Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Grant

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Grant

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:39 am

Killer Angel: A Biography of Planned Parenthood's Founder Margaret Sanger
by George Grant
© 1995 by George Grant

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

To Susan Hunt, Angel of Hope and Karen Grant, Angel of Life

Contents:

• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part One: Still Life
o 1. Root of Bitterness
o 2. The Winter of Her Discontent
• Part Two: Whence? What? Whither?
o 3. The Woman Rebel
o 4. Madonna
• Part Three: No Little People
o 5. Arrested Development
o 6. Babylonian Exile
• Part Four: The End of Man
o 7. Sex Education
o 8. Human Weeds
• Part Five: To Be or Not to Be
o 9. A New World Order
o 10. The Marrying Kind
• Part Six: How Should We Then Live?
• 11. Root and Fruit
• 12. The Big Lie
• Notes
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:46 am

Acknowledgments  

I am riding my pen on the shuffle and it has a mouth of iron. -- G. K. Chesterton 1


HILAIRE Belloc, perhaps the MOST PROLIFIC curmudgeon of this century, once quipped, “There is something odd book writers do in their prefaces, which is to introduce a mass of nincompoops of whom no one has ever heard, and say, my thanks is due to such and such, all in a litany, as though anyone cared a farthing for the rats.” 2

Needless to say, Belloc did not place high stock in either gratitude or accountability. His fierce self-assurance and autonomy as an author was defiantly unflappable. I would hope that I know better.

A number of friends and fellow-laborers encouraged me to pursue this project—and at the same time helped to support the work of the King’s Meadow Study Center so that 1 could. David and Pam Ferriss, Mike and Debbie Grimnes, Jerry and Cindy Walton, Steve and Marijean Green, Bill and Robin Amos, Bill and Sharon Taylor, Jim and Gwen Smith, John and Marye Lou Mauldin, Steve and Karen Anderson, and Bill and Dawn Ruff have all been selfless supporters from the beginning. Dale and Ann Smith, Stephen and Trish Mansfield, Steve and Wendy Wilkins, Gene and Susan Hunt, Tom and Yo Clark, and David and Diane Vaughan guided me through many a rocky shoal with their wise counsel and friendship.

Mike Hyatt first suggested that I consider turning my writing proclivities toward biographies. Jan Dennis, David Dunham, Jim Bell, and Dean Andreola gave me my first opportunities to try my hand at this rather demanding art. Randy Terry suggested this particular project. And Otto Scott pointed the way for me by providing the appropriate models from which to learn.

Michael Schwartz, Jim Sedlak, Patricia Bainbridge, and Doug Scott are among the finest thinkers, writers, and researchers in the area of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, and the abortion issue. Each has been amazingly gracious and kind to me in sharing their insights, resources, and information.

The soundtrack for this project was provided by Loreena McKennitt, Clannad, Mychael Danna, and Jeff Johnson while the midnight musings were provided by John Buchan, Colin Thubron, Samuel Johnson, and, of course, G.K. Chesterton.

To all these, I offer my sincerest thanks.

I probably ought to mention as well the Nine Muses, the Three Graces, and the Merry Band of Joyeuse Garde, but the fact is my greatest and best inspiration comes from my family. Karen is without a doubt a “help meet” for me. And Joel, Joanna, and Jesse are the pride of my life. Their love and unwavering faithfulness remain my greatest hope and richest resource. To them I owe my all in all.

King’s Meadow Farm, Eastertide 1995
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:54 am

Introduction

For all the apparent materialism and mass mechanism of our present culture, we, far more than any of our fathers, live in a world of shadows.

-- G. K. Chesterton1


On January 1, 1900, most Americans greeted the twentieth century with the proud and certain belief that the next hundred years would be the greatest, the most glorious, and the most glamorous in human history. They were infected with a sanguine spirit. Optimism was rampant. A brazen confidence colored their every activity.

Certainly there was nothing in their experience to make them think otherwise. Never had a century changed the lives of men and women more dramatically than the nineteenth one just past. The twentieth century has moved fast and furiously, so that those of us who have lived in it feel sometimes giddy, watching it spin; but the nineteenth moved faster and more furiously still. Railroads, telephones, the telegraph, electricity, mass production, forged steel, automobiles, and countless other modern discoveries had all come upon them at a dizzying pace, expanding their visions and expectations far beyond their grandfathers’ wildest dreams.

It was more than unfounded imagination, then, that lay behind the New York World’s New Year’s prediction that the twentieth century would “meet and overcome all perils and prove to be the best that this steadily improving planet has ever seen.”2

Most Americans were cheerfully assured that control of man and nature would soon lie entirely within their grasp and would bestow upon them the unfathomable millennial power to alter the destinies of societies, nations, and epochs. They were a people of manifold purpose. They were a people of manifest destiny.

What they did not know was that dark and malignant seeds were already germinating just beneath the surface of the new century’s soil. Josef Stalin was a twenty-one-year-old seminary student in Tiflis, a pious and serene community at the crossroads of Georgia and Ukraine. Benito Mussolini was a seventeen-year-old student teacher in the quiet suburbs of Milan. Adolf Hitler was an eleven-year-old aspiring art student in the quaint upper Austrian village of Brannan. And Margaret Sanger was a twenty-year-old out-of-sorts nursing school dropout in White Plains, New York. Who could have ever guessed on that ebulliently auspicious New Year’s Day that those four youngsters would, over the span of the next century, spill more innocent blood than all the murderers, warlords, and tyrants of past history combined? Who could have ever guessed that those four youngsters would together ensure that the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the twentieth century would be smothered under the weight of holocaust, genocide, and carnage?

