Home » abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, Creationism, eugenics, evolution, family, General, Global Warming, Holocaust, homosexuality, human rights, Love, Malthusians, morality, original sin, philosophy, politics, pro-life, scientism, speaking engagements » Reflections on the ‘Jaffe Memo’ and why ‘Religion’ and ‘Politics’ should Mix- Part 1

Reflections on the ‘Jaffe Memo’ and why ‘Religion’ and ‘Politics’ should Mix- Part 1

[Updated 9/11/2015 with link to original source document]

Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has set the pro-life blogosphere on fire with her posting of the ‘Jaffe Memo,’ a memorandum written by Frederick S. Jaffe, former vice-president of Planned Parenthood.  Jaffe apparently was in charge of PP’s population control agenda.  The memo was written in 1969.

The memo appears to be legit but I haven’t been able to find its original source.  Read it: Jaffe Memo (9.2 KiB, 1,012 hits)

The original has been found and a corrected copy has been created.  Download it:  Jaffe_Memo__--_Horvath.pdf (211.5 KiB, 473 hits)

Access the full memorandum, with the absolute original version of the ‘memo’, and learn more about Jaffe’s intent behind the memo, frederick jaffe memo intent.

This memo has all sorts of blood chilling suggestions- blood chilling if the culture of death does not run through your veins, that is.  Ideas on controlling world population include:

  • Fertility control agents in the water supply
  • Encourage women to work
  • Require women to work and provide few child care facilities
  • Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
  • Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children- except for a few who would be allowed three
  • Discouragement of private home ownership
  • Allow certain contraceptives to be distributed non-medically
  • Make contraception truly available to all

Some of my more predictable readers will go through that list and their eyes will simply glaze over for most of it.  It’d be like quoting the Nazis to them.  I mean, the Nazis were evil, but that was SOOOOOOO long ago!  A whole seventy years ago!  And 1969?  That was still a WHOPPING forty-two years ago!  That was like forever-ago.  No one believes that anymore.  Why bring it up at all?  None of us were even alive forty-two years ago… hey… waitasec…

With their eyes in a fog as they instinctively declare the above as merely an instance of “Godwin’s Law“, their blood started boiling when they saw on the list “Encourage women to work.”

Dear God, who could be against that? And who could be against making contraception available to everyone?  Clearly, this blogger is a bigot.

I included those two items in order to make a very important point.

There is nothing in the memo that is all that different than what can be found in the writings of the marxists, the communists, the eugenicists… and pretty much every scientist of note, prior to about 1939.  But that’s not all:  people who think this way still exist.  They’ve only changed their approach.

That basic fact is something that I tried to make plain in my foreword to Margaret Sanger’s The Pivot of Civilization.  I illustrate it by asking my readers to identify who wrote the following:

 “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.  Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

 “As Western society comes to distinguish between those forms of euthanasia that are pernicious and those that are therapeutic- an inevitable consequence of our progress toward liberal humanism- expanded access to neonatal euthanasia appears likely.”

“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people.   …  No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions… ”

And which Nazi wrote these words?  Was it Himmler?  Goebbels?  Hitler himself?    The case could be made that any Nazi could have comfortably made these statements, but in fact they were uttered by current ‘science czar’ of the Obama administration, John Holdren (1977), ‘bio-ethicist’ Jacob Appel (2009), and Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court case, in a letter to Bill Clinton in 1992.

These are essentially the same ideas and concepts as embodied in the Jaffe Memo, as well as the sort of reasoning seen in Sanger, the eugenicists, and the Nazis;  the words and phraseology are different, for 2 reasons.  1., they are not idiots;  they know that it is not 1930 anymore, and if you talk like a Nazi, people are going to object and 2., they don’t actually think they are Nazis;  true, the ideas may be the same at some points and in some ways, but the Nazis used violence.  And therein lies the difference:  they want to achieve many of the same goals, but without the excessive bloodshed.

Which brings me back to the notion of women and working.  My random reader’s eyes glazed over at the rest of the list, but my inclusion of the hallmark of women’s liberation will set their teeth on edge.  But isn’t it curious to see such a thing on a list of ideas for controlling the world’s population?

I have now arrived at my point:   many of the positions accepted in our society are thought to be defensible on one set of arguments but they were originally advanced on an entirely different set of arguments.   I don’t know about the reader, but I get a little nervous about a particular position that was advocated, sometimes for the first time, by nazis, communists, and eugenicists.

