Sanger’s Racist Genocidal Plans and The Masque of the Red Death

I haven’t commented about the creepy “Happy Anniversary Video” celebrating 40 years since Roe v. Wade; the suave African American man, holding a rose and cooing about the wonder of this anniversary really is, as Marc Barnes writes, “the creepiest sh*t…”

If you haven’t seen the video, you should go to Marc’s place and watch. One of the truly chilling (and, yes, creepy)things about it is that for African Americans, abortion in America has been a true genocide. As we learned last week, in New York City, abortion ends almost 70% of all African American pregnancies.

So, yeah, the good-looking African American man promising to make sure women, and especially African American can keep having abortions — and as many as they want, for any reason, even up to deliver, if some have their way — is a staggering piece of business and to my way of thinking, as anti-woman as it gets. Yeah, baby, we’ll make sure you can keep aborting those babies so we have no responsibilities at all…

This is not a rant; it’s reality. Do you want to know what Margaret Sanger, the great “heroine” of Planned Parenthood, and abortion-advocates and committed elitists throughout the nation had to say about African American and lower-income populations?

Check it out:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want 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.

All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class, and if morality is to mean anything at all to us, we must regard all the changes which tend toward the uplift and survival of the human race as moral.

Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

I have no doubt that Sanger would have applauded yesterday’s article of full revelation at Salon, and the admission that “Sure, abortion ends a life, so what?” That writer echoes Sanger: some lives are worth more than others. She also writes that a life in utero is a life “worth sacrificing.”

Sorry to keep talking about it, but the full-on creepiness of yesterday’s article, combined with that “Happy Anniversary, Baby” video makes me think of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Masque of the Red Death. These folks are throwing off their masks — perhaps because they feel like the last election has put them beyond the reach of accountability or loss — and it’s all just as bone-chillingly revelatory as that “masque off!” moment when the revelers face the dread emptiness beneath masks and costumes and realize that they are all dead people walking, irredeemable and beyond hope.

The story and the title, they’re so fitting, in some ways. While living in New York Poe made friends with many Fordham Jesuits, but his tale does not relieve his characters with the promise of redemption in Christ. Presumably, the doomed revelers would have to step outside, away from Prospero and his Castle, in order to find Him.

Anchoress is CPAC “Blogger of the Year?” Get OUT!
I’m having a Howard Beale Moment
The Great Unraveling: A Necessary Look at Reality
Obama’s Creed: Are we being prepped for 2016′s fake narrative?
About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Adam

    Reading through 2 Maccabees the other day, I was struck by the passage at 6:14, commenting on the Greek persecution of religiously observant Jews in the 160s B.C.:

    “Thus, in dealing with other nations, the Sovereign Lord patiently waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before punishing them….”

    I have to wonder what “the full measure of our sins” is given the holocaust of children since 1973. How much worse can we get before God chastises us?

  • Lizzy

    Planned Parenthood also started using Mother’s Day as a vehicle for promoting their services & fundraising a few years ago. Mother’s Day. These people are sick.

    It’s interesting that after decades of promoting “my body, my choice” – and entirely woman-centric message – they use a man to celebrate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Abortion has played a large role in effectively removing men from reproductive “choices” just as much as it has relieved them of their responsibilities. Dad’s are irrelevant, it’s the mother’s choice, thanks.

  • Mother124

    No less than Nancy Pelosi, who was at the time Speaker of the House, has said that even the Doctors of the Church couldn’t decide when life began.

    But that shouldn’t have any effect on a “woman’s right to choose.”

  • Peggy m

    I have also noticed the remarkable self-confidence and triumphalism on the Left, their apparent belief that they have “won” and can now openly and honestly say what they really believe. No need to couch their beliefs in obfuscating and placating language—we who disagree are irrelevant.

    It might boomerang on them, though—they might shock too many their fellow-travelers. I hope and trust that Truth will out eventually.