As the champion of the proletariat, Stalin saw to the slaughter of at least fifteen million Russian and Ukrainian kulaks. As the popularly acclaimed Il Duce, Mussolini massacred as many as four million Ethiopians, two million Eritreans, and a million Serbs, Croats, and Albanians. As the wildly lionized Fuhrer, Hitler exterminated more than six million Jews, two million Slavs, and a million Poles. As the founder of Planned Parenthood and the impassioned heroine of various feminist causes celebres, Sanger was responsible for the brutal elimination of more than thirty million children in the United States and as many as two and a half billion worldwide.

No one in his right mind would want to rehabilitate the reputations of Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler. Their barbarism, treachery, and debauchery will make their names live in infamy forever. Amazingly though, Sanger has somehow escaped their wretched fate. In spite of the fact that her crimes against humanity were no less heinous than theirs, her place in history has effectively been sanitized and sanctified. In spite of the fact that she openly identified herself in one way or another with their aims, intentions, ideologies, and movements— with Stalin’s Sobornostic Collectivism, with Hitler’s Eugenic Racism, and with Mussolini’s Agathistic Fascism—her faithful minions have managed to manufacture an independent reputation for the perpetuation of her memory.

In life and death, the progenitor of the grisly abortion industry and the patron of the devastating sexual revolution has been lauded as a “radiant” and “courageous” reformer.3 She has been heralded by friend and foe alike as a “heroine,” a “champion,” a “saint,” and a “martyr."4 Honored by men as different and divergent as H. G. Wells and Martin Luther King, George Bernard Shaw and Harry Truman, Bertrand Russell and John D. Rockefeller, Albert Einstein and Dwight Eisenhower, this remarkable “killer angel” was able to secret away her perverse atrocities, emerging in the annals of history practically vindicated and victorious.5

That this could happen is a scandal of grotesque proportions.

And recently the proportions have only grown—like a deleterious kudzu or a rogue Topsy. Sanger has been the subject of adoring television dramas, hagiographical biographies, patronizing theatrical productions, and saccharine musical tributes. Though the facts of her life and work are anything but inspiring, millions of unwary moderns have been urged to find in them inspiration and hope. Myth is rarely dependent upon truth, after all.

Sanger’s rehabilitation has depended on writers, journalists, historians, social scientists, and sundry other media celebrities steadfastly obscuring or blithely ignoring what she did, what she said, and what she believed. It has thus depended upon a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts ideological tenacity unmatched by any but the most extreme of our modern secular cults.

This brief monograph is an attempt to set the record straight. It is an attempt to rectify that shameful distortion of the social, cultural, and historical record. It has no other agenda than to replace fiction with fact.

Nevertheless, that agenda necessarily involves stripping away all too many layers of dense palimpsests of politically correct revisionism. But that ought to be the honest historian’s central purpose anyway. Henry Cabot Lodge once asserted: “Nearly all the historical work worth doing at the present moment in the English language is the work of shoveling off heaps of rubbish inherited from the immediate past.”6

That then is the task of this book.

Of course, many would question the relevance of any kind of biographical or historical work at all. I cannot even begin to recount how many times a Planned Parenthood staffer has tried to deflect the impact of Sanger’s heinous record by dismissing it as “old news” or “ancient history” and thus irrelevant to any current issue or discussion. It is an argument that seems to sell well in the current marketplace of ideas. We have actually come to believe that matters and persons of present import are unaffected by matters and persons of past import.

We moderns hold to a strangely disjunctive view of the relationship between life and work—thus enabling us to nonchalantly separate a person’s private character from his or her public accomplishments. But this novel divorce of root from fruit, however genteel, is a ribald denial of one of the most basic truths in life: what you are begets what you do; wrong-headed philosophies stem from wrong-headed philosophers; sin does not just happen—it is sinners that sin.

Thus, according to the English historian and journalist Hilaire Belloc, “Biography always affords the greatest insights into sociology. To comprehend the history of a thing is to unlock the mysteries of its present, and more, to discover the profundities of its future.”7 Similarly, the inimitable Samuel Johnson quipped, “Almost all the miseries of life, almost all the wickedness that infects society, and almost all the distresses that afflict mankind, are the consequences of some defect in private duties.”8 Or, as E. Michael Jones has asserted, “Biography is destiny.”9

This is particularly true in the case of Margaret Sanger. The organization she founded, Planned Parenthood, is the oldest, largest, and best-organized provider of abortion and birth control services in the world.10 From its ignoble beginnings around the turn of the century, when the entire shoestring operation consisted of an illegal back-alley clinic in a shabby Brooklyn neighborhood staffed by a shadowy clutch of firebrand activists and anarchists,11 it has expanded dramatically into a multi-billion-dollar international conglomerate with programs and activities in 134 nations on every continent. In the United States alone, it has mobilized more than 20,000 staff personnel and volunteers along the front lines of an increasingly confrontational and vitriolic culture war. Today they handle the organization’s 167 affiliates and its 922 clinics in virtually every major metropolitan area, coast to coast.12 Boasting an opulent national headquarters in New York, a sedulous legislative center in Washington, opprobrious regional command posts in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and San Francisco, and officious international centers in London, Nairobi, Bangkok, and New Delhi, the Federation showed $23.5 million in earnings during fiscal year 1992, with $192.9 million in cash reserves and another $108.2 million in capital assets.13 With an estimated combined annual budget—including all regional and international service affiliates—of more than a billion dollars, Planned Parenthood may well be the largest and most profitable non-profit organization in history.14

The organization has used its considerable political, institutional, and financial clout to mainstream old-school left-wing extremism. It has weighed in with sophisticated lobbying, advertising, and back-room strong-arming to virtually remove the millennium-long stigma against child-killing abortion procedures and family-sundering socialization programs. Planned Parenthood thus looms like a Goliath over the increasingly tragic culture war.

Despite its leviathan proportions it is impossible to entirely understand Planned Parenthood’s policies, programs, and priorities apart from Margaret Sanger’s life and work. It was, after all, originally established to be little more than an extension of her life and world-view.”