The Jaffe Memo shows what anyone who has ever looked into Planned Parenthood and its roots will see:  Planned Parenthood doesn’t give a rat’s ass about women’s liberation and never has.   The average person on the street thinks that the crux of the abortion issue centers on whether or not a woman has the ‘choice’ to do as she pleases with her own body.  Wrong!

That’s how PP sold abortion to the masses, but that’s not their own agenda.  Their goal has nothing to do with empowering women.  It has everything to do with ‘managing’ the world’s population (both quantity and ‘quality’), the ‘finite’ global resources, lining their own pocketbooks, and positioning themselves as the ones in power so they are the ones pressing the levers of influence, and not others.

You did note in the list the limit of just 2 children per family, did you not?  Except for ‘some’ families that will be allowed three.  For those who have probed the the true intent of outfits such as Planned Parenthood, etc, there will be no doubt about just which families will be allowed three children.  Some people are more equal than others, after all.  When you are the ones pressing the aforementioned levers of power, one can easily see how it will pan out.

So, for the last one hundred years we’ve seen these issues come forward that as a society we’ve come to accept, even though they were initiated and promoted and pushed by absolutely wicked men and women.   Is it possible to take those issues and isolate them from their deceptive and lying promoters?

Planned Parenthood may have promoted getting women in the work place because they were actually trying to implement social conditioning that would reduce the world’s population, but couldn’t you take the topic on its own merits?    Sure, the communists were the ones that made no-fault divorce one of their platform issues, but couldn’t one forget that for a moment?   The eugenicists of the early 1900s advocated for a minimum wage specifically to try to price uneducated black people out of the labor market- and consequently starve to death and therefore remove themselves from the ‘gene pool’ (eg, see the Davis-Bacon Act; HT Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, pg 264-265) but cannot we address the topic of a ‘fair wage’ without the overtly racist purposes of the liberal-progressives of the 1900s?

Of course, buried into that last phrase of that last sentence is the question of whether or not the liberal-progressives of our own era have actually jettisoned the racist agenda of their ancestors two generations ago… but here is the magnificent rub:  many of today’s liberal-progressives are not racists and have the sincerest of intentions!  Oh, the irony!  The progressives of our era are constantly and consistently promoting policies that were originally fashioned to eliminate the ‘dysgenic’ from our society (usually black people), and generally manage the human herd… all without having any idea that this is what they are doing.

But the question remains:  can we take these issues separate from those original purposes?

Short answer:  That depends.

Long answer:  the fundamental flaw in considering the matter in this way is the presumption that any particular issue can be taken in the abstract and sharply distinguished from all other issues.

Let us return to the Jaffe Memo.  “Encourage women to work.”  Why?  Why would they need to be encouraged?  And isn’t this different than, “Make it legal for women to work”?  The latter smacks of genuine ‘liberation’ much more than the former.  Encouraging women to work implies trying to get them to do something that they probably don’t want to do, or would approach from a different direction if they did want to.  For example, a woman contemplating the question of working probably isn’t thinking “I need to have a career because this will make it more difficult to also have a family, but that’s ok, because the world is already too crowded.”  When I listen in on women having this conversation, they often wonder how they can balance both work and family- implying the obvious:  they still highly value having a family.

The Jaffe Memo of course recognizes this, which is why it also advocates for the postponement of marriage (check), the alteration of the ideal family size (check), compulsory education (check), increased homosexuality (check), promotion of self-limiting one’s family (check), and putting fertility control agents in the water supply… check?

Putting fertility control agents in the water would be necessary because women are women;  they are made by God to have certain characteristics and certain desires and certain predilections.   The pernicious secular humanist liberal progressives understand this without understanding it, and know that even if they compel everyone to get an ‘education’ where youngsters can have their notions about the ideal family size and homosexuality stuffed into their heads (while their parents think they are learning mathematics), you’re probably not going to be able to get enough women to go along with their schemes in order to ‘save the earth.’

Far from being an outlandish idea of a period ages ago- a scant fifty years- Obama’s current science czar believed forty years ago that such a thing would in fact be necessary if the population gets out of control;  no worries, while John Holdren thinks that this could be justified under the Constitution, he does not think we’ve reached that point…

The fact that humans continue to bear the marks of the imago dei, despite prolonged social engineering in an attempt to stamp it out, has not been lost on advocates of the culture of death.   Rather than see this as falsifying their viewpoints, they double down and attempt to seek out other mechanisms to bring about their goals.  The goals, however, do not change.