    In the meantime, though, it is discouraging and disorienting to see the incomprehensible opinions that abound. “the Masque of the Red Death” is a great image, but I keep thinking of “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. It particularly struck me in the wake of the vice-presidential debate, that bizarre and buffoonish performance of Biden that was seen as not merely acceptable but victorious by half the country. I am surrounded by “pod people”, and didn’t see them coming so swiftly and in such numbers.

  • Pingback: Sanger’s Racist Genocidal Plans and The Masque of the Red Death | CATHOLIC FEAST()

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Adam, given the current conditions in our country, I think our punishment is just beginning. . .

    Many current evils, and many bad ideas in society today can be traced back to the 19th Century; eugenics is certainly one of those bad ideas from that period, that refuses to die, and keeps coming back in different guises. Some historian really needs to do a study of the 19th Century, and how it, and societal collapse after WWI, affected our world. (The Victorian/Edwardian era was not all “Downtown Abbey” and ruffles and frills and smelling salts.)

    A very good book to read on this subject is G.K. Chesterton’s “Eugenics and Other Evils.”

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Peggy m., Biden’s weird, “Man Who Laughs” grimace completely creeped me out, during the Ryan debate, and made me think of demonic possession. . .

    He also seemed to find the idea of a terrorist attack on America hilarious. After his performance, I really don’t understand how anybody could have voted for Obama; the thought that this very strange man is now a heartbeat away from the presidency is. . . unnerving.

    What’s even more unnerving is that many Democrats are praising Hillary Clinton’s “What does it matter?” performance as some sort of marvel of statesmanship, and as proof that we must elect her president in 2016.

    Adam, I think this is the beginning of America’s chastisement.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Ms. Williams obviously believes that American female adults are the superior life form, and their wants, needs and whims pretty much trump everyone else’s.

    There are, however, forces in this world that disagree with her, and would like like nothing better than to put uppity women/infidel females in what they consider to be their proper place. (And these forces are just as creepy and life-hating as Ms. Williams, or any of Margaret Sanger’s disciples.)

    If such forces were ever to come Ms. Williams, she couldn’t argue that all life has value—she doesn’t believe that. The best she could do that argue that modern American females deserve special privilges. But, if her opponents don’t agree, and are stronger than she is, and can overpower her, she’s pretty much up the proverbial creek, without the proverbial paddle. Her opponents will have judged her life as being less important than other lives. And, if they have the power, there won’t be anything she can do about it.

    Without the Judeo-Christian tradition, the whole question of whose life is worth living, and whose isn’t, comes down to power: who has it, who can wield it, who can enforce their judgments against “inferior” populations, who can decide who lives and who dies. “Work makes you free!” “Remember, the concentration camp guard is your friend!” “We’re from the government, and we’re going to save you from all those useless eaters, wasting valuable resources!”

    I have seen the future, and it’s creepier than Joe Biden’s grin.

  • Oregon Catholic

    I feel satan’s influence more and more often in the form of gut-checks when I see or hear some new moral travesty being put forth as entertainment or someone’s rights, etc. I think the boldness of evil we are seeing, and which you describe very well Anchoress, is him being unleashed in full fury. The time for the necessity of lies and deception to claim souls is over. Get prepared for the fight.

  • Jewel

    He looks as smooth and believable as a pimp, soothing his teenaged prostitute that it’s all good, baby. Of course he’s enjoying his lifestyle. He doesn’t have to work for a living. His girls do, but – he’s got them all covered.

  • Manny

    The racial angle was one of my first thoughts too. I brought it up on Rebecca Hamilton’s blog. Not only are African-Americans the highest per capita users of abortion, but that clip feeds right into black male sterotypes. It’s really disgusting from so many angles. You wonder what they were thinking.

    Yeah, the left is triumphant, but they didn’t win in a landslide. 3% hardly warrents such posturing. It’s all a reflection of Obama’s ego.

  • YouGoAnchoress

    When I watched the VP debate, all I could think was that Paul Ryan’s parents should be really proud. Apparently, they taught him to mind his manners and keep his composure even while being publicly berated by a deranged person. He sure earned my respect that night.