Most of the material from this project has been drawn from research that I originally conducted for two comprehensive exposes of that vast institutional cash cow. Entitled Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, the first book has gone through twelve printing and two editions since it was first published in 1988?16 The second book, entitled Immaculate Deception: The Shifting Agenda of Planned Parenthood, details the remarkable changes the organization has made over the last decade.17 They gave wide exposure to the tragic proportions of Sanger’s saga. From the beginning of those massive projects, though, I felt that a shorter and more carefully focused biographical treatment was warranted. Little has changed in the interim-except that the monolithic reputations of Sanger and her frighteningly dystopic organization have only been further enhanced.

It is therefore long overdue that the truth be told. It is long overdue that the proper standing of Margaret Sanger in the sordid history of this bloody century be secured. To that end, this book is written.

You cannot help but notice, however, that it is a deliberately abbreviated tome-especially when it is compared to the breadth and depth of its wellspring, Grand Illusions and Immaculate Deception. Unpleasantries need to be accurately portrayed, but they need not be belabored. Caveats ought to be precise and to the point. Corrective counterblasts ought to be painstakingly careful, never crossing the all too fine line between informing and defiling the minds of readers.

Just as brevity and purpose are the heart and soul of wit, so they are the crux and culmination of true understanding. In light of this, it is my sincere prayer that true understanding will indeed be the end result of this brief but passionate effort.

Deus Vult.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:00 am

PART ONE: STILL LIFE

We perpetually come back to that sharp and shining point which the modern world is perpetually trying to avoid. We must have a creed, even in order to be comprehensive.

—-G. K. Chesterton1


1: Root of Bitterness

Happy is he who not only knows the causes of things, but who has not lost touch with their beginnings.

-- G. K. Chesterton2


Margaret Sanger was born on September 14, 1879, in the small industrial community of Corning in upstate New York, the sixth of eleven children. The circumstances of her home life were never happy—a fact to which she later attributed much of her agitated activism and bitter bombast. If it is true that “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” it is equally true that “The hand that wrecks the cradle ruins the world.”3

Her father, Michael Higgins, was an Irish Catholic immigrant who fancied himself a radical freethinker and a free-wheeling skeptic. As a youngster he had enlisted in General William Sherman’s notorious Twelfth New York Cavalry and proudly participated in the nefarious campaign that ravaged and ravished the South, across Tennessee, through Atlanta, and to the sea. He achieved notable infamy among his peers when he was honored by his commander for special treachery in fiercely subduing the recalcitrant captive population. Not surprisingly, that cruel and inhuman experience apparently hardened and embittered him. Triage and genocide are not easily forgotten by either victims or perpetrators. His criminal inhumanity constituted a kind of spiritual calamity from which he, like so many others of his region, never fully recovered. Forever afterward he was pathetically stunted, unable to maintain even a modicum of normalcy in his life or relations.

He worked sporadically as a stone mason and a tombstone carver but was either unwilling or unable to provide adequately for his large family. Margaret’s mother, Anne Purcell, was a second-generation American from a strict Irish Catholic family. She was frail and tuberculous but utterly devoted to her unstable and unpredictable husband-as well as to their ever-growing brood of children.

The family suffered bitterly from cold, privation, and hunger. That was the common lot of thousands of other families in nineteenth-century America. But the Higginses also suffered grievously from scorn, shame, and isolation because of Michael’s sullen improvidence. And like many a man who is proudly progressive in public, he was repressively remonstrant at home. He regularly thrashed his sons “to make men of them.”4 And he treated his wife and daughters as “virtual slaves.”5 And when he drank—which was whenever he could afford it—his volatile presence was even more oppressive than normal.

That is the paradox of dogmatic liberalism: though it loudly declares itself a champion of the weak, it is actually an unrelenting truncheon of the strong. Ideology inevitably resolves itself in some form of tyranny.

Sanger later described her family’s existence under the unenlightened and inhuman hand of Michael’s enlightened humanism as “joyless and filled with drudgery and fear.”6 Even as an adult, whenever she was on a train that merely rode through Corning, she got a sharp pain in the pit of her stomach. She suffered, she said, from "Corningitis."7

Clearly, the Higginses had an impoverished and isolated life; but, not only did they have to endure grave social and material lack, they were spiritually deprived as well. As a confirmed skeptic, Michael mocked the sincere religious devotion of most of his neighbors. He openly embraced radicalism, socialism, and atheism. And he had little toleration for the modicum of morality that his poor wife tried to instill in the lives of their hapless children.

One day, for example, when Margaret was on her knees saying the Lord’s Prayer, she came to the phrase “Give us this day our daily bread,” and her father snidely cut her off.

“Who were you talking to?” he demanded.

“To God,” she replied innocently.

“Well, tell me, is God a baker?”

With no little consternation, she said, “No, of course not. But He makes the rain, the sunshine, and all the things that make the wheat, which makes the bread.”

After a thoughtful pause her father rejoined, “Well, well, so that’s the idea. Then why didn’t you just say so? Always say what you mean, my daughter, it is much better.”8

In spite of Michael’s concerted efforts to undermine Margaret’s young and fragile faith, her mother had her baptized in St. Mary’s Catholic Church on March 23, 1893. The following year, on July 8, 1894, she was confirmed. Both ceremonies were held in secret—her father would have been furious had he known. For some time afterward she displayed a zealous devotion to spiritual things. She regularly attended services and observed the disciplines of the liturgical year. She demonstrated a budding and apparently authentic hunger for truth.

But gradually the smothering effects of Michael’s cynicism took their toll. When her mother died under the strain of her unhappy privation, Margaret was more vulnerable than ever before to his fierce undermining. Bitter, lonely, and grief-stricken, by the time she was seventeen her passion for Christ had collapsed into a bitter hatred of the church. This malignant malevolence would forever after be her spiritual hallmark.

