Ted Cruz and 25 other Republicans have come out with anti-‘racist’, Social Justice rhetoric, denouncing the Smithsonian’s display of a bust of Margaret Sanger. Why? Because she founded Planned Parenthood, which now champions abortion in all its repugnant forms? No, because she was a ‘Racist’ who wanted to commit ‘genocide’ against blacks, purportedly.

Obviously the left can’t point a finger at one of its feminist heroes, the woman who founded Planned Parenthood, so they have a dilemma when it comes to addressing her alleged ‘racism’ and desire to eliminate black people. But did she advocate genocide, as these Republican SJW wannabees are insisting?

The fact is she didn’t even advocate abortion. She actually spoke against it. As here:

She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.” And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control “has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.” 

But as to these persistent claims that she was a ‘racist’ and had genocidal wishes, I could not find a direct quote in which she advocated such a thing. She certainly advocated birth control for blacks but she also believed that other groups, such as those popularly called ”White trash” (though she didn’t use that term) should practice birth control, limiting family size. She also believed that people who were considered “feeble-minded” should be kept from having children. But I found no writings of Sanger’s that proved the veracity of the ‘racist and genocidalist’ claims.

The nearest thing I’ve found is this quote:

The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Now the way I read that paragraph is that she is saying she wants to pre-empt any fears on the part of black folk, any fear that she might be out to ‘exterminate’ them. Does anyone seriously believe that if she had such designs, that she would make a public statement like the one quoted above, words which are now being interpreted as proof that she did, in fact, have ‘genocidal’ ideas?

Do people today believe that Sanger and other prominent public figures of her era supported ‘genocide’ against blacks? Really? Seriously? To believe that is to have swallowed whole the leftist propaganda about how evil and racist people of earlier times were. The world of the past, for the race-obsessed left and for many minorities, is a world teeming with evil, sinister racists (White racists, needless to say — because all Whites are racists from birth) who would stop at nothing, people with no morals or ethics or humanity. This is a warped and false view of White society of the past. And now here we have Republicans, people who make a token pretense of being ‘conservative’, joining in the hue and cry of the left, finding racists under every bed and in every dark corner. Talk about witch hunts. Joining in the effort to sniff out ‘racism’ everywhere is just another way of defaming White people, because it implies strongly that White racism is in fact an ever-present menace. The implicit message is that White people are not to be trusted; they must be monitored and chastised if they show any telltale signs that they carry the disease of ‘racism.’

These aspersions being cast against White people in general amount to defamation, and they perpetuate the image of Whites as irredeemably hateful, whether openly or covertly. In Christian terms, careless tale-bearing often means ”bearing false witness.”

As for Margaret Sanger? I’m just as horrified as anyone can be about the Planned Parenthood scandals. I am not an apologist for them or for any pro-abort group. I don’t support infanticide under whatever name.

But I think it’s questionable whether she had genocidal designs or whether she ‘hated’ black folk, if that is in fact what constitutes a ‘racist.’

It’s known and established fact that she worked with people from what is now described as the black community, leaders like W.E.B. DuBois. Would a genocidal hater of blacks form such associations? Or was DuBois duped by Sanger? That seems doubtful. But here we have a quote form DuBois which has been misattributed to Sanger — probably knowingly.

• A quote usually taken out of context, and which was from W.E.B. duBois instead of Sanger: “The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”

So I suppose DuBois would then be a genocidalist racist — against his own race, which is not likely. He was a defender of his own folk but not an apologist for any shortcomings of his people, as is the case today with such leaders.

Another misunderstanding of Sanger’s words centers around her use of terms like ‘racial betterment.’ P.S. to those who are not familiar with the word usages of the past: when people spoke of ‘the race’ back then, they generally meant the human race collectively, homo sapiens sapiens, not any particular color or ethnic group, as the usage is today — though today ‘race’ is just a social construct.

But as to the politics of this particular ‘controversy’, isn’t it enough that the left-wing mass media constantly trumpets accusations of racism for every ill-chosen word on the part of some hapless White somewhere, and that the left has completely destroyed the character of many of our heroes of the past, with their never-ending accusations and slanders? Must we now have supposed ‘conservatives’, even those who trade on a patriotic image, becoming race-baiters too?

Behold, Ted Cruz, darling of many of the PC Republicans, as a social justice warrior.
The game seems to be to position Republicans as the real friends and defenders of black and other minority folk. The Democrats are the ‘‘real racists” and the Republicans are climbing over each other to be more anti-racist and pro-minority than the Democrats.

If these poseurs, these Politically Correct Preeners, really cared about a group of people whose numbers are dwindling, a group of people whose birth rate is scarcely at replacement level, a people who are in a real existential crisis, why aren’t they championing and defending their own people, the people to whom they are related by genetics and heritage? The people who constitute most of their contributors and constituents?

These people are not patriots in the real sense of the world. If one is not a patriot to his people, he is no patriot at all.

Still, somebody in the GOP hierarchy must have decided that this posturing and race-baiting is a good political strategy, that it will draw black voters (who voted something like 97% Democrat in the last presidential election) into the GOP. Good luck with that. No, it’s only clueless Whites in both parties who think it’s cool and profitable to neglect — and defame — one’s own folk and pander to everyone else.

4 thoughts on “GOP SJW’s

  1. I'm not sure I'd necessarily tar them as GOP SJWs. Rather, I think it's more of an attempt to point out the hypocrisy that one of the left's revered heroes was (Gasp!) a racist. More of a psy-war op to generate some cognitive dissonance among the leftards.




  2. Interesting comments. I've often thought the same about contemporary “Conservatives” reframing the same narrative designed by Liberals themselves. What I think this amounts to is an underlying Marxism influencing both political parties, where each artistically present the other as the “oppressor” or perpetrator of evil (the worst and most pervasive being racism). While doing this, they like frame their own platform as that ideology that combats the other, or perpetrators of evil racism. It's a struggle for power generated out of struggle between oppressor and oppressed. American politics is simply the art through which we convince people that our party supports the oppressed and fights the oppressor. As you said, this cannot be Conservativism since it doesn't fight for its own kind – hearth, home and history. It just fights for power. That's why it is right to say Conservatives and Democrats are, at bottom, one in the same (and their followers are truly shackled by the narrative both use, which is just good ole fashionec Marxist strategy.


  3. Quite right. I've often read that quote by Sanger and thought, “Well, I'd hate the word to spread that I'm a child molester, but that doesn't mean I am”.

    It's an indication of the total victory of the Left. Even those who proudly call themselves Conservatives are indistinguishable from the Leftists (who are the real racists!). But they have become such a parody that a reaction is forming, hence the popular term “cuckservative”.

    I have no problem with being called a racist. I boast that I was racist before it was cool. As far as abortion is concerned, my attitude is that it is an evil, but as long as my enemies want to kill their children, I'm prepared to let them do it. It saves my children having to do it later. I believe it will come to that.


  4. Anonymous/david,
    I see your point, and I think I understand what they are trying to do — but yet it seems that it's more than just posturing or 'psy-ops', because look how they pay homage to MLK and how they all flatter black 'conservatives' fulsomely. They are being politically correct in a less aggressive way.

    But as I tried to point out, are their accusations true (about Sanger's supposed genocidal plans), and if they are in fact wrenching quotes out of context in an effort to make political hay, they are lacking integrity, and that makes them no better in some ways than their opponents on the left.

    Actually I think much of the partisan bickering is for show, like in pro wrestling with the trash-talking. Behind closed doors these bitter 'enemies' of the two parties are buddies, as some of the candid photos show. They are mostly just front-men and actors — in my opinion.


Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s