COCKROACHES: from juwannadoright

Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879)

Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is very little to add to what my friend says here, so I’ll forbear.

[…]

In addition to his [Mengele’s] job of sorting out those who would live and those who would die, Mengele performed hundreds of experiments on prisoners which were performed without concern either for the pain or safety of his victims.  He was particularly interested in identical twins, dwarves and those with physical anomalies.  Part of the motivation behind Mengele’s research was impelled by Hitler’s belief that the world’sGerminization was the ultimate goal and led him further into exploring the potential that eugenics might bring.

Eugenics – The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by people having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.

If Mengele’s view of the world and the importance of eugenics in “purifying” the race is frightening to you, the following quotes will certainly reinforce your beliefs.

“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. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.”

“By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.”

“The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring; to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

Given Mengele’s dedication to the Third Reich and to eugenics, it is not surprising that he would make these sorts of statements.  But he didn’t.  Those quotes are from the mouth of Margaret Sanger, the American who founded Planned Parenthood.

Given Sanger’s extreme racist views it is not a surprise that Planned Parenthood has placed three quarters of its facilities either in or within walking distance of black and Hispanic neighborhoods.  From her writings Sanger makes it perfectly clear that she thinks of non-whites as inherently inferior.

Source: COCKROACHES | juwannadoright

Now, I’ll add this, at least Margeret Sanger was honest in her beliefs and goals, that is far more than can be said of her followers today.

w704 (3)

Why I became a Catholic: Tim Stanley

tumblr_m2qaxvmgvF1rpyyq4o1_500This is interesting, not least to me as it casts some light on my journey as well.

But I think it applies well beyond how we find ourselves in one or another church. I think it speaks much to how we have all searched to find structure in our lives, both in Christianity and in our lives in general.

[…]

Ten years ago this month, I became a Catholic. It happened in the attic of the guest house at Ealing Abbey. There was just me, a friend and a monk, and the operation took about an hour. Afterwards we went for cocktails. I started things as I meant to go on.

I guess the two big questions to ask a convert are: why did you do it and are you happy? Answering the first point is hard. It’s like asking a man why he married a woman. There’s a temptation to invent a narrative – to say, “this happened, that happened and before we knew it we were where we are today”. But the simpler, yet more complex, answer is this: I fell in love.

I was lucky to grow up in a household open to religious belief. My grandparents were Christian spiritualists; Grandma advertised as a clairvoyant. Mum and Dad became Baptists in the 1990s. I remember the pastor one Sunday telling us that evolution was gobbledygook. The teenager in me came to regard the faithful as fools, but I was wrong. I couldn’t see that they were literate, inquisitive, musically gifted and the kindest people you’d ever meet. But I went my own way and embraced Marxism.

By the time I arrived at Cambridge University I was a hard-left Labour activist and a militant atheist. I saw life as a struggle. Salvation could only come through class revolution. The life of the individual was unimportant. Mine was unhappy. Very unhappy. I disliked myself and, as is so common, projected that on to a dislike of others. I’m ashamed now to think of how rude and mean I was. Perhaps I was ashamed then, too, because I had fantasies of obliterating myself from history.

History was my redemption. In my second year I studied the Civil War. I discovered a world more colourful and distinct than today’s. A world of faith; of saints and martyrs. My Marxist sympathy was for the Protestant Diggers but I was intrigued by Archbishop William Laud and his fight to restore the sacramental dignity to the Anglican Church. For some reason I started to visit far-flung churches in Kent. I’d get up at 6am and cycle to a Sunday early morning service at Seal village. It calmed my soul.

I suddenly felt a great need to reconcile myself to something. Because Anglicanism was the only thing on offer at Cambridge (the Catholic chaplaincy felt like an Irish embassy), I asked to be baptised into the Church of England. Anglo-Catholicism was the closest I could get to Laud’s vision of majesty incarnate. But it wasn’t enough. Although I had made tremendous progress, something inside me said that I hadn’t yet reached my destination. Something was missing. Prayer revealed it to be the Catholic Church – the alpha, the rock, the bride of Christianity. I converted quietly in 2005 without letting many others know, including my family. It was like running away to Gretna Green to get married in secret.

Of course, the narrative I’ve given could be something I’ve constructed in hindsight. The journey was never straightforward; there were false starts and I often got lost. I remain uncertain of exactly why I converted at all. But I know I was absolutely right to.