Anxious to move away from home as soon as she could, Margaret was willing to go anywhere and try anything—as long as it was far from Corning. After a quick, almost frantic search, she settled on Claverack College. A small and inexpensive co-educational boarding school attached to the famed Hudson River Institute, Claverack was a Methodist high school housed in an imposing wooden building on twenty picturesque acres overlooking the Hudson Valley. Not known for its academic rigors, the school was essentially a finishing school for protean youth.

There at Claverack Margaret got her first taste of freedom. And what a wild and intoxicating freedom it was. She plunged into radical politics, suffragette feminism, and unfettered sex. Despite her relatively light academic load, she quickly fell behind in her work. She rarely attended her classes. And she almost never completed her assignments. Worse, she neglected her part- time job—necessary to pay for the nominal tuition.

It is said that we become most like those whom we are bitter against. Despite her now obvious animosity toward him, Margaret began to unconsciously emulate her father’s erratic personality. The stronger her resistance to his influence grew, the greater her imitation of his improvidence became.

Character has consequences. When she could no longer afford the tuition at Claverack, she was forced to return home-but only long enough to gather her belongings and set her affairs in order. She had drunk from the cup of concupiscence and would never again be satisfied with the quiet responsibilities and virtues of domesticity. And so, as soon as she could, she moved in with her older sister in White plains, taking a job as a kindergarten teacher.

A youth corrupted became a youth corruptor. Since she herself was now a high school dropout, she was assigned to a class made up primarily of the children of new immigrants. Much to her dismay, she found that her pupils could not understand a word that she said. She quickly grew tired of the laborious routine of teaching day in and day out. Gratefully, she quit after just two short terms.

Next, she applied for a job as a nurse-probationer at a small local hospital. Again, though, Margaret’s careless and nomadic rootlessness was telling. Hospital work proved to be even more vexing and taxing than teaching. She never finished her training. In later years, however, she would claim to be a trained and practiced nurse. Nearly forty pages of her Autobiography were devoted to her varied, often heroic, experiences as a seasoned veteran in professional health care.9 But they were little more than Margaret’s well-realized fantasies.

In fact, her actual exposure to medicine was almost nonexistent: she never got beyond running errands, changing sheets, and emptying bedpans. Like so much else in the mythic fable of her rise to prominence, her career as a nurse was little more than perpetrated fraud.

Determined to escape from the harsh bondage of labor and industry, she once again began to cast about for some viable alternative. She finally resorted to the only viable course open to a poor girl in those seemingly unenlightened days when the Puritan work ethic was still ethical: she married into money.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:06 am

2: The Winter of Her Discontent

The special mark of the modern world is not that it is skeptical, but that it is dogmatic without knowing it.

-- G. K. Chesterton1


William Sanger was not exactly rich, but he was financially secure-and that was close enough for Margaret. He was a young man of great promise. An up-and-coming architect with the famed McKim, Mead, and White firm in New York City, he had already made a name for himself while working on the plans for the resplendent Grand Central Station and the landmark Woolworth tower in midtown Manhattan.

He met Margaret at a party in White Plains in 1900 and immediately fell head over heels in love. He was a tall, dark-haired man with intense coal-black eyes and a thin-set mouth turned down like an eagle’s. Now almost thirty and entirely dedicated to his work, he had sorely neglected the social side of his life for several years. But he was smitten by the girlishly slim, red-headed beauty he met that day.

He courted Margaret with a single-minded zeal, promising her devotion, leisure, and a beautiful home—the fulfillment of her most cherished dreams. He plied her affections with flowers, candy, jewelry, and unremitting attention. As for her part, she was willingly—even enthusiastically—courted.

Within just a few months they were married.

The Sangers settled into a pleasant apartment in Manhattan’s Upper East Side and set up housekeeping. But housekeeping appealed to Margaret even less than teaching or nursing. Though she busied herself collecting pots, pans, and dishes, she quickly grew restless and sullen.

Her doting husband tried everything he could think of in a determined effort to satisfy her restless and unresolved passions. He sent her off for long vacations in the Adirondacks. He hired maids and attendants. He bought her expensive presents. He even designed and built an extravagant home in the exclusive Long Island suburbs. Nothing seemed to suit his temperamental bride.

In short order they had three children, two boys and a girl. Like so many before and since, Margaret thought that having babies might bring her the fulfillment she so longed for; however, raising children is not exactly a hobby to be taken on a whim by the discontented. It is a responsible commitment requiring diligence, long-suffering, and hard work.

Margaret had never been one to apply herself to such disciplines. Alas, even her children proved to be but temporary diversions.

Once again, she demonstrated the telling truth of the tired truism: like father, like daughter.

After nearly a decade of undefined domestic dissatisfaction, she convinced William to sell all they had, including their comfortable suburban estate, and move back into the brusque and cosmopolitan Manhattan hubbub. There she quickly threw herself into the fast-paced social life of the city shopping, dining, reveling, and theater-going. She attempted to drown her rootless discontent in the wastrel champagne of improvidence.

Meanwhile, William began to renew old ties in radical politics by attending Socialist, Anarchist, and Communist meetings down in Greenwich Village. Before he wooed Margaret, he had toyed with adolescent notions of political millenarianism and social utopianism from time to time. With his wife distracted by her material quest and his work no longer an all-consuming passion, he once again explored the nether realm of coercive idealism.

At the time, New York was well on its way to becoming a seething cauldron of radical ideas and social unrest. The syndicalist notions of the early labor movement, the libertarian ideas of the early suffragette movement, and the proletarian notions of the early progressive movement made for a heady cultural brew. And William drank from it deeply. He threw in his lot with a myriad of extremist groups, fringe coalitions, and perennial lost causes.