When considering whether or not it is appropriate to ‘encourage women to work’ we must keep in mind their goals and also bring to bear our goals.   Their reason for encouraging women to work was that it would decrease the world’s population.  What might our reason be?  If we can generate our own line of reasoning that is wholly independent and separate from their reasons, we might be able to find merit to the idea.

But then we may wonder if we would have ever been thinking about it at all if it weren’t for the manipulation of these atheistic social architects.  The clue that something is amiss is contained in the phrase itself, ‘encourage women to work.’   We may surmise that many women would have been content not working, and raising their families instead, if it were not for being encouraged to choose the work over against the home-making.  What would be our basis for encouraging women to work if it is not the leftist’s desire to control the population?  May I submit first of all that our goal would be to maximize any individual woman’s happiness and contentment?  If they don’t want a career, why on earth would we encourage them to pursue one?   We know Jaffe’s answer, but my point is this:  isn’t even asking the question tantamount to accepting their premise?  Before we come up with our own non-evil answer to the question, we have to first establish that the question itself isn’t a sucker punch.

If we fail to examine the issue to that level, we risk rendering ourselves nothing less than one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots.’

When I say that, I hope it becomes clear that I am not now arguing against women in the workplace or advocating for any particular position or even rejecting the question out right.  I’m not examining the issue at all.  I am trying to lay out the situation that we are in in our society, where malicious social engineers- past and present- are pushing issues out for us to consider for reasons they are less than truthful about.

Another example of this that we see in the Jaffe memo (not listed above, but in the memo) was “Encourage increased homosexuality.”

Here again if you check the newspaper and talk to the man on the street, homosexuality reduces to whether or not people have the right to ‘love’ whomever they please, and receive society’s stamp of approval in every instance.   It is put forward as such a basic human right, that to speak against it is to be regarded as a hate-monger.  In fact, it is the case that the world’s ‘hate crimes’ legislation almost exclusively targets those who are opposed to homosexuality and homosexual marriage.  Those who stand in the way of people ‘loving’ each other in whatever manner must be folks of the lowest possible quality- equivalent, of course, to the Nazis.  And we all know what to do with such hate-mongerers;  outlaw their hate-speech and put them in prison, and some would go further- all in the name of tolerance, of course.

I just read this response to a Facebook post detailing the many health problems that is associated with homosexual behavior.  This is a cut and paste:  “OMFG! You have no idea how much I want to kill people like you. Sorry to be so blunt, but you’re what’s wrong with the world.”

But the Jaffe Memo raises a very distinct possibility:  the push to normalize homosexuality was never about ‘equal rights’ or ‘human rights’ or ‘free and unrestrained sexual contact between consensual adults’ but about controlling the world’s population.

That would mean the fact that we’re even discussing the acceptability of gay marriage in our society is the result of a manipulation on a grand scale.   We may wonder:  if people are born gay, then should not there have been huge numbers of gay people for thousands of years constantly and consistently, so that there would not be any social mores against them to be overcome?  It should have been normal a long time ago.  Isn’t it interesting that their numbers have increased so rapidly just in the last fifty years?

The Jaffe Memo is just one example of the sort of thing that would lead a reasonable person to ask:  perhaps people are not born gay at all, but rather are made gay, by constant and consistent social engineering and normalization of behaviors that were heretofore- for perfectly good reasons- considered abnormal?

In the case of women in the workplace, it would be relatively easy to dismiss objections to (encouraging) it as being, ultimately, arbitrary shackles placed by society;  it is only a societal construct.  But one can never say the same about homosexuality.  There are indisputable biological facts about men and women that suggest that homosexual behavior is wrong- or at minimum, not the sort of thing we should be mainstreaming and condoning as a society.

Unless, of course, it is precisely those biological facts that you are trying to get around.  Hello, Jaffe Memo.  Hello, adding sterilants to the water supply.  Hello, the hard work of manipulating the masses to push your agenda without them knowing the real reasons for it.

It is has never been more important to carefully examine what one believes and why they believe it.  If you do not carry out this work, you may end up being nothing more than a useful idiot of the worst sort:  directly bringing about the goals and ends of those you specifically repudiate as wicked and evil… condemning the communists, nazis, and eugenicists, while carrying out their work.

I could go on and on about this.  Examples abound.  I can give illustrations from the past centuries and decades but even recently.  The population control agenda still goes forward under the guise of “women’s rights” and other such ruses.  But this raises another important area of discussion.

In my next post I will show why the work of making sure you are not a useful idiot means that religion and politics must absolutely be mixed.  Before you leap to conclusions, you best hear me out.  (part two)

 

Share

9 Responses to Reflections on the ‘Jaffe Memo’ and why ‘Religion’ and ‘Politics’ should Mix- Part 1

  1. Some VERY heavy food for thought here. Though most certainly there will be those who unthinklingly dismiss anything when the word ‘Nazis’ comes up out of hand. Don’t forget you’re a FEAR-monger, as well as a HATE-monger after all (those saying the world is going to end are the sane, rational ones!).

    Mind sharing a link to that Facebook post?

  2. I agree, EB. The chances are good that people will fixate on all the wrong points.

    I don’t know if it would be appropriate to link to the facebook page. It was certainly interesting to watch play out, though. Oddly enough, when some other advocates for homosexuality chimed in, not a one of them thought to repudiate the death threat flirtation. That is what we call tolerance.

  3. Let’s stipulate to start off with that death threats are utterly unacceptable.

    I have read, and even own, some of the literature of and inspired by the Nazis in the 1930s. It makes for strange reading. At one moment, they’re recommending regular physical exercise as an aid to health; then they veer into a discussion of “Jewish finance capital” and how all Jewish people must be rooted out of public life; then they start worrying how (white) working class children don’t get enough milk; and then about the ways in which violence purifies and cleanses the Nation; and then about how it is vital for (white) women to reproduce and serve as mothers, not workers, in order to avoid elimination of the white race.

    You see what I mean? Nazism, and fascism more broadly, coupled intense nationalistic and racial paranoia, authoritarianism, militarism, and an acute interest in racial purification and public health. Public health is no more intrinsically Nazi than, say, patriotism or support for the military; but it’s easy to find Nazis who were ardent proponents of public health, or vegetarianism, or a bunch of other innocuous things.

    Nazis, as it happens, vigorously opposed “encouraging [non-Jewish German] women to work”, and the fact you oppose it too doesn’t make you a Nazi; but the fact that they did oppose it vigorously means that you’re being historically inaccurate to think of encouraging women to work as being Nazi-like. Similarly, plenty of people who supported the civil rights movement were communists; that doesn’t make it communistic to allow black people to vote.

    In my own work, I support girls in East Africa going to (mostly) church-affiliated private schools and getting high school diplomas. If they do, they are very likely to want fewer children. Girls who don’t go to school tend to have an average of seven or eight children, which is what happens in rural villages when contraception is unavailable, or if available is of poor quality or high price. Girls who graduate high school tend to have around three children. So here’s my question for you. Am I, by running this program, one of your “pernicious secular humanist liberal progressives” who is secretly plotting the genocide of unborn black children? If not, then why are today’s liberal politicians culpable?

    No. If you promote an activity that you know will have the incidental effect of reducing the birthrate, that doesn’t make you a murderer. By sponsoring their education, I don’t do a thing one way or another to influence them on how many children they want to have. It just seems to be a universal pattern across cultures and races that as girls get educated, they seem to want fewer children, whatever the religion and opinions are of the people doing the teaching. If all of our girls returned to the home and became mothers, we’d still be thrilled to educate them, because an educated mother is a better mother to her children, but as it turns out some of the girls in question want also to work, and I’m fine with that too.

    What you’re doing, just as Jonah Goldberg tried to do, is to hang round the necks of today’s liberals policies that in the past were associated with repellent political movements; but the entire political scene has been jumbled up and rearranged many times since 1969, and particularly since 1945. You may find it rhetorically useful to think about how to identify the liberals of today with the Nazis of yesterday, but in reality the particular constellation of views that made someone a Nazi then is pretty rare nowadays, and a little bit of things like some of their views can be found in any part of the political spectrum, so the accusation of similarity to some small part of their program is pretty meaningless. That’s why on the whole I support “Godwin’s Rule”: comparing present-day politicians to Nazis more or less always obscures more than it reveals.

    Last, I would note that if “malicious social engineers” have a secret plot to control the world’s population, they must also be incompetent and highly unsuccessful social engineers whom we probably don’t need to worry about. Since the date of the Jaffe memo, the world’s population has more or less exactly doubled.

  4. “Public health is no more intrinsically Nazi than, say, patriotism or support for the military; but it’s easy to find Nazis who were ardent proponents of public health, or vegetarianism, or a bunch of other innocuous things.”

    I believe SJ highlighted marxism and communism to go along with it.

    You clearly miss the point. All you seem to highlight is that the Nazis understood the concept of cause-and-effect. Women who are devoted to mothering provide the next generation. Additionally women devoted to their careers will not produce a stable family if any children at all. It’s simply mechanisms they wanted for population controls/elimination. That it doesn’t represent the quintessential elements of Nazism is beside the point.

    “Am I, by running this program, one of your “pernicious secular humanist liberal progressives” who is secretly plotting the genocide of unborn black children? If not, then why are today’s liberal politicians culpable?”

    No, you’re a “pernicious secular humanist liberal progressives” who’s simply been duped. But ignorance is no longer an excuse.

    What SJ is highlighting is the apparent fact that, just like the Nazis, some people have recognized the apparent effect of such actions, and just like the Nazis actively want those effects. All you seem to be saying is that you support the same acts for entirely different reasons. Reasons that have been advocated to make more decent-minded people support such acts, since the more nefarious motives would be unpalatable. But pleading to be an unwitting stooge with the best of intentions is not good enough when we’ve had 100 years to see the results and others are warning you where such acts will eventually lead no matter what your intent is.

    “What you’re doing, just as Jonah Goldberg tried to do, is to hang round the necks of today’s liberals policies that in the past were associated with repellent political movements; but the entire political scene has been jumbled up and rearranged many times since 1969, and particularly since 1945.”

    “Try” nothing, he’s given direct quotes from active members in office. All you want to do is dismiss the lessons of history, and avoid the question of why those policies were advocated by repellent political movements to begin with.

    “You may find it rhetorically useful to think about how to identify the liberals of today with the Nazis of yesterday, but in reality the particular constellation of views that made someone a Nazi then is pretty rare nowadays, and a little bit of things like some of their views can be found in any part of the political spectrum, so the accusation of similarity to some small part of their program is pretty meaningless.”

    What you seem to ignore is to what degree those views are exhibited. Or as the Jaffe Memo shows it’s simply a matter of not OPENLY admitting to how much the degree of similarity is now that it’s no longer PC to do so. But painting your clunker a different color doesn’t change how much gas it guzzles one bit.

    “That’s why on the whole I support “Godwin’s Rule”: comparing present-day politicians to Nazis more or less always obscures more than it reveals”

    Yeah, we kind of saw that coming.

  5. I believe SJ highlighted marxism and communism to go along with it.

    The same point applies, End Bringer. Just because many American communists believed, among other things, in the civil rights movement, doesn’t make the civil rights movement wrong. Likewise, the existence of Marxists who believed in making contraception freely available, doesn’t make that wrong on its face.

    Every person believes a whole bunch of things about the world, and modern-day liberalism, like modern-day conservatism, shares some features with communism and some features with fascism. Merely identifying a shared feature with either tells you very little, which is why I’m not going around denouncing, say, the Mississippi Personhood Amendment as a specifically fascist or communist intrusion into people’s lives.

    Women devoted to their careers will not produce a stable family if any children at all.

    Bull. My wife has a very successful full-time career as a professor at MIT, has four-year-old twins and a stable family life, and loves them fiercely and deeply. Maybe you don’t know women like that, in which case you should refrain from comment about it till you know what you’re talking about, hey?

    You’re a “pernicious secular humanist liberal progressives” who’s simply been duped. […] Pleading to be an unwitting stooge with the best of intentions is not good enough when we’ve had 100 years to see the results and others are warning you where such acts will eventually lead no matter what your intent is.

    I make no apologies whatsoever for sponsoring East African girls to get a high school education, End Bringer, and I never will. It’s about as good a thing as it’s possible to do in this world. If you truly believe that by doing this, I’m a stooge of a quasi-Nazi attempt to decrease the number of black people in the world, then I really do feel sorry for you. Perhaps, in your mind, charitable activities are only good if they’re not being done by a liberal?

    Last, on Anthony’s quotes: a few minutes’ review shows that Jacob Appel has no affiliation with the Obama administration; Ron Weddington has no affiliation with the Obama administration; and that John Holdren has discussed, but has repeatedly rejected, compulsory sterilization programs. I see no smoking gun here of a vast conspiracy. It reminds me of the persistent conspiracy theory among some conservatives that Obama is secretly plotting to take away people’s guns, when the only policies he has actually put into effect have liberalized gun laws. The problem here is not with Obama, but with your demonic view of him, that leads you to suspect him of secretly wanting to do things that neither he nor any member of his administration has supported.

  6. “The same point applies, End Bringer. Just because many American communists believed, among other things, in the civil rights movement, doesn’t make the civil rights movement wrong. Likewise, the existence of Marxists who believed in making contraception freely available, doesn’t make that wrong on its face.”

    True. Such things are wrong based entirely on their own merits. And again, your argument is to simply avoid the question of why such policies were first advocated by totalitarian movements to begin with.

    “Every person believes a whole bunch of things about the world, and modern-day liberalism, like modern-day conservatism, shares some features with communism and some features with fascism. Merely identifying a shared feature with either tells you very little, which is why I’m not going around denouncing, say, the Mississippi Personhood Amendment as a specifically fascist or communist intrusion into people’s lives.”

    *snort* You seem to only be able to plea for us to completely dismiss the last 100 years of history. When some movement advocates the eradication of “undesirables”, they could take your tact and say ‘Well the Nazis advocated such things too, but so what? It doesn’t make it wrong.’

    The issue SJ is bringing up is that nothing has truly changed in the last 100 years. It’s only the rhetoric that’s been tinkered with. The people who push for such results, won’t be so open about their motives, because they know who puched for such reasoning first. Instead they’ll appeal to “rights” and ‘mercifully sparing them pain’, and all the other heartstring-pulling rhetoric to make people like you buy into it.

    “Bull. My wife has a very successful full-time career as a professor at MIT, has four-year-old twins and a stable family life, and loves them fiercely and deeply. Maybe you don’t know women like that, in which case you should refrain from comment about it till you know what you’re talking about, hey?”

    Funny, because you previously seemed to support my contention with:

    “It just seems to be a universal pattern across cultures and races that as girls get educated, they seem to want fewer children”

    So, I’d say your wife is one of those who has (fortunately) found a way to balance both, or you’re forgetting that life isn’t always static, and that their may have been a time where your wife didn’t devote as much time to work in favour of the kids, or you regularly hire a babysitter to focus more on work (if you’re not a house-husband), or perhaps your definition of “stable family life” differs from mine. I don’t know your situation well enough to know which it is.

    All I do know is that it’s still a universal law that a person can’t be at two places at once, and so having two different situations in life pulling you in different directions means your going to have to sacrifice time for one that could have been spent with the other, if not drop one outright. And that’s the dilema some people want to force others in and encourage women to choose their way.

    “I make no apologies whatsoever for sponsoring East African girls to get a high school education, End Bringer, and I never will. It’s about as good a thing as it’s possible to do in this world. If you truly believe that by doing this, I’m a stooge of a quasi-Nazi attempt to decrease the number of black people in the world, then I really do feel sorry for you. Perhaps, in your mind, charitable activities are only good if they’re not being done by a liberal?”

    *sigh* And this is why you miss the point. All you do is latch on to one particular point of the memo (women being encouraged to work), while ignoring how it’s included with others, and when done so paints a more tyrannical scene. Unwittingly proving SJ’s comments on Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’.

    “Last, on Anthony’s quotes: a few minutes’ review shows that Jacob Appel has no affiliation with the Obama administration; Ron Weddington has no affiliation with the Obama administration; and that John Holdren has discussed, but has repeatedly rejected, compulsory sterilization programs.”

    *snort* I didn’t say Appel and Weddington did. But Holdren does, and if you’re taking the man at his word when he’s in front of cameras that he doesn’t sympathize with such measures when he wrote about them, and think he wouldn’t do it if he could get away with it, then you really are a dupe.

    “I see no smoking gun here of a vast conspiracy.”

    Then you clearly didn’t actually read the memo. Just latched on to the words “Nazis” and “women working”, without any serious forethought.

    “The problem here is not with Obama, but with your demonic view of him, that leads you to suspect him of secretly wanting to do things that neither he nor any member of his administration has supported.”

    The problem here is lack of reading comprehension skills, as Obama hasn’t all that much to do with it. We’re focusing on the larger secularist-liberal agendas (and how beliefs shape our actions and the world) and the ones not so publicly expressed.

  7. Such things are wrong based entirely on their own merits.

    If you believe that, then why would you both insist on linking contraception to a larger, poorly-evidenced, transhistorical conspiracy?

    Your argument is to simply avoid the question of why such policies were first advocated by totalitarian movements to begin with.

    They were certainly not first “advocated by totalitarian movements”, End Bringer. Contraception was common in the days of the Roman Empire, for example, when the now-extinct herb silphium was used by Roman women to control their fertility. Women were encouraged to take paid work by advocates of women’s rights like Mary Shelley and Susan B. Anthony before either communism or fascism existed.

    You and Anthony are deciding to select a period of time when communists were ardently in favor of these ideas, and selecting the part of fascism where they were anti-natalist for those they saw as racially inferior while being pro-natalist for those they saw as racially superior. You’re doing this because it suits you to demonize liberals as being analogous to communism or fascism. You could pick any other period and find a different configuration of beliefs, and find that such beliefs were not linked to totalitarian political models, but you pick this one. Why? Your choice of the period of comparison is not driven by any actual continuity of personnel; it’s driven by your desire to make people think liberals are bad.

    I don’t want you to “dismiss the last 100 years of history”; I suggest, though, that you might valuably come to the recognition that nobody on the left or the right in political life considers eugenics to be acceptable, or has thought it acceptable for at least thirty years and more plausibly fifty. Linking contraception to eugenics makes little sense since the invention of the Pill made contraception such a matter of individual choice. When people get the choice, they tend to use it to have children at the time that they most want them.

    “There may have been a time where your wife didn’t devote as much time to work in favour of the kids, or you regularly hire a babysitter to focus more on work (if you’re not a house-husband), or perhaps your definition of “stable family life” differs from mine. I don’t know your situation well enough to know which it is.

    We hire a babysitter occasionally when we want to go out in the evening. My kids attend preschool. I work during the day, and do pickup and dropoff. If your definition of “stable family life” requires the woman to be at home taking care of the children full-time, then say so, and I will gladly acknowledge that by your (absurd and controlling) definition, our family life is not “stable”. But if not, you owe us an apology for claiming that women devoted to their career “will not produce a stable family”.

    I do think that women (and men) should be able to choose their way. Some women and some men will choose to not work and to stay home with the kids. Some will choose to hire babysitters or nannies (the horrors!) and work longer hours. Regrettably, in our anti-family economy, terrible wages, inflexible working hours and the lack of availability of childcare force many people into working when they would prefer to be taking care of their children. Some people will make unwise choices, but I would prefer for them to have that choice, rather than having a self-righteous End Bringer looking over their shoulder and judging what he thinks they ought to be doing to raise their kids.

    All you do is latch on to one particular point of the memo (women being encouraged to work), while ignoring how it’s included with others, and when done so paints a more tyrannical scene. Unwittingly proving SJ’s comments on Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’.

    The choice to combine these things together and make them a political issue now in 2011 regarding today’s Planned Parenthood is entirely capricious. Do you really want me to hang the misdeeds of the Republican President at the time of the Jaffe Memo round the neck of today’s Republican Party, and claim that his views are secretly theirs? Would that be fair?

    Holdren does, and if you’re taking the man at his word when he’s in front of cameras that he doesn’t sympathize with such measures when he wrote about them, and think he wouldn’t do it if he could get away with it, then you really are a dupe.

    OMG he wrote about them! Just like I’m writing about fascism in this thread! Dude, you got me, I’m like totally a fascist. Nobody ever writes about hypotheticals they don’t completely agree with!

  8. “If you believe that, then why would you both insist on linking contraception to a larger, poorly-evidenced, transhistorical conspiracy?”

    For the same reason you’re trying so hard to down play it – it does matter to people when regimes largely responsible for the greatest acts of death and oppression in history proposed and advocated so many policies championed by liberals today.

    “They were certainly not first “advocated by totalitarian movements”, End Bringer.”