Read it all at CatholicHerald.co.uk » Why I became a Catholic.

Is my story different? Sure! My dad was pretty darn conservative, but a New-Dealer and proud of it. and so I became a Goldwater conservative, not so much a rebellion (at least in my mind) as a way to rationalize my belief structure, and in truth the part of the New Deal he believed in most was a pretty conservative program by later standards.

And I wonder, and always will, if we had lived through those years, if we wouldn’t have been New Dealers as well, there was a lot wrong, I don’t think FDR had the right answers but he may well have asked some of the right questions.

 

Decadence: or Modern Life

Aston Martin 2-Litre 2/4-Seater Sports 1937

Aston Martin 2-Litre 2/4-Seater Sports 1937 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When I was young, all around me I could hear adults saying, “You can’t buy happiness.” often with a humorous dependent clause, to elicit a rueful chuckle. But in the main, we knew and believed it.

But it seems to me, many do believe it now. I knew when I was 5 and drooling over the Sears Christmas catalog, that nothing in there, on its own, was going to keep me happy long. The same is true now, as I drool over the Snap-on catalog or the Aston-Martin brochure. Some things would, did, and do fire my imagination, for me it was electric trains, and Tonka trucks, they let me imitate the world of men (sorry ladies, you didn’t have much role in my 5-year-old imagination). But, perhaps strangely, I never liked equipment with figures on it: the operators seat was where my imagination sat. That may be unique to me, but I doubt it.

But I grew up in a pretty traditional family, and in a rural area to boot. It was entirely conceivable to tell me, after breakfast, to go play, I’ll call you for lunch, and it was done, often. That left me open to learning things, by experiment, by reasoning through things, to use my imagination, unfettered. I have no clue how many times I single-handedly won World War II in Indiana, but it was certainly in triple digits. The same with roads and power lines built, and crops brought in.

So we are going to have a series, I don’t know how long, or whether it will be continuous, or not. We’ll see how it goes. We’re going to investigate how we came to believe that so very novel idea, that we can buy happiness. In many ways, the last two posts here have been a sort of prologue, documenting how our (mostly) young people have gotten themselves into trouble, today we’ll start looking at the causes. I don’t agree with all the specifics here, but he touches on many truths that we need to heed. So listen up, and we’ll start on our mission because we can’t fix it till we define the problem.

Kipling reminds us:

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

David Cameron’s ‘British values’ agenda is anti-Christian

CMMxrnmWEAA8qGKIs it? Yes, and its also anti-Islamic, anti- Jewish, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, and anti-secular humanist. It’s also anti-British, anti-American, and anti-western civilization. Unless you worship David Cameron as the one true god, it’s against whatever you believe. Here’s Cameron’s money quote:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’.

In other words do as I say, not as the law of the land says. Even Obama isn’t crass enough to say this out loud.

Here’s Professor Charmley:

Legislation to counter ‘extremism’ will threaten free speech for all faiths and give the state the final say on what we can, and cannot, teach our children

With ISIS in the news, and with young people leaving this country to join them, ‘‘extremist disruption orders’’ (EDOs), designed to prevent the spread of extremism, appear both sensible and popular. This is, we are reassured, about defending “British values”. Again, this seems unproblematic, until you start thinking about it. During the Coalition, the Liberal Democrats asked some searching questions about what this actually meant, and the legislation was dropped; now it is back on the agenda – and in the absence of the Lib Dems, the rest of us need to step up to the plate. Why so?

We can get our first glimpse of why we should be concerned from the response of the Conservative MP, Mark Spencer, to a query from a constituent as to whether EDOs would erode free speech. After the usual airy generalised reassurances about free speech being protected, Mr Spencer volunteered the suggestion that they might, though, be used against someone teaching that gay marriage was wrong. So, espousing the traditional Christian, Muslim and Jewish teaching on marriage, one which until a couple of years ago was the law of the land, can now be considered espousing ‘‘extremism’’? What other aspects of the teaching of our faith might fall under suspicion? It is not, after all, as though our ruling elite has shown itself particularly literate when it comes to religion. As Prof Tariq Modood of Bristol recently commented: “The decline of public religion in Britain in the second half of the 20th century has meant that British society, including higher education and its leaders, has little understanding of religion.”