Though she generally eschewed the smoke-filled rooms and the fervid rhetoric of his radical associations, from time to time—usually when she bored of her more patrician activities—Margaret would tag along with William to sundry rallies, caucuses, and protests. Though his sense of justice and social ire seemed perpetually roused to a fever pitch, she remained supremely unimpressed. In fact, she often mocked the rag-tag revolutionaries as the comical and motley crew that they were. She described Bill Haywood, founder of the left-wing Industrial Workers of the World, as “an uncouth, stumbling, one-eyed giant with an enormous head."2 She said that Alexander Beckman, another perennially hapless labor organizer from the radical fringe, was essentially” a hack, armchair socialist—full of hot air, but likely little else.”3 She called Eugene Debs a “silly silk hat radical .”4 And she characterized the partisans of the Socialist Party as “losers, complainers, and perpetual victims—unwilling or unable to do for themselves, much less for society at large.”5

One evening, however, she heard a radical labor organizer describe the pitiful working conditions of the many sweatshops and chattel dens throughout New York’s Lower West Side and the Midtown Garment District. But it was not the image of suffering and injustice that arrested her attentions—she had heard all that before. It was the speaker’s vision of the power of well-planned social subversion and disruptive anti-establishment protest that gripped her.

John Reed, who would later gain fame as a propagandist for the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia, was a passionate speaker who exuded confidence. He also had a knack for vivid, compelling prose. He described with heroic idealism a kind of ideological crusade bent on irreverently overturning the privileged status quo. Appealing to her romantic extremism, he painted a lucidly resplendent picture of adventurous anarchy akin to some pre-deluvian epoch.

Margaret was wowed. The ideas and ideals of Marxism had never seemed to her to be particularly relevant to the real world. But in the hands of a compelling presence like Reed, they came alive to her. Before long, she could think of little else. She was completely radicalized. She suddenly shed her bourgeois habits and took to Bohemian ways. Instead of whiling the hours away in the elegant shops along Fifth Avenue, she plunged headlong into the maelstrom of rebellion and revolution.

She read voraciously for the first time in her life. John Spargo had just translated Marx’s Das Capital into English. Lincoln Steffens had published The Shame of the Cities. Jacob Riis released his classic, How the Other Half Lives. Upton Sinclair was shaking the establishment with raging indictments like The Jungle. And George Fitzpatrick produced War, What For? Each became an important factor in the development of her newfound interests.

And each became an important part of William and Margaret’s lifestyle, too—their apartment quickly became a social hub for the various legions of the hodgepodge revolutionaries. Those whom she once scorned as “fanatics” and “misfits” became a regaled coterie in their home.

She later wrote:

Our living room became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists, and IWW’s could meet. These vehement individualists had to have an audience, preferably a small, intimate one. Any evening you might find visitors being aroused by Jack Reed, bullied by Bill Haywood, or led softly towards anarchism by Alex Berkman. When throats grew dry and the flood of oratory waned, someone went out for hamburgers, sandwiches, hot dogs, and beer. The luxuriousness of the midnight repast depended upon the collection of coins tossed into the middle of the table, which consisted of what everybody had in his pocket. Those were halcyon days, indeed.6


During those halcyon days, Margaret underwent a transformation no less dramatic than might be expected of a religious convert. She was a zealot. Even the breathy cabaret of her brazenness became subject to the revolutionary cause. In her, softer needs seemed now to be stillborn. She became as resolute and unrelenting as permafrost. Like a medieval mystic or cabalistic alchemist, her every waking moment was dominated by thoughts of ushering the great utopia-by whatever wrenching means might prove necessary. Violence, sabotage, assassination, subversion, insurrection, terror—these became the stock-in-trade of her born again left-wing fundamentalism. And this was no passing fancy—her conversion proved to be genuine. For the rest of her long life every other concern was subordinated to the cause.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:24 am

PART TWO: Whence? What? Whither?

There is a tradition that jumping off a precipice is prejudicial to the health; and therefore nobody does it. Then appears a progressive prophet and reformer, who points out that we really know nothing about it, because nobody does it. And the tradition is thereby mocked—to the peril of us all.

—G. K. Chesterton1


3: The Woman Rebel

What seems to infect the modern world is a sort of swollen pride in the possession of modern thought or free thought or higher thought, combined with a comparative neglect of thought.

-- G. K. Chesterton2


At first, William was thrilled by Margaret’s sudden conversion. It seemed that his bride had at last found her long-sought-after meaning, purpose, and fulfillment.

She was now forever hatching subversive plots, railing against hidden conspiracies, inciting invectives against the authorities, and ingratiating herself to the foremost radicals of the day John Reed, Eugene Debs, Clarence Darrow, Will Durant, Upton Sinclair, Julius Hammer, and Bill Haywood. Like a sycophant courtier, she was an omnipresent whirlwind of energy and starry-eyed adulation.

She joined the de rigeur Socialist Party and attended all of its functions. She even volunteered as a women’s union organizer for the Party’s infamous Local Number Five, speaking at labor organization meetings and writing editorials and reviews for the Party newspaper, The Call.

By this time, virtually all of the most extreme revolutionary elements of American political life had been unified in the Socialist Party: the Radical Republicans, the Reformist Unitarians, the Knights of Labor, the Mugwumps, the Anarchists, the Populists, the Progressivists, the Suffragettes, the Single Taxers, the Grangers, and the Communists. Though it never moved much beyond the fringes of the nation’s electoral experience, it was able to tap into the anomie and ennui of a significant segment of America’s disenfranchised class.

From ten thousand members in 1901, it had swollen to fifty-eight thousand by 1908. More than twice that number were recorded four years later. And its voting strength was many times greater even than that, accounting for more than six percent of all the votes cast in the disastrously fractious national elections of 1912.

When Margaret and William Sanger entered the fray that year, the Party had elected twelve hundred public officials in thirty-three states and one hundred and sixty cities, and it regularly published as many as three hundred tabloids, broadsides, and periodicals. It was progressive. It was visionary. And it was making headway among voters whose interests and fortunes had waned under the monopolistic grip of industrial mercantilism. Socialism has always been a peculiar temptation for disenchanted American voters for whom brash talk of equality is a tenet of faith and justice is a badge of honor.

