Planned Parenthood has a dark history. If they had not changed their name, their organization's mission would be far clearer to more Americans. The question is how can we safely move into the future?
this women is a nobody, another fauci, basically tools.
btw, bill gates father used to be a board member of this organization ... which is rather interesting, and probably a telling sign as to WHY was bill gates given the money through that contract with IBM.
You would think "anti-racists" should be up in arms about this literal example of systemtic racism: outlets located in minority neighbourhoods to literally slaughter members of that ethnicity but... crickets. Apparently in some cities more black children are killed before birth than are born.
Celebrating every birth is both naive and a little cruel, I think.
I watched an impoverished woman grow frailer with each birth until someone else intervened. Was that intervention morally defensible? Would it have been more defensible to let my friend continue to have children likely to die shortly thereafter, as her last one did? To risk her death from maternity-related causes? Children in poor families do even worse if their mother dies during their childhoods.
Having healthy children one can afford to provide decently for is a good goal. Programs that manipulate human fertility based on the obsessions of those who always think they're the smartest ones in the room are bad.
If we can overcome the totalitarian rule we have been subjected to maybe we have yet another chance to fashion a more sane world. Thanks for providing evidence of yet one more crack in their foundation.
One of the best articles on the subject I have ever rad. Bravo. Rid the world of the disabled. Imagine eliminating all those disabled with autism. This eugenics subject, Planned Parenthood etc has more sides than a hexagon. One still has to observe the number unwanted homeless babies(and yes, women will still keep getting pregnant with babies they don't want.) So many sides, so few positive answers. Course the new eugenics is the Covid vax. Will the King save us?
.....until we START having an HONEST conversation about what CAN actually IMPROVE the quality and experience of life, REDUCE ravages of aging; how having FAILED to (perhaps DESPITE available technologies) has worsened our 'health' - INCLUDING a conscious SHIFT from heavily-CONTRIVED economic realities through TIGHTLY-controlled, conditional access to, EXPECTATION for unregulated PURCHASE of VITAL resources and deference to WILLFULLY-ignorant SADISTIC hierarchies / rationales which INEVITABLY led us to THIS technofascist existential place NOW more than ever on FULL display, lives may NOT get any better - key in ALL of it, is REMOVING psychopathic depopulationists from the process and safeguarding an ability (including FINANCIAL) to CHOOSE for OURSELVES (which of course, infants CAN'T) such things; certainly NOT capriciously eliminating with WIDE latitude / LITTLE justification, the subjectively 'defective' it's TRUE - that SAID, a DISEASED (for CENTURIES, millennia) still-MEDIEVAL, perpetually-DISINGENUOUS Vatican City Catholic DUCHY has ZERO business DICTATING whether or not ANYone decides to become PARENTS - but ESPECIALLY, about NON-abortive family planning tools; there aren't WORDS for how VERY much I can't STOMACH the OSTENTATIA of Catholicism, FEUDALISTIC religious traditions (for MORE reasons than THAT, though.....)
Any analysis of the evil scales on earth cannot be clear and logical without strting with the banksters and the Talmud. That is where money creation and huge wealth elped a fring group of luciferians buy and control the world.
Very interesting and informative. While I agree with the moral sentiments expressed, you ignore the pressing problem of general overpopulation. If we don't reduce our numbers through birth control, nature and physics in the form of depleting energy and falling availability of mineral and other resources, including food, will do it for us. That's the reality we are living with.
I have come to understand also that the propagation (by various parts of society incl. the eugenicists but also the eschalons of higher education) of the idea that women 'should' wait till they are in their later 20's to 30's to have their first child part of the eugenics programs. Waiting that long to start even small families often does not work so well for a number of reasons, the womans and mans bodies being less vigorous by then. I was always so sad to see how the young girls who were pregnant in my high school were absolutely villified, when young women have been having kids 'quite young' since pretty much all our known history. My Mom had me at 37 (in 1964) and I can tell you I did not get a similar experience growing up, wrt my Moms available energy and interests, than my much older brothers and sisters who got a Mom who was in her 20's. My folks were just tired all the time and I could see that even as a kid. I felt bad asking them to do anything 'extra curricular' when I saw their fatigue at the question. Glad I got born but would have picked younger parents.