Our leaders lack the ability to understand what faith means to people. They seem to think we should regard it in the same way they treat their party’s principles – something infinitely malleable and, in an emergency, saleable for something more serviceable.

The Welsh Government, not usually a fan of the Conservatives, has jumped on the bandwagon of the “extremism” agenda to suggest that because religious education is badly taught in Welsh schools, it should be scrapped and replaced with something that fits with the “social cohesion” agenda. This sort of thinking is the fruit of the old narrative, taken as normative in the West, that religion is a fading force in the world which can be generally done away with in the public sphere, and which, if it must exist, should be strictly confined to the private sphere. That this is not true of much of the rest of the world, or of many in this multicultural country, appears to be beyond the grasp of a political elite which fails to see the dangers that will follow by treating public affirmations of faith as signs of “extremism”. Mr Spencer’s blithe assumption that his constituent would agree with his definition of extremism is precisely what should worry us, because he is far from alone in sharing it

With so many examples before us to choose from, it would be futile for anyone to argue that this is not the thin end of a wedge; it always is. Every time our liberties are curbed, we are assured that this is the end of it, but that will come only when the relevant authorities are satisfied we are all on message.

and

The Government’s instinctive mistrust of what it does not understand, combined with an equally instinctive desire to ban opinions it dislikes, is worrying. Claiming to be progressive, the Government is, in fact, in danger of regressing to the days of the Test Acts of the period from 1689 to 1828, when membership of the political nation required a Confessional Test – were you or were you not a communicating member of the Established Church? We already see, with Andy Burnham, that it is necessary to jettison authentic Catholic teaching on matters such as birth control, abortion and gay marriage to secure support in the Labour Party, while Education Secretary Nicky Morgan’s about-turn on the issue of same-sex marriage tells us the same is true of the Tories.

Politicians who are practising members of the Catholic Church are wise to either self-censor or change their views on fashionable issues if they wish to get on. The monstering of Tim Farron by a media shocked at the idea of a believing Christian leading a political party reveals how hostile our political life is to confessed Christians, while his own muted reaction on the issue of same-sex marriage shows how hard it is to speak against the fashionable consensus which so illiberally enforces its writ. Is it wise to give this political elite such wide-ranging powers to decide what we can and cannot express with regard to our faith?

It is, perhaps, hopeless to expect a Conservative Party bent on erasing all traces of it to remember its own history, but the last time it legislated directly on matters of belief was the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874. Designed to stem the rising tide of ritualism within the Established Church, it forbade various practices such as candles on altars and the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. The result was that some patently holy men ministering in the poorest parishes of London found themselves in jail for obeying their consciences rather than the government. The law quickly fell into disuse, but not before creating a generation of Anglo-Catholic martyrs. Perhaps Mr Cameron and Theresa May cannot conceive of men and women so principled that they would go to jail rather than defy their own consciences?

via CatholicHerald.co.uk » David Cameron’s ‘British values’ agenda is anti-Christian.

Professor John Charmley is head of the Interdisciplinary Institute at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. His speciality as a historian is modern Britain, with a focus on the Conservative party.

I’m not convinced that people like Cameron and May even understand what a conscience is. And do understand, it is happening on this of the pond as well.

Planned Parenthood Video #4 and #5, and relevant stuff

plannedParenthoodLogo-2I’m not going to embed the videos today. I’ve seen them and they continue to be horrific, nauseating stomach-turning stuff, the links are in here, and you should watch them, as I have.

John Hinderaker picks this as the money quote, and I agree

Sometimes if we get, if someone delivers before we are able to see them for a procedure, then we are intact. But that’s not what we go for, we try for that not to happen.

w704

Planned Parenthood Video #4 Is a Shocker | Power Line.

One of the things that CMP is doing is interviewing PP people around the country, this emphasizes that this is national policy, not a few rogue people.

There was another injunction last week, as usual claiming that an undercover video was, I don’t know, undercover, maybe. Not that any of it is untrue, just that their now unmentioned publicity flacks at SKDKnickerbocker, didn’t have the chance to suppress the video. In addition the injunction, as per usual, these days appears to be political, since the issuing judge’s wife, well here’s Mollie Hemingway to tell you:

The federal judge who late Friday granted a temporary restraining orderagainst the release of recordings made at an annual meeting of abortion providers wasn’t just appointed by President Barack Obama, the most extreme proponent of abortion ever to hold the White House. He was also one of President Obama’s top fundraisers, a bundler who raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.