  • kmk

    How about the 3rd creepy thing that happened this week? Women in combat. I really wish a well-spoken blogger would write about this. It is absolutely contributing the the deconstruction of women. Haven’t we sent enough young single moms to their deaths (early months of our war–remember those two faces?) Are we willing to send our daughters into the degredation of the front lines? TAlk to anyone who has been there: women don’t belong there. Here’s a combat-veteran female Marine captain’s take:

    She is infertile now thanks to her 5 months in Iraq–please read the article.

    Hold your young daughters tightly, because it is only a matter of time when they will have to register with the Selective Service, just like our sons. There is no logical reason not to draft them. I guess there are not enough able-bodied men (like the one in the clip above!) to defend the country, huh.

    What is REALLY despicable is the Pentagon spokesman lamely talking up the “career opportunities” now open. Bull. Civilians made this decision–they have no clue.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Yes, kmk, I had noticed the creepy women-in-combat thing.

    Unfortunately, there’s so much creepy stuff going on these days, it’s difficult to give it all equal attention!

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    When is the media going to get around to regularly referencing the racist-Nazi history of the founders and builders of Planned Parenthood.??? Few know of it because–like Obama’s radical past–(now revealed for all to see in his inaugural address)— the media protects those it wants to promote.

  • Lizzy

    The women in combat move both serves their need for social engineering via the military as well as advance their anti-war agenda. This will give us so many more dead mommie soldiers for the MSM to profile (remember the media focus on war causalities during Bush’s presidency?) and also more upsetting hostages for our enemies to take (and looking at our enemies’ track record on treating women they love, this is going to be bad).

  • Amy

    Know your enemy – his name is Mehcad Brooks.

  • Fiestamom

    In July 2009, Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an interview to the New York Times Magazine and said this:
    “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

  • Peggy m

    I also thought Paul Ryan did a fine job, not just with his command of facts but also with his earnest manner and his grace under pressure. But the reaction from the Left—including the media—left me feeling that everything was upside down. These more recent manifestations of our national psychosis is just piling on. I really do not understand any of these people.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Peggy m., I’m afraid everything is upside down these days!

    (Yes, I thought Ryan handled himself quite well in that debate, and, no, I don’t understand these people either.)

  • Victor

    (((How much worse can we get before God chastises us?)))

    (((I have seen the future, and it’s creepier than Joe Biden’s grin.)))

    I hear ya sinner vic! :(

    Ya will keep praying for U>S (usual sinners) folks! :)



  • Adam

    Active military member here. I do have to say that I’ve worked alongside women for years–some of whom could smoke me on a fitness test–and I don’t have a problem with them going into combat if they want to *and* can meet the physical requirements. Personally, I don’t want *me* going into combat, but if I were firm on that, I wouldn’t have put on the uniform. As it is, women have been serving in combat for years now–it just hasn’t been an explicit part of their duties (i.e., a female helicopter pilot might have to engage the enemy, or a female HMMV driver has to fire the turret).

    If the church or the scriptures were clearer on women not serving in combat, I would concede, of course. As it is, I’m pretty sure that the church is neutral on this. As for the scriptures…well, we have this:

    One last note, though: I do get a little upset when I hear something akin to “sacrificing our sons (or daughters).” This drove me particularly crazy whenever Cindy Sheehan cried about having to sacrifice her son (though I do feel bad for her). I put on the uniform when I turned 25, as an adult. Fact is, I’m pretty sure all military members put on the uniform as legal adults–they might barely be into the age of majority, but they’re adults nonetheless. The choice to join the military and to face the risks involved was mine, not my parents. It’s up to the President and Congress–and you, the voters, when you elect people who take those posts–to determine where and how we’re going to war. But the decision is mine, and if I get killed in combat, the sacrifice was my own. I guess if a woman wants to face those same risks or worse in the name of supporting our country and saving lives, I don’t want to deny her that.

    Abortion still sucks, though.

  • Manny


    Yes I acknowledge that with today’s weapons women can perform a combat mission. The question for me is should they? Are we destroying femininity? Why are we on this path to consolidate gender roles?