Are these COVID shots (the real ones, esp. from "bad batches"; saline show shots excepted) "hard selection"? Hey, does A Midwestern Doctor read this Stack?
This article was hard to read. Even though James Lyons-Weiler seems to overtly reject them, many of the terms used in it seem to be based on East Coast leftist redefinitions.
The claim that non-white US population has increased from about 10 percent in 1921 to about 30 percent today is almost certainly based on comparing apples and oranges:
QUOTE: Census records from 1921 indicate that non-whites comprised 10.2% of the American population that year while the 2010 census reports that non-whites now constitute more than 30% of the population. 38,39 Be that as it may, it can be argued that, while the numbers of non-whites in the United States have increased over the past century, so has the number of Planned Parenthood facilities.
The US Census did not start regularly counting Hispanics, which is a cultural category that includes persons with entirely European ancestry, some or all American Indian ancestry, Blacks, essentially anyone who traces their background to a Spanish speaking region or country, until 1970.
California for example classified most Hispanics as white in 1921 and American Indians were explicitly exempted from the infamous California law banning interracial marriage -- otherwise a huge fraction of the state population would have faced a bureaucratic nightmare when trying to marry. Today, I would estimate about 80% of Hispanics, defined as a Spanish surname, in California have visible American Indian ancestry. Hard to be sure, but probably very similar numbers in 1921. The US acquired a substantial non-white -- as sometimes defined today -- population in the Mexican-American war and the annexation of Texas. The US census avoided counting these people as separate from the "white" population. Note that many Hispanics self-identify as "white" when asked their race even if they have visible American Indian ancestry.
this women is a nobody, another fauci, basically tools.
btw, bill gates father used to be a board member of this organization ... which is rather interesting, and probably a telling sign as to WHY was bill gates given the money through that contract with IBM.
https://tottnews.com/2020/04/09/gates-family-eugenics-covid-19/
You would think "anti-racists" should be up in arms about this literal example of systemtic racism: outlets located in minority neighbourhoods to literally slaughter members of that ethnicity but... crickets. Apparently in some cities more black children are killed before birth than are born.
Celebrating every birth is both naive and a little cruel, I think.
I watched an impoverished woman grow frailer with each birth until someone else intervened. Was that intervention morally defensible? Would it have been more defensible to let my friend continue to have children likely to die shortly thereafter, as her last one did? To risk her death from maternity-related causes? Children in poor families do even worse if their mother dies during their childhoods.
Having healthy children one can afford to provide decently for is a good goal. Programs that manipulate human fertility based on the obsessions of those who always think they're the smartest ones in the room are bad.
The idea is certainly compelling that this could be THE major undercurrent of the past ~3 years
If we can overcome the totalitarian rule we have been subjected to maybe we have yet another chance to fashion a more sane world. Thanks for providing evidence of yet one more crack in their foundation.
Great read! More people need to know the truth about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.
One of the best articles on the subject I have ever rad. Bravo. Rid the world of the disabled. Imagine eliminating all those disabled with autism. This eugenics subject, Planned Parenthood etc has more sides than a hexagon. One still has to observe the number unwanted homeless babies(and yes, women will still keep getting pregnant with babies they don't want.) So many sides, so few positive answers. Course the new eugenics is the Covid vax. Will the King save us?
Great article, uncovering more detail about some truly horrible recent history.
.....until we START having an HONEST conversation about what CAN actually IMPROVE the quality and experience of life, REDUCE ravages of aging; how having FAILED to (perhaps DESPITE available technologies) has worsened our 'health' - INCLUDING a conscious SHIFT from heavily-CONTRIVED economic realities through TIGHTLY-controlled, conditional access to, EXPECTATION for unregulated PURCHASE of VITAL resources and deference to WILLFULLY-ignorant SADISTIC hierarchies / rationales which INEVITABLY led us to THIS technofascist existential place NOW more than ever on FULL display, lives may NOT get any better - key in ALL of it, is REMOVING psychopathic depopulationists from the process and safeguarding an ability (including FINANCIAL) to CHOOSE for OURSELVES (which of course, infants CAN'T) such things; certainly NOT capriciously eliminating with WIDE latitude / LITTLE justification, the subjectively 'defective' it's TRUE - that SAID, a DISEASED (for CENTURIES, millennia) still-MEDIEVAL, perpetually-DISINGENUOUS Vatican City Catholic DUCHY has ZERO business DICTATING whether or not ANYone decides to become PARENTS - but ESPECIALLY, about NON-abortive family planning tools; there aren't WORDS for how VERY much I can't STOMACH the OSTENTATIA of Catholicism, FEUDALISTIC religious traditions (for MORE reasons than THAT, though.....)