Judge William H. Orrick, III, granted the injunction just hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick’s wife, Caroline “Linie” Farrow Orrick, is a clown and artist with an interest in outdoor athletic endeavors. She’s also a public supporter of extreme abortion policies.

Her YouTube user page shows that the first video she ever “liked” was from an extreme pro-abortion group called the Center for Reproductive Justice. The slick, celebrity-laden video called for people to sign a “bill of rights” that asserts a right to abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, a position shared by very few Americans. It further calls for taxpayer funding of contraception, abortifacients and abortion.

More at Wife Of Judge Who Blocked Pro-Life Videos Is A Pro-Abortion Activist

And here is Bre Payton also of The Federalist with the fifth video

The Center for Medical Progress released a fifth video today exposing Planned Parenthood’s organ trafficking scheme. In the video, lab technicians are seen sifting through second trimester baby organs, and pulling a 20-week-old twin baby out of the freezer, among other revelations.

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast Research Director Melissa Farrell explains to investigators posing as organ buyers that she has 6 abortion clinics that perform abortions on babies after 16 weeks.

Stem cell harvesting companies like Stem Express aren’t the only ones collecting aborted babies for research. In the video, Melissa Farrell, director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast says that many abortionists frequently keep the bodies for their own research.

More and the video (subject to the usual caveats, because it is graphic) here

Several thing have bothered besides the graphical nature of much of the videos. One is the coldness, of the PP officials, that’s more me than anything, and slightly strange, because in my field we tend to be fairly much the same way, it has, I suspect more to do with being around it everyday than anything else, it just bothers me more when we’re talking about a baby, instead of a grown man.

But the thing that really bothers me is how little attention these are getting, other than sites like this, Powerline, The Federalist, some on Fox News. Killing that bloody lion was a bigger story, a lot bigger than this, and here we are witnessing murder on an industrial scale, with medical experimentation mixed in, just as Josef Mengele did it.

But the thing PP doesn’t do, although they claim to is provide much women’s health care. Charles Camosy, an associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University wrote recently:

The first thing to get clear is that Planned Parenthood actually doesn’t provide all that much for poor, vulnerable women — particularly if they don’t live in cities. Indeed, you may remember that, in wake of the Susan J. Komen defunding ridiculousness from a few years ago, lots of charges were thrown around about women losing out on mammograms. But it turns out that Planned Parenthood doesn’t even provide them. As Democrats for Life has pointed out numerous times in recent days, the number of local community health centers outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics ten to one. Rather than the one-size-fits-all franchise approach of Planned Parenthood, these community health centers nicely embody the principle of subsidiarity in responding to the diverse local needs of women — whether in the Bronx, rural Kansas, or southern California.

And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says this:

It has long been troubling to many Americans that the nation’s largest abortion network, performing over a third of all abortions, receives over half a billion taxpayer dollars a year. This concern has rightly grown in recent years. The most recent revelations about Planned Parenthood’s willingness to traffic in fetal tissue from abortions, and to alter abortion methods not for any reason related to women’s health but to obtain more “intact” organs, is the latest demonstration of a callousness toward women and their unborn children that is shocking to many Americans. The Catholic Church comes to this issue from a perspective rooted in experience. Catholic charitable agencies and pregnancy help centers have helped countless pregnant women find life-affirming alternatives to abortion. Our hospitals and other health facilities are second to none in providing quality health care for women. We support the legislative proposal to reallocate federal funding, so that women can obtain their health care from providers that do not promote abortion. It is my sincere hope that you will be able to help advance this goal by supporting S. 1881.

Both via Mollie Hemingway.

There was a vote this week in the US Senate to defund Planned Parenthood. It failed. Democrats Manchin of West Virginia and Donnelly of Indiana voting to defund, while Republicans Kirk, of Illinois, and McConnel of Kentucky voted to keep funding the murder of babies, and medical experimentation o them as well, in violation of US law.

Life, or rather Death, marches on.

Justin Welby: ‘The abolition of the global – learning to live in the world in one city’

This is pretty good, albeit long. Note that Archbishop Welby starts at about the 18:00 mark.

%d bloggers like this: