top, needless to say, are Caucasians who have lived in the United States for multiple generations, who are “native white”:

Among our more than 100,000,000 population are Negroes, Indians, Chinese and other colored people to the number of 11,000,000. There are also 14,500,000 persons of foreign birth. Besides these there are 14,000,000 children of foreign-born parents and 6,500,000 persons whose fathers or mothers were born on foreign soil, making a total of 46,000,000 people of foreign stock. Fifty per cent of our population is of the native white strain.

The goal of birth control in Sanger’s view was to decrease the number of babies being born to “lower” types, while increasing the number of offspring produced by “the native white strain.” To this end, Sanger arranged to have one of her birth-control how-to manuals translated into Yiddish so that new Jewish immigrants could learn how to avoid pregnancy (and — the whole point — thereby limit Jewish population growth in the United States).

More quotes from Margaret Sanger expressing similar sentiments can be found throughout the two books cited above, as well as in one more of her books which is also available online:

The Case for Birth Control, available in its entirety here at Open Library

All images, quotes and text on this page are free to download and republish, with no restrictions.

20 Responses to “Margaret Sanger quotes about race and eugenics”

  1. 1Kevin on Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 pm:

    Well, she’s entirely accurate about breeding. We breed the best qualities into our vegetables and animals using the same method she is supporting. If we can use selective breeding to make a better cow or warp cabbage into broccoli and cauliflower, why does anyone believe we can’t do it with people?

    That said, I’m not pro-eugenics or pro-abortion. Eugenics seems vaguely immoral, and abortion moreso. But I don’t fault her factual accuracy.

  2. 2Surellin on Mar 11, 2014 at 11:37 am:

    Hmm, her theory would seem to imply that her ancestors, sterling people all, were far her intellectual superiors.

  3. 3Doctor Jeff on Mar 13, 2014 at 11:24 am:

    Margaret Sanger was a historic figure from many years ago. Her motivation for birth control advocacy was borne out of racist and eugenic theories that were much more popular in her day. Interesting that many debates about birth control still go on to this day, but are people really that interested in Margaret Sanger. I would bet that most Americans would not even know who she was. Come on Zombie, aren’t there some crazy BDS advocates out in Berkeley doing some ridiculous things to report on? Have all of those Code Pinkers or Breast not Bombs crazies gone into hibernation?

  4. 4Pablo on Mar 15, 2014 at 2:08 am:

    Yeah, Zombie! Doctor Jeff wants to see the circus and not think about the pathetic state of so many blacks in America, including the untold millions of them snuffed out in their mother’s wombs. BRING THE FUNNY!!!

    BTW, PZ Myers thinks you’re crazy. Badge of honor, that.

  5. 5Scott on Mar 16, 2014 at 9:08 am:

    Hey Zombie: I think this information regarding Margaret Sanger provides insight into the thinking of Barack Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren. As you pointed out on your blog, Holdren is in favor of eugenics, but less about racism and (probably) more about political selection. For example, his desire to limit those who reproduce too much through forced sterilization would likely be today’s religious conservatives. The Democrats need plenty of the permanent “underclass” to keep them in office, so multiplication among government dependents is temporarily desirable.

    And what mushy minded liberal would stand in the way of their own muddled view of the government? These are the people who, knowing that Barack Obama is an inferior president who demonstrated his incompetence from 2009-2012, went out and voted for him anyway! Now that Obamacare is a total disaster, even the brainwashed media is beginning to cease sheltering our messianic president. But this is how liberals think…government = good, individuals = bad. The cost to liberty be damned. If a few people are sterilized or some abortions are forced, it’s NO DOUBT for the greater good, as Hillary might say.

    Sanger’s legacy, Holdren, and the rest of the feeble minded people running our country now are simply a danger to us all. Harry Reid’s fantasies about the Koch brothers springing out of closets and biting the heads off of babies are my case and point. What politician who says “you must pass the bill in order to see what’s in it” survives election after election after election? Nancy Pelosi, that’s who!

    I propose eugenics for our government “leaders”. Eric Holder and John Holdren would be the first ones to go. Sadly, we will have to endure this mess for some years while they destroy government and our Constitution from within. I do wonder if we will have a change of power in 2017. It makes me shudder.

  6. 6don on Mar 16, 2014 at 10:03 am:

    Scott, Right on man.You hit the nail on the head.

  7. 7yonason on Apr 7, 2014 at 7:03 am:

    Eugenics is allegedly based on Darwinism.
    Eugenics requires elimination of the more fertile “feeble minded”
    Darwinism asserts that the more fertile are the more fit
    Doing the math . . . either eugenics and/or Darwinism are wrong.

  8. 8Stark Dickflüssig on Apr 21, 2014 at 8:37 pm:

    Sanger arranged to have one of her birth-control how-to manuals translated into Yiddish so that new Jewish immigrants could learn how to avoid pregnancy (and — the whole point — thereby limit Jewish population growth in the United States).

    Proving that Sanger was an idiot, as the Ashkenazi Jews typically have higher IQs than whites or Chinese.

    And to Doctor Jeff: lots of people belong to Sanger’s organization & espouse her ideals, while performing just the sort of bloody harvest she wanted, primarily targeted at the “inner city” people she would have wanted them to target. Yeah, her adherents are embarrassed when you point out who & what they follow (& they’re happy to lie about their adherence) but they follow it nonetheless.

  9. 9Realist on May 28, 2014 at 12:42 am:

    For the love of fuck, will SOMEBODY on this blog please read some population genetics? I mean the real kind, the sciencey kind, not the quasi-conservative pseudo-right blither rooted in Boas and Montagu that assumes all humans are blank slates who can be raised to the light of intellect by investing enough tax dollars in them.

    I recommend starting with the blogs of JayMan and HBDChick.

    Lower IQ people need to be bred out of the genome, it’s that simple. More blacks than whites or Asians are lower IQ. I don’t give a crap if they are mass aborting their future Trayvons. So long as they were left behind in sub-Saharan Africa, all was well. Then the Muzzies started trading them to the rest of the world, including the American South. Now we are plagued not only with their low-IQ, low-future-time-orientation, high-impulse descendants, we’re plagued with a bunch of liberals and conservatives alike who worship at the altar of blackness and hate white people, Jews, and Asians.

    Margaret Sanger was simply the harbinger of the Dark Enlightenment and the first race realist with balls. Why should liberals not also be pro-high-g?

  10. 10Me on Jun 10, 2014 at 5:52 am:

    Realist, Your a fascist peice of crap it’s people like you that started the holocaust go back to StormFront or Gold Dawns website or WND where ever you came from we all must prevent extremist elements like you from taking over our society we cannot afford a Third world war or anouther holocaust or other Crimes against humanity it’s people like you who are the real enemies.

  11. 11alh on Jul 29, 2014 at 1:37 pm:

    Planned Parenthood continues to give a “Margaret Sanger” award to outstanding members of it’s organization. That leaves little doubt that she is revered and her ideas still valued. Planned Parenthood does target black communities by setting up clinics disproportionately in areas where they live.

  12. 12el polacko on Sep 14, 2014 at 8:28 am:

    so margaret sanger wrote the script for the movie, ‘idiocracy’ ?

  13. 13Tilikum Killer Assault Whale on Sep 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm:

    Excellent post Zombie. I do kind of wonder if those rabid pro abortionists would change their minds if they read her books. Then again anything that does not support their beliefs is erased from their memories as if they never saw it in the first place.

  14. 14Alexandra on Nov 11, 2014 at 11:26 am:

    I notice that none of the quotes have Sanger supporting abortion, because she didn’t. Isn’t it odd that anti-choice groups use her edited quotes even knowing that Margaret Sanger was, in fact, anti-abortion?

  15. 15Keith on Dec 22, 2014 at 7:20 pm:

    The best response to this was written some time ago by “Maguire” at the late Robert Frenz’s First Amendment Exercise Machine. He compared the unsuccessful eugeny of Sanger and of the Third Reich with what he believes to be the only really successful eugenics program in modern history, the programs by various US States from roughly 1920 to 1970 to sterilize the feeble-minded, insane and criminal. These programs were, in the main, humane and effective.

    Eugenics does not imply machine gunning or gassing people or even abortion, it simply means incentives for the most-desirable-trait equipped people to breed (and not necessarily in large numbers) and for those with socially undesirable traits, such as mental instability, extreme low cognition or criminal aptitude not to. I absolutely support this for humanitarian reasons.

  16. 16gary jack on Dec 28, 2014 at 5:05 pm:

    It took me a very long time to find, is this what the above poster meant?

    24 November 2000

    Eugenics Is Back?

    The Proven Value of American Negative Selective Eugenics and
    The Continuing Fallacies of Positive Eugenics Breeding Theories

    And my point is, even if a small group of people would pool their resources and breed children that would have IQs in the
    above 180 group, these few children with the right training and dedication would be the driving force for change and human advancement. Just one child with an IQ above 180 and with the conscientiousness to use it, is worth a thousand average children with the best education money can buy.

    Practical experience says that when one engineers to optimize just one capability, one winds up with a highly suboptimized
    construct. If I.Q. measurements alone were the ultimate determinant of human value, then Mensa wouldn’t contain such a huge
    density of truck drivers, waitresses and trailer park Sealey Posturepedic Mattress Queens.

    That writer also cited the Jews as a positive example of a eugenics program designed to optimize ‘intelligence’. If I were to use
    the Jews as an example of eugenics, it would be to illustrate the infinite social dangers of trying to optimize for just one trait on the basis of empirical observations. Physically and emotionally they are a mess. Ashkenazi Jews have a strong congenital defect
    known as Tay Sachs Disease. Just ask any obstetrics doctor. This is why medical questionnaires for pregnant women always ask about Ashkenazi Jew lineage. Jews also experience far higher than average rates of insanity and other mental and emotional dysfunctions.

    Jews also provide the only known example of a nation conducting a four sided civil war while under external siege from
    foreigners. See Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War. Their civic quotients are so low it takes threatened genocide to unite them and even then they don’t cooperate effectively. Nor do people with ‘high intelligence’ alone have a long term track record of
    community survival or security dominance. If they did, the Jews would still be in southern Lebanon, rather than battling
    Palestinians inspired by Hezbollah’s example of protracted war.

    The experimental data to date indicate that optimizing for high IQ as currently defined will merely produce the results we
    presently have around us. A great deal of historical experience says it also produces a mindset incapable of truly long term
    planning since the products of that program are incapable of living in symbiosis with their hosts.

    The current state of the art is not advanced enough to allow for a positive program of selective eugenics. The doctors can weigh in again on positive selective eugenics when they’ve cured cancer. That happy day will also be serious scientific evidence they know enough to speak authoritatively on the subject of chromosomes, genes, DNA and RNA. At the current time positive
    selective eugenics stands on a par with many DaVinci mental inventions. It’s great in theory but the technology simply doesn’t
    exist to implement.

    Eugenics as applied by the male and female mind always produces two different results. Margaret Sanger, who had an emotional sympathy for the National Socialist program in Germany, is a classic case in point. She believed in eugenics for other races and ‘lower’ (apparently measured by economics) whites. She was also a nymphomaniac of the first water. Her ultimate contributions, birth control pills and abortion, are the two biggest backfires in history. They turned out to be precision guided munitions for preempting future intelligent white babies. All the “lessers” either refused or are too stupid to effectively use them.

    Eugenics programs limited only to mate selection will not succeed. Most females practice this in some degree or another already. Nor is heredity the only factor. If it were, we would not be in the midst of a crisis of fetal alcohol syndrome, “crack babies” and children damaged by parentally transmitted venereal disease. Heredity establishes the potential upper limit. Environment will either facilitate or cripple the realization of that potential. In the current environmental chaos our emphasis as white patriots must be on reestablishing lawful authority and stable social conditions. It is useless to consider any positive eugenics program when the present social environment handicaps utilization of current maximum potential.

    There is one example of a successful multigeneration eugenics program.

    The previous eugenics programs in the U.S.A running from the very late 19th Century until the late 1960s were very effective.
    They operated on the principle of herd culling. Most inmates of mental institutions and many prisoners were sterilized. There was no attempt at either “scientific” selection based on inadequate science or breeding programs based on unproved theories. The selection criteria were based on ‘Civic Quotient’ and ‘Emotional Quotient’ deficiencies as measured by criminal conviction or institutionalization. Compared to attempts to breed two arbitrary ideals together, the American program was precision targeted at selecting out identifiable dysfunctions. The American program was the most scientific ever implemented. It was backed by epidemiology studies that proved mental illness and criminality was far more prevalent in certain families and thus had a strong genetic component. And it did not attempt more than was proven by the existing state of the art.

    Much of the German National Socialist program of negative selective eugenics was copied directly from American practices
    which had been operating for a generation at that time. The Germans also started some selective positive programs grouped
    together under the label of “Lebensborn”. These positive breeding experiments have great theoretical and emotional appeal to
    white patriots. These positive selective eugenics experiments operated for too brief a time to produce statistically significant
    results. The short period of a few years, combined with the environmental contamination of the post war Morgenthau famine,
    Soviet rapine, deportation and chaos mean that the Lebensborn program, and specifically S.S. breed matchings, can never be
    evaluated scientifically. Assumptions that they would have worked will always remain just that.

    Following World War II the U.S.A. programs were progressively restricted and finally aborted by the late 1960s in a series of
    ZOG court rulings. First the involuntary sterilizations were stopped. Subsequently almost all the mental patients were
    deinstitutionalized. Now they live under bridges, sleep on steam grates, throng the soup kitchens, are frequently addicted to drugs and fund it all with low level street crime, begging and sporadic charity. They have no shelter when it snows and don’t know where their next meal is coming from. But they are free to breed, particularly the women among them who turn to prostitution. I ask anyone to tell me who was more humane: Bad old racist sexist U.S.A. or kinder gentler ZOGland? Back in the bad old days such unfortunates at least had a warm bed and three square meals in the county mental hospital. Nor did they propagate new generations of dysfunctionals.

    The increase in U.S crime rates, the decline in composite population academic performance and the collapse in white birth rates correlates with the progressive elimination of American style eugenics and their replacement by Sanger-Jewish “feminist eugenics”.

    The American program of negative selective eugenics did operate for a sufficiently long period to produce discernible results.
    Communist New Dealers and Jews have been quick to take credit for the American Era that started approximately in 1940 and
    ended in the late 1960s. Certainly it was an era of unparalleled economic and scientific advance. Diverse ideological factions
    variously credit homosexual Keynsian economics, Jewish Marxist economics, Jewish immigration or stolen German technology for that period. Few want to recognize the American Eugenics factor. The beginning of the period in the 1940s marked the maturity of the first full American generation subjected to American style eugenics. The end of the American Era marked the rise to maturity of the children of a generation that was progressively less culled. Our present posture on the brink of a New Dark Age marks the maturity of a generation not at all subjected to American negative selective eugenics and that was subjected to female eugenics of the Margaret Sanger style.

    The older American eugenics program was not restricted to whites. American blacks and American Indians who ‘qualified’
    themselves because of mental deficiency or criminal behavior were also included in the programs of sterilization. It would
    therefore be inaccurate to say that American eugenics were racist. They were not in that regard. There was a tendency towards
    more inclusiveness of negroes and Indians because the law was White Law. Miscegenation between whites and blacks was
    usually outlawed, and miscegenation in general strongly discouraged. The country was multi-racial but the society was racially

    This racially inclusive eugenics policy had its results. Today American negroes are universally considered superior in intelligence
    to Haitian negroes or African negroes. African newspapers sometimes even comment on this fact, although they explain this
    disparity by accusing whites of having ‘stolen’ the best genes from Africa. This explanation is oxymoronic on its face since it was stronger negroes who were selling the weaker negroes to Arab and Jewish slave traders. What the Evil White Man actually did was improve his initially inferior Negro breed stock. Miscegenation accounts for some of this gap, improved environmental factors for some more, but they don’t explain all or even the majority of the large gap between the average American negro and the average African negro.

    This same effect can be seen among American Indians. They are demonstrably superior in all measurements to Mexican and
    South American Indians. Yet it was the Indians of South America who possessed the higher Aztec, Mayan, and Inca Empires.
    What accounts for this remarkable reversal of human quality factors between the two populations of Indians? Neither American
    Negroes or American Indians rose to the white level but they are measurably superior when compared to their coracialists in
    other countries and continents. This is because none of their coracialists were subjected to a negative eugenics program
    conducted according to white law. What happened to end this happy state of affairs precisely when it was starting to return
    decisive results?

    It’s not only modern American whites who display an apparent decay compared to previous generations. Other commentators
    have noticed a qualitative decline among American negroes and American Indians compared to their recent ancestors. The
    influence of media cannot account for all this because the three groups constitute very different media markets.

    There is also one large white racial group in America that still practices the ‘American System’ of selecting out for poor civic and emotional quotients. This group is the Old Order Amish. This becomes clear once one studies their social system. While one must be born Amish, that is no guarantee of remaining Amish and hence propagating the next generation of Amish. One may choose to leave the Order, or one may be ‘shunned’ for social (criminal) transgressions. This shunning is equivalent to social and economic expulsion from the community. It also constitutes genetic expulsion since no other Amish family will marry a child to a person shunned. The shunned person may reproduce, but he will do so in the general population and not in the Old Order Amish community.

    What has been the result of Old Order Amish adherence to American Negative Selection Eugenics? The Old Order Amish are
    the only remaining white group in America still productively increasing in population. Highly cohesive and productive Old Order
    Amish communities are spreading in territorial extent and also pioneering previously unoccupied areas. The progressive prohibition of American style negative eugenics and the rise of Sanger style eugenics correlates to the increase of the Jewish population in America.

    This is a simple demographic and historical fact. It’s also confirmed simply by listing the organizations and individuals that
    spearheaded the drives to end American negative eugenics and adopt birth control pills and abortion. This is why I said earlier that “the experimental data to date indicate that optimizing for high IQ as currently defined will produce the results we presently have.” The Jews themselves are a product of precisely such an older empirical program. Let us not emulate others’ failed experiences.

    The Jews, both conducting and being the products of a more primitive eugenics program, recognized the mortal threat a
    scientifically based program in other races posed to them. The German Lebensborn experiment certainly excites the greatest
    emotional reaction in them to this day. The Lebensborn program was also the most similar to their own. But I will assert it was the American program that posed the greatest peril they have ever faced. Not only was it improving American whites but it was also improving American blacks and Indians. The thoughtful Jew looking three generations ahead could foresee a world in which he was far outclassed not only by American whites but probably by American Indians and in which he might only be equal to American blacks. From the Jews’ viewpoint this was another ‘Holocaust’ of far greater peril.

    We thus saw another deployment of Rebbe’s millenia-old nuclear political weapon: “But the Jews were jealous, so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace and started a riot.” Acts 17:5

    The Jewish social assault against the American white population since World War II has been at least as savage as that against German whites. It has been so savage, so strongly sustained and so carefully coordinated as to make thoughtful whites wonder what in the world they ever did. It’s almost as if they were guilty of a ‘Holocaust’ themselves instead of having fought for the Jews in World War II. From the Jewish viewpoint that is precisely their “crime”. It was actually a threatened ‘Holocaust’ of the Jews being surpassed not only mentally but physically and emotionally and by more than one race of people. Consequently ‘saving’ the Jews from the National Socialists and rendering vast aid to the Zionist project counted for naught. America was still guilty of the ultimate ‘sin’.

    Conclusions. The case for a eugenics program based on positive selection for ‘intelligence’ has one long term data pool. The resulting products in the form of the Jews is very negative as to programs of empirically directed breeding eugenics. The more recent American negative culling program based on ‘emotional’ and ‘civic’ measurements rapidly returned far superior results to the society undertaking it. White racialists can continue to maintain a belief that the Lebensborn program would have returned a positive result. But that belief is in fact an article of faith unsupported by scientific measurement. Probability theory indicates equal chances that the S.S. experiments would have returned no result or an adverse result for the same reason as previous Jewish programs: insufficient scientific foundation.

    Those interested in positive breeding programs will be well advised to stick to the customs of the millennia until genetic science
    further advances. The case for negative culling programs is undeniably established. Those interested in improving societal gene
    pools are well advised to focus their efforts on negative selection and sterilization.

    End note: Indiana was the first American state to adopt mandatory sterilization of prisoners and institutional patients in 1907. Fifteen other states adopted similar laws by 1918. The majority of American states had similar programs in place by the end of the 1920s. These sterilization programs had varying durations with the typical length being about 50 years. Sterilization of mental patients on an ad hoc basis was typically adopted earlier in each state. Without the benefit of lawerly supervision, doctors exercised greater latitude in their care of feeble-minded charges.

    M. Maguire

  17. 17mark on Mar 21, 2015 at 2:26 pm:

    Senator Prescott Bush was also a co-founder of Planned Parenthood.

    Regardless of Sanger’s odious views, world population has roughly tripled since she wrote that, something that conservatives, liberals, communists, etc. rarely mention. How will California cope with declining water and food?

Trackbacks / Pingbacks:

  1. Zombie » Progressive Racism: The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics

    Pingback on Mar 10, 2014 at 8:14 am
  2. Congratulations, House Republicans! - Page 10

    Pingback on Mar 15, 2014 at 8:39 am
  3. Quick Takes – Eugenics Here, Eugenics There, Eugenics Everywhere! | The Political Hat

    Pingback on Oct 1, 2014 at 11:18 pm