Not a little of the attraction during Margaret’s halcyon revolutionary days was the personal charisma of the “silly silk hat radical,” Eugene Debs. A former railway worker and union organizer, Debs had become the personification of socialism for most Americans. He had run at the top of the Party’s ticket in five different presidential campaigns—spanning a quarter century of the nation’s greatest unrest and upheaval. He became wildly popular among the disaffected as a thoughtful and plain-spoken champion of the ordinary worker.

His rhetorical appeal was hardly unique; it was in fact rooted in the standard material-determinist fare of the day. He claimed that the laborer and farmer were the oppressed victims of capitalism with its trusts, its industrial tycoons, its utilities magnates, its large property owners, its corrupt and controlled Congress, and its ranks of unemployed. He decried the culture-wide atmosphere of intolerance, injustice, and heartless greed.

To remedy all these ills, Debs offered the scientific and reasoned alternative of a “managed economy,” a “widely distributed means of production,” an “accessible health care provision system,” and an “ideal sovietized central state.”3 He boldly declared that he was “in revolt against capitalism”4 In fact, he declared an ideological war against all conventional politicians within that system, saying:

With every drop of blood in my veins, I despise their laws, and I will defy them. I am going to speak to you as a Socialist, a Revolutionist, and as a Bolshevist, if you please. The Socialist Party stands fearlessly and uncompromisingly for the overthrow of the labor-robbing, war-breeding, and crime-inciting capitalist system.5


Later, he would aid and abet the Russian Revolution and claim that its success was “the greatest single achievement in all history."6 He said: “I am a Bolshevik. I am fighting for the same thing here as they are fighting for over there. It is essential that we affiliate with the Third International, and without qualification. Therein lies the hope of the future.”7

From the vantage of the post-Cold-War era, such sentiments sound terribly naive and wrong-headed— despite the fact that they remain the currency of what’s left of the Left-but during the tumultuous days just after the War Between the States and before the First World War, these sentiments were shared by a growing segment of idealistic Americans.

Debs was the perennial underdog, willing to pay any price for his convictions. He was perceived by his faithful followers as the incorruptible voice of the people. His oft repeated pledge became populism’s epigrammatic byword: “While there is still a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”8 Indeed, he had to run one of his presidential bids from a cell in the federal penitentiary after he was convicted of sedition. Thus, Debs not only gave socialism a human face, he also gave it a heroic cast.

For that reason, Margaret became a passionate partisan. In addition, though, she was impressed by the record of Debs and the Party on women’s issues. No other political movement in American history had fought so consistently for women’s suffrage, sexual liberation, feminism, and birth control. These subjects were a central aspect of the creedal dogma of the Party and had practically become obsessions for Margaret. And they made her commitment to ushering in a socialist revolution—regardless of the material or human cost necessary—all the more urgent.

While William was happy that Margaret had finally found a cause that satisfied her restless spirit, he gradually became concerned that she was perhaps taking on too much too soon. Her transformation was disconcertingly complete. Their apartment was in a perpetual state of disarray. Their children were constantly being farmed out to friends and neighbors. And their time alone together was nonexistent. While Margaret had never exactly been particularly domestic and had never actually applied herself to making their house a home, her all-consuming political fanaticism had dispatched the family’s needs altogether. William could not help but be concerned.

Jerry Talmadge was a friend of the Sangers. He worked with William at the architectural firm and volunteered his time with Margaret at various Socialist Party functions. He witnessed both the transformation of Margaret’s passions and the escalation of William’s concerns. Later he would write:

It was rather sad. She was like a raging river overflowing the banks of conventionality and propriety. He was like the small householder attempting vainly to keep the floods from washing away his home and property. It was inevitable that the two would be at odds, one with another.9


It was bad enough that Margaret had become entirely enamored with Debs and his comprehensive dogma of revolution, but then when Margaret fell under the spell of the militant utopian Emma Goldman, William’s husbandly concern turned to extreme disapproval. Margaret had gone from an arch-typical material girl to a revolutionary firebrand almost overnight. And now she was taking her cues from one of the most dangerous and controversial insurrectionists since the bloody Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.

It was just too much. William began backpedaling furiously. He steered clear of his radical associations. And he tried desperately to pull his wife back into a more conventional social orbit. Now that the revolution had moved beyond parlor fantasies and arm-chair bombast and had invaded the inner sanctum of his home and family, its horrific disruptiveness became all too obvious to him.

To Margaret’s way of thinking, however, he had become a traitor to the cause. She was now a true believer, and nothing and no one could possibly be allowed to interfere with its progress among men and nations. Thus, the paranoia of fanaticism sorely stigmatized him in her eyes.

And her new attachment to the steely determinism of Emma Goldman only reinforced that perversely held taint.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:29 am

4: Madonna

Cliches are things that can be new and already old. They are things that can be new and already dead.

They are the stillborn fruits of culture.

-- G. K. Chesterton1


Emma Goldman was a fiery renegade who had close connections with revolutionaries the world over: Bolsheviks in Russia, Fabians in England, Anarchists in Germany, and Malthusians in France. She lectured all across the American heartland, drawing large crowds, discoursing on everything from the necessity of free love to the nobility of incendiary violence, from the evils of capitalism to the virtues of assassination, from the perils of democracy to the need for birth control.  

She made her living selling her Anarchist magazine Mother Earth and by distributing leaflets on contraception and liberated sex. Known as the “Red Queen of Anarchy,” she was baleful and brutal. But she was brilliant—and she was more than capable of communicating that brilliance to vast throngs in her political rallies. Her spare, spartan appearance proved an apropos guise for her mechanistic dogma of dystopic disruption.