Any analysis of the evil scales on earth cannot be clear and logical without strting with the banksters and the Talmud. That is where money creation and huge wealth elped a fring group of luciferians buy and control the world.
Very interesting and informative. While I agree with the moral sentiments expressed, you ignore the pressing problem of general overpopulation. If we don't reduce our numbers through birth control, nature and physics in the form of depleting energy and falling availability of mineral and other resources, including food, will do it for us. That's the reality we are living with.
I have come to understand also that the propagation (by various parts of society incl. the eugenicists but also the eschalons of higher education) of the idea that women 'should' wait till they are in their later 20's to 30's to have their first child part of the eugenics programs. Waiting that long to start even small families often does not work so well for a number of reasons, the womans and mans bodies being less vigorous by then. I was always so sad to see how the young girls who were pregnant in my high school were absolutely villified, when young women have been having kids 'quite young' since pretty much all our known history. My Mom had me at 37 (in 1964) and I can tell you I did not get a similar experience growing up, wrt my Moms available energy and interests, than my much older brothers and sisters who got a Mom who was in her 20's. My folks were just tired all the time and I could see that even as a kid. I felt bad asking them to do anything 'extra curricular' when I saw their fatigue at the question. Glad I got born but would have picked younger parents.
The reason some groups want to erase history is because it reveals who they are beyond the rhetoric.
Silphion (silphium) is returning! (Thanks to Heidi Heil for the second link.) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/miracle-plant-eaten-extinction-2000-years-ago-silphion https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/caesars-favourite-herb-was-the-viagra-of-ancient-rome-until-climate-change-killed-it-off Hope the nurseries don't get nuked. Until then, practice cooking with hing (asafoetida).
Are these COVID shots (the real ones, esp. from "bad batches"; saline show shots excepted) "hard selection"? Hey, does A Midwestern Doctor read this Stack?
This article was hard to read. Even though James Lyons-Weiler seems to overtly reject them, many of the terms used in it seem to be based on East Coast leftist redefinitions.
The claim that non-white US population has increased from about 10 percent in 1921 to about 30 percent today is almost certainly based on comparing apples and oranges:
QUOTE: Census records from 1921 indicate that non-whites comprised 10.2% of the American population that year while the 2010 census reports that non-whites now constitute more than 30% of the population. 38,39 Be that as it may, it can be argued that, while the numbers of non-whites in the United States have increased over the past century, so has the number of Planned Parenthood facilities.
The US Census did not start regularly counting Hispanics, which is a cultural category that includes persons with entirely European ancestry, some or all American Indian ancestry, Blacks, essentially anyone who traces their background to a Spanish speaking region or country, until 1970.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/03/03/census-history-counting-hispanics-2/
The US Census now estimates about 18.5% of US population is Hispanic: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2020/comm/us-hispanic-population-growth.html
California for example classified most Hispanics as white in 1921 and American Indians were explicitly exempted from the infamous California law banning interracial marriage -- otherwise a huge fraction of the state population would have faced a bureaucratic nightmare when trying to marry. Today, I would estimate about 80% of Hispanics, defined as a Spanish surname, in California have visible American Indian ancestry. Hard to be sure, but probably very similar numbers in 1921. The US acquired a substantial non-white -- as sometimes defined today -- population in the Mexican-American war and the annexation of Texas. The US census avoided counting these people as separate from the "white" population. Note that many Hispanics self-identify as "white" when asked their race even if they have visible American Indian ancestry.
Great article, thanks!