  • Adam


    I don’t know. Do you expect the long-term result of this to be shorn-headed, sterile women or dress-wearing men dominating our military ranks? I’m skeptical that that’s the endgame. Maybe in Satan’s grand scheme, sure, but not in the immediate military sense. I see lots of women in the military who are still girly-girls when out of uniform, and men aren’t getting any girlier when they take off theirs. If we’re proposing that this is “destroying femininity,” I’d like to see evidence of that. (Yeah, I’ve seen some butch women in the military. Some. Not many.)

    One of the arguments on the de-segregate side is the fact that women ARE performing combat roles and have been for a long time. The 1994 “Aspin Memo,” as it’s called, only banned women from serving in “ground” combat roles at the brigade level. This hasn’t prevented women from getting into firefights or direct ground combat anyway–it’s just happened in an organic, circumstantial way, but it’s still happened. They’re coming home with purple hearts and combat awards just like men.

    If there is a legitimate, moral argument against women serving in combat, I have not seen it, so I remain skeptical. I realize that there is this broad concern about women losing their femininity and men being weakened, and believe me, I have concerns that the implementation of open ranks will lead to a weakening of standards. That doesn’t mean that there’s an inherent immorality in women serving in combat–God gave her fists and a brain the same as men. I don’t see how this could–inherently–be equated to men trying to have babies or women trying to serve as priests.

    If someone can point to something *clear*–like a passage in the Catechism or the Bible–which states that women inherently, by their nature, cannot serve in combat, I will acquiesce. I don’t think that’s going to materialize, though–I think it’ll be more of a broad fear that women won’t be women and men won’t be men.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I think the fact that women give birth, and that they are, physically, smaller and weaker than men, is a pretty good indication, in their very bodies, that God never intended for them to be soldiers. Let’s face it—yes God gave women fists, but He gave males stronger ones. This seems to me pretty clear, and a strong argument against women serving, right from the get-go, though I know that in the current climate of, “Woman and men are completely interchangeable!” most people aren’t going to agree with me on this.

    Will women serving in combat create shaven-headed “She-Males” and effeminate men? Will it destroy femininity? We won’t be able to tell, until the experiment has actually gone on, for a few years—at which point, of course, it will be to late to turn back, if we don’t like the results. What about women soldiers and motherhood? What about rape? What happens to society as a whole, when a woman’s body must be treated exactly like a man’s body, in combat, i.e, when it must be shot, stabbed, blown apart, because it’s the body of an “Enemy?” What effect will this have on men, who, up until now, have seen the female body as Mom/sister/Wife/Daughter? Will it desensitize them to the women in their lives? Will it cause them to treat all women more brutally?

    There are a lot of questions here, and flashing a few purple hearts, and waving around some memos, doesn’t really answer them.

  • Adam

    No, but neither does raising a bunch of conjectural questions actually answer them either. I am reminded of a scene in “Atlas Shrugged” in which the government issues a report denouncing Henry Rearden’s new steel based on pure conjecture. I don’t have the quote in front of me–it was something to the effect that the anti-Readen report raised a lot of convincing-but-conjectural empty questions about the steel without proving that there were any defects.

    You worry that men’s view of women will be cheapened by serving in combat with them. Again, I’d like to see some impirical or historical evidence of this. Does it happen in Israel or other countries where women are serving? Does it happen in the U.S., in career fields where women are serving? I do know for a fact that rapes happen in the military, but in my experience, it’s outside the combat zone, at the home station or in the dormitories or training bases. As far as I know, it’s not a result of combat–it’s young troops, either in their basic training or fresh out of it who are coming into the military with a “frat boy” mentality and were probably never raised with a proper sense of how to behave towards women in the first place.