Margaret was completely taken by her erudite discussions of philosophical profundities and ideological certainties. She hung on Goldman’s every word and began to read everything in Goldman’s wide-ranging library of incendiary literature, including the massive, seven-volume Studies in the Psychology of Sex by Havelock Ellis, which stirred in her a new lust for lust.

Goldman discipled the young reformer, introducing her to the concupiscence of Ibsen, Tolstoy, Voltaire, and Kropotkin. She taught her the grassroots mobilization tactics of the great revolutionary cabals of France, Austria, Poland, and Russia. She tutored her subversive impulse with the Enlightenment catechisms of Rousseau, Babeuf, Buonarroti, Nechayev, and Lenin. She reacquainted her with the subversive strategies of the Radical Republicans during the Reconstruction subjection of conquered territory following the American War Between the States. She schooled her in the verities of Humanism—the fantastic notions of the self-sufficiency and inherent goodness of man, the persistent hope of perfectibility, and the relativity of all ethical mores. She desensitized her to the most extreme ideas and the most perverse confabulations ever devised by men. She initiated her to their collusive mumblings as a druid would beedle an acolyte into the deepest darkness.

Not long after this ritualized initiation into the occult of ideological revolution, Margaret told her bewildered husband that she needed emancipation from every taint of Christianized capitalism—including the strict bonds of the marriage bed. She even suggested to him that they seriously consider experimenting with various trysts, infidelities, fornication, and adulteries. Because of her careful tutoring in socialist dogma, she had undergone a sexual liberation -- at least intellectually -- and she was now ready to test its authenticity physically.

He was shocked. And not surprisingly, he was deeply hurt. In a desperate attempt to save their marriage, he rented a cottage on Cape Cod and took Margaret and the children for a long vacation. They rested and relaxed and played. They ate and drank and socialized.

By the time they returned, Goldman had departed the Bohemian scene in Greenwich Village for a speaking tour, and Margaret’s attentions were deflected from the promiscuity of revolution, at least for the moment. She continued reading the radical and sensual literature of Ellis and others, but her activism gradually took a new and different turn.

A strike of textile workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts drew the attentions of Socialist sympathizers all over the country. Sponsored by a militantly Marxist union, the Industrial Workers of the World -- or the IWW, as it was more commonly known—the strike was seen by partisans as a tremendous chance to bring the revolution to the streets of America. Bill Haywood, the labor leader who had opportunistically formed the union after a series of sweatshop disasters, came to Greenwich Village looking for professional organizers to help him manage the strike.

Margaret jumped at the chance. Her great tenacity, unswerving commitment, and innocent winsomeness proved to be tremendous assets for Haywood. She was able to stir up a great deal of sympathetic publicity. And as a result, the strike was a tremendous success.

In fact, it may have been too successful. It had actually attracted the sympathies of several key industrialists, financiers, media outlets, entertainment moguls, and government officials. Even President Taft voiced his support for the workers and their cause. The battle was won, but the war was lost—the revolution never made it to the streets simply because the anger of the rebellion was diffused by the acceptance of the establishment. The IWW was unable to recover from its victory and was never again able to stage a successful strike.

Margaret returned to William and the children, despondent and discouraged. In the weeks that followed, she was at a loss as to how to occupy her time. She busied herself by dabbling in amateur midwifery by day and by holding court in Mabel Dodge’s salon by night.

Idle hands are the devil’s playthings.

Dodge was a wealthy young divorcee, recently returned from France, where she had spent most of her married years. She had a stunning Fifth Avenue apartment where she started a salon modeled after those in the Palais Royale and Paris’s Left Bank. Her series of evening gatherings were opportunities for intellectuals, radicals, artists, actors, writers, and activists to meet and greet, aspire and conspire. Each night had its own theme: sometimes it would be politics, sometimes drama, or perhaps poetry or economics or art or science. Ideas and liquor flowed freely until midnight, when Dodge would usher in a sumptuous meal of the finest meats, poultry, cheeses, and French pastries.

Margaret’s topic of discussion was always sex. Her detour into labor activism had done little to dampen her interest in the subject. When it was her turn to lead an evening, she held Dodge’s guests spellbound, ravaging their imaginations with intoxicating notions of the aromatic dignity, the unfettered self-expression, and the innate sacredness of sexual desire.

Free love had been practiced quietly for years by the avant-garde intellectuals in the Village. Eugene O’Neill took on one mistress after another, immortalizing them in his plays. Edna St. Vincent Millay hopped gaily from bed to bed and wrote about it in her poems. Max Eastman, Emma Goldman, Floyd Dell, Rockwell Kent, Edgar Lee Masters, and many others had for some time enjoyed unrestrained sex-ploits.

But no one had championed sexual freedom as openly and ardently as Margaret. When she spoke, the others became transfixed. Her innocent girl-next-door looks belied her bordello motif and gutter talk. Dodge was especially struck by her sensuous didactae. Later she would write in her memoirs:

Margaret Sanger was a Madonna type of woman, with soft reddish-brown hair parted over a quiet brow, and crystal-clear brown eyes. It was she who introduced us all to the idea of birth control, and it, along with other related ideas about sex, became her passion. It was as if she had been more or less arbitrarily chosen by the powers-that-be to voice a new gospel of not only sex-knowledge in regard to conception, but sex- knowledge in regard to copulation and its intrinsic importance. She was the first person I ever knew who was openly an ardent propagandist for the joys of the flesh. This, in those days, was radical indeed when the sense of sin was still so indubitably mixed with the sense of pleasure. Margaret personally set out to rehabilitate sex. She was one of its first conscious promulgators.2


In the safe environs of the Greenwich Village salon, surrounded by her radical peers, Margaret honed her promiscuous and lascivious schtick. She set the stage for a lifetime of sexual titillation and experimentations life sadly bereft of covenantal commitment.