    Dodge.

    “You and Anthony are deciding to select a period of time when communists were ardently in favor of these ideas, and selecting the part of fascism where they were anti-natalist for those they saw as racially inferior while being pro-natalist for those they saw as racially superior. You’re doing this because it suits you to demonize liberals as being analogous to communism or fascism.”

    And you blindly dismiss such comaprisons out of hand instead of asking yourself – what if they ARE analogous?

    “Linking contraception to eugenics makes little sense since the invention of the Pill made contraception such a matter of individual choice. When people get the choice, they tend to use it to have children at the time that they most want them.”

    Is it a matter of individual choice? Is it really? Why the need to bombard people with “encouragement” then? And if contraception is, than why isn’t eugenics a matter of individual choice as well? Or the State’s choice? Is abortion really a right? Where does the right come from?

    These are the issues SJ is bringing up – to really think about the root of the issues, instead of buying into the hype of “choice and freedom”. Once you do that you find out that it indeed comes down to fundamental beliefs about the world and morality, ie religious beliefs.

    “We hire a babysitter occasionally when we want to go out in the evening. My kids attend preschool. I work during the day, and do pickup and dropoff. If your definition of “stable family life” requires the woman to be at home taking care of the children full-time, then say so, and I will gladly acknowledge that by your (absurd and controlling) definition, our family life is not “stable”. But if not, you owe us an apology for claiming that women devoted to their career “will not produce a stable family”.”

    Can’t say for sure whether it’s stable or not, since my knowledge of your situation is filtered entirely on your perspective, and your perspective is either biased or too narrow. In any event you simply prove my point – you as parents have to divide your time and attention. Perhaps instead of not being devoted to your children you simply aren’t as devoted to your careers as you could be. I don’t know.

    But I think the real telling question is – if you decided you wanted more kids, could you realisticly devote the same amount of attention to both sides that you give right now?

    “I do think that women (and men) should be able to choose their way.”

    And if it was simply a matter of choice, then that’d all be well and good. But as the Memo proves, the people advancing these policies don’t care a lick about choice. Just like SJ said, instead of simply making work available to women, some people feel the need to “encourage” them to focus more on their careers than their families. “Choice” is just the rallying cry to advance such policies for the naive idealists like yourself.

    “The choice to combine these things together and make them a political issue now in 2011 regarding today’s Planned Parenthood is entirely capricious. Do you really want me to hang the misdeeds of the Republican President at the time of the Jaffe Memo round the neck of today’s Republican Party, and claim that his views are secretly theirs? Would that be fair?”

    *snort* Again we see how you utterly miss the point. Just like with Obama, partisan fighting has little to do with this. It’s about fundamental beliefs which in Part 4 SJ notes has also infected the Christian base. Planned Parenthood is simply one organization. But as you have proven with your ardent defense, it’s policies reflect the secular liberal agenda. That you claim their intent isn’t yours, doesn’t mean spit when intent is irrelevant.

    “OMG he wrote about them! Just like I’m writing about fascism in this thread! Dude, you got me, I’m like totally a fascist. Nobody ever writes about hypotheticals they don’t completely agree with!”

    Now you’re just being willfully incompetent – He likely DOES agree with them. He’s just smart enough not to openly admit it.

  9. I’m a bit late to this. The Jaffe Memo is a good example of population control rhetoric athough you could also include an analysis of NSSM 200, NSDM 76, NSDM 314, and The Rockefeller Commission Report Of 1972: On Population Growth and the American Future, for starters. For a good discussion of the promotion of women in the workplace and how it has affected the finances of American families I suggest you review Elizbeth Warren’s lecture “The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class.” (youtube). As to John Holdren he has never recanted his theories promoted in Ecoscience. His co-author, Paul Erlich, continues to promote population control ideaology today. All Holdren has ever stated is that such extreme measures which he and the Erlich’s outlined were no longer necessary as American women were “educated.” This statement presumes that he believes that the population control measure promoted by the govt. (as evidenced in the Jaffe Memo)have been successful. Additionally, you could examine NSSM 200 and the GHI with a dash of USAID, UNFPA and Gates Foundation birth rate reduction rhetoric thrown in for good measure. You might want to research a recent minor scandal: USAID’s interference in Kenyan politics illegally promoting abortion (in their constitution, no less) using GHI dollars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*