    Now, I should note that I have no objection to maintaining the current standards to get a job in the infantry. If it requires you to march 20 miles with a 50 pound rucksack, then most women are probably going to inherently fail at that. (So would I, for the record.) But what do you do with that 1 percent of the women who do pass those qualifications and are ready and willing to serve and can make a valuable contribution? Do you tell them, “Sorry, but for your biology, we can’t let you do this out of a vague concern that a man might beat a woman over this. Go home and put on a dress.”? I think you’re overreaching there. Natural attrition rates are going to keep most women out of the infantry jobs anyway.

  • kmk


    I am definitely not trying to argue that women don’t belong in the military. St. Joan of Arc, pray for us. Read the book of Judith, oyy–she chopped the guy’s head off in his own tent and saved Israel! Plenty of women have fought and died in various roles for their countries. There are plenty of areas where the natural gifts of intuition, organizational skills, negotiation (whatever!) are a complete bonus to our military readiness.

    I am a female Army veteran–1LT and had 3 small three children by the time I left my reserve unit (started out active). I really strongly urge you to read the article I referenced above — female Marine Corps CPT, not butch/short hair/sterile, 2 combat tours as combat engineer, and is a top-notch officer. Please read the entire thing–physical evidence that this combat thing is not a good idea.

    My unit was Combat support unit, and in any of those types of units–supply, communications, intel–all of the females in those units were on the front lines, either driving around or with a commo or collections or some kind of outpost. I agree with you. The military has been quietly placing women in these roles for at least the past 20 years.

    The saddest part is that men felt like they could not say anything without risking their careers. I was commissioned in 1988, and I spoke to male friends, and that’s what they told me. I was ROTC (and a good officer!), so a little less conditioned than academy grads, but these questions of not being able to drag my buddy off the battlefield did not even occur to me–I did not even think through the discrepancies of how many pushups were required of women (16) vs. men (40) on the PT test! Yes, I am just the same as he. He doesn’t mind if I am his buddy (except at certain times of the month!). RIGHT! brainwash!

    Let’s think of combat, and men and women together: Young men and women- in a tight spot for long periods of time, surrounded by death, destruction, exhaustion,stress, deprivation, lack of privacy, women’s times of the month,love, heartbreak, jealousies, combined with (hopefully)man’s natural urge to protect a weaker one (or even just help her with her rucksack!) rather than take the hill, or move to the next position, and finally ANY woman’s total lack of enough physical strength to drag the weight of even an average-sized man off a battlefield. (Are women in the NFL, or even the NBA or MLB?! )

    Here are some practical questions: What’s the pregnancy rate during deployments? The divorce rate–will thishelp? How much are we spending to accommodate women in these new combat situations, such as in a submarine? How is that truly improving our readiness, or cutting our costs? How long before our daughters are enrolled with Selective Service? What do I do when my menses begins just before a firefight, and I don’t have supplies? WHat about stalkers being deployed with their stalkees?

    Here’s something totally irrational, but I just have to throw it in as a woman who has grown up with men, and has 5 sons, and has had time to ponder a few things after working in a predominantly male environment: Where the hell can men be men with other men? It is a unique environment, the Henry V/ Band of Brothers thing. Why do we women begrudge it? It is a brotherly bond in which they will die for each other. I would argue that it is necessary. Why can’t these civilian men and women leave it alone, even just for military readiness’ sake? (There, sue me for discrimination! : ) )

    I guess the final place you can find this band of brothers is in the priesthood. Thanks be to God!

    Sorry for the long post,


  • kmk

    (PS Adam I didn’t see your last post before I send the large one above…)

  • kmk

    “Natural attrition rates are going to keep most women out of the infantry jobs anyway.”

    I agree, but plese read the Marine CPT’s article, she’s been there, done that.

  • Adam

    No, I saw that–and I guess if there’s an inherent risk to women doing certain jobs because their bodies will degenerate over time, they should be made aware of those (are they? If not, that’s shameful). I do know a woman–who is still a “girly girl” and a proud mother of two–who was in aircraft maintenance for years before her back got messed up enough that she changed over to a clerical position and retired in that job. So I’d agree to the extent that a woman should be getting out of a job if it’s physically damaging to her…but then, a man should too. I’m reasonably sure that men would generally last longer doing grueling labor, but even they, too, would probably be a mess at some point in their lives–it’d just be later. (In other words, a man might go longer in aircraft maintenance, but he’s also, eventually, going to suffer some degenerative conditions as a result.)

    On the PT test: well, I can’t speak for the Army’s test. There are also different standards between the men’s and women’s tests in the Air Force, but I’ve given up on thinking that it’s unfair. Why? Because the PT test isn’t an assessment of combat readiness, but an assessment of general health. A healthy man of a certain age should be able to run 1.5 miles in a certain amount of time (for me, it’s 14 minutes or better); a woman should be able to run it in less time. However, the test is not an indicator of qualification for combat jobs. I had a buddy who tried to transition into a helicopter-rescue job and had to qualify under completely different standards: I think he had to swim so many laps, run even faster, something like that. Those, I agree, should be standardized and not have a male-female differentiaton. If the test is, for example, “can you fireman carry a 250-pound body for 500 feet,” then a woman doesn’t get to complain that it’s too heavy and should have a lighter standard–she needs to be prepared for the possibilty of doing it in real life.

    As for men being men: I don’t know. I imagine that men will naturally gravitate towards each other in their barracks or elsewhere. If it makes you feel better, I was in a small Knights of Columbus outlet when I was in Afghanistan–not a woman in sight, except the statue of Mary which I think we used. :)

  • Suburbanbanshee

    1. Yes, women can be in combat, and leaders in combat, without losing their femininity. See Deborah, Judith, St. Joan of Arc and her artillery placement skills, Matilda of Tuscany, etc.

    2. That said, women being in combat is generally either a sign that the society is having an emergency that requires all hands for survival, that combat has come into the home area, that the hereditary leadership hasn’t produced enough boys or enough competent ones, or that there are lots of surplus women who can be recruited to die without affecting the society’s birth rate adversely. Our society thinks we’re in situation #4, but mostly because the left thinks a falling birthrate is grand. Especially if it’s mostly red-state women who fight and die.

    3. If things have now gotten so egalitarian that women can have combat jobs in the US military (which yes, has been coming for a lot of years, and has been the fact for quite a few jobs already), and given that this is wartime, then yes, all women in the US military will have to take combat jobs. Everybody will be “allowed” not to apply for combat jobs, but practically speaking, nobody wishing to stay in or to advance in a military career will be able to not apply — unless in a totally non-combat specialty, like being a JAG lawyer. (And even then, if there’s something going on in a combat area, commanders will have to send women lawyers into harm’s way, and they will not be able to refuse.) All other talk is soft soap and politician lies.

  • Adam


    To clarify: judge advocates ARE combatants. “Combatant” is a term of art, basically referring to “someone you can lawfully target.” In that regard, most military members are combatants, even if they only do purely clerical work. Generally, civilians are non-combatants, and chaplains are medics are “retained personnel.” (Generally speaking, you’d think of chaplains and medics as non-combatants, but again, it’s a term of art thing.)

    My experience as a judge advocate in a combat zone was to sit at a desk all day and prepare legal documents for military members who needed them. I was issued an M9 pistol with the understanding that it was for personal self-defense and I otherwise wasn’t supposed to use it. (If things got bad, we were supposed to get down and let the Army take care of it.) In an extremely theoretical sense, my commander could have made me into Uriah and ordered me out to the front lines, but I’d probably have been useless in a firefight (especially with an M9). In reality, I could have been told to “arm up” only if, say, the base were getting overrun with insurgents and the thousands of Army guys on the base were all dead. Or, more practically, I guess it could have happened if, say, a contractor working on the base snuck in a weapon and decided to start shooting up the chow hall–yeah, I’d probably want to pull out my pistol and shoot back.

    Realizing your concerns, I don’t think it’s all that likely that a commander is going to order a female lawyer (or any lawyer) into combat outside of extreme, bleep-hits-the-fan circumstances. There have been lawyers who’ve had to engage in combat in self-defensive situations, such as this lady (, but that’s the kind of situation anybody in a combat zone could face at any time.