For her, the success of the social revolution began with the sexual revolution. If the cause were ever to prevail culturally, it had to first prevail interpersonally through the unleashing of carnal passion. If the workers of the world were to unite, then the antiquated morals that suppressed their true inmost feelings and inhibited their true heartfelt expressions had to be eliminated.

It was not worth the terrible spiritual and emotional sacrifice, of course. But there was no telling Margaret. She was nothing short of hellbent.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:38 am

PART THREE: No Little People

We often hear of a man becoming a criminal through a love of low company. I believe it is much commoner for a man to become a criminal through a love of refined company. There is a kind of people who cannot stand poverty because they cannot stand ugliness. These people might rob or even murder out of pure refinement.

—G. K. Chesterton1


5: Arrested Development

Unless a man becomes the enemy of an evil, he will not even become its slave, but rather its champion. -- G. K. Chesterton2


Everyone seemed to be delighted by Margaret’s explicit and brazen talks. Everyone except her husband, that is. William began to see the socialist revolution as nothing more than “an excuse for a saturnalia of sex.”3 He decided he had best get Margaret away once again.

This time he took Margaret and the children to Paris. He could pursue his newly developed interests in modern art. Margaret could study her now keen fascination with the advanced contraceptive methods widely available in France. And together they could refresh their commitment to each other in the world’s most romantic city.

At first, the ploy seemed to work. Together they enjoyed the enchantments of the chattering salons, the quaint artists’ colonies, and quirky galleries that dotted the Left Bank in those pre-holocaust halcyon days. They were awed by the magnificent fountains which even today fall with hallowed delicacy into the framing space of the Place de la Concorde. They gawked as blue hues crept out from behind the Colonades in the Rue de Rivoli and through the grillwork of the Tuileries. They marveled at the low elegant outlines of the Louvre -- a serious metallic gray against the setting sun. They strolled under the well-tended branches that hung brooding over animated cafes, embracing their conversations with tender intimacy. They reveled in the sight of the long windows that opened onto iron-clad balconies in marvelously archaic hotels, while gauzy lace curtains fluttered across imagined hopes and wishes and dreams. Romance wafted freely in the sweet cool breezes off the Seine-ad they embraced it deeply and passionately.

They took an apartment in a wonderful eighteenth-century building replete with high ceilings, ornamented plaster bas-relief across one wall, huge shuttered windows, antique furniture, and loads of dusty old books. They surrounded themselves with all the odd trappings of an ex-patriot’s existence.

On their tight budget they could not afford the typical Grand Tour initiation to the city—sitting in the chic cafes along the Champs-Elysees for hours sipping champagne at twelve dollars a glass or buying leather at Louis Vuitton at a thousand dollars per garment or snatching up two-hundred-dollar scarves at Hermes or eating at the Epicurean five-star Bristol Hotel at more than three hundred dollars a meal-but the pleasures of Paris could be had on an economy scale nonetheless.

Each day, they would wander over to the Pent Neuf bridge to explore the wares of the bouquinistes —the traditional French booksellers who had pioneered their unique brand of transportable trade early in the seventeenth century. They would then visit one of the many magnificent museums or perhaps eat a picnic lunch in the Bois de Boulogne, the huge park along the city’s western ridge. Often, they would end up soaking in the jubilant carnival atmosphere at the Champs-de-Mars just below the Eiffel Tower.

Paris is a marvel of vintage sensory delights. And both Margaret and William drank deeply from its draft. The staccato sounds of the clicking of saucers in the place de la Contrescarpe, the trumpeting of traffic around the Arc de Trioemph, and the conspiratorial whispering on benches in the Jardin de Luxembourg seem to play a jangling Debussy score in the twilight hours. The nostalgic smells of luxuriant perfumes, wine, and brandy; the invigorating odors of croissants, espresso, and cut lavender; and the acrid fumes of tobacco, roasted chestnuts, and salon sautes seem to texture a sweet and subtle Monet upon the canvas of Ventente de la vie. The dominating sights of the yellow towers of Notre Dame, the arched bridges cutting across the satin sheen of the river, and the stately elegance of the Bourbon palaces and pavilions scattered about the city like caches of mercy seem to sculpt a muscular Rodin bronze on the tabla rasa landscape.

It was almost heaven.

Almost. But not quite.

Victor Hugo, who loved the city with a passion, warned that the rich atmosphere of Parisian culture was deceptively intoxicating. He often asserted that “No one can spend any length of time in Paris without being captivated by satyrs or muses or cupids or bacchuses or all of them together.”4

Margaret was captivated by all of them together. The lure of revolutionary promiscuity beckoned her fiercely-and it seemed that the romance of Paris only intensified that siren’s song. It was only a matter of time before she became anxious for her Village causes, friends, and lovers. She begged William to return.

He refused. After a bitter flap-both of them adamant and unyielding—she simply abandoned him there and returned to New York with the confused children in tow. He bid her good riddance -- at last resigned to the fact that there was no longer any hope of salvaging the marriage.

Without her husband to support her every whim and fancy, Margaret was forced to find some means of providing an income for herself and the children. She had continued to write for The Call and found some degree of satisfaction in that, so she decided to try her hand at writing and publishing a paper herself.

She called it The Woman Rebel. It was an eight-sheet pulp with the slogan “No Gods and No Masters” emblazoned across the masthead. She advertised it as “a paper of militant thought.”5

And militant it was indeed. The first issue denounced marriage as “a degenerate institution,” capitalism as “indecent exploitation,” and sexual modesty as “obscene prudery."6 In the next issue, an article entitled “A Woman’s Duty” proclaimed that “rebel women” were to “look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes.”7 Another article asserted that “Rebel women claim the following rights: the right to be lazy, the right to be an unmarried mother, the right to destroy . . . and the right to love.”8 In later issues, she published several articles on contraception, several more on sexual liberation, three on the necessity for social revolution, and two defending political assassinations.9

The Woman Rebel was militant, all right. In fact, it was so militant that Margaret was promptly served with a subpoena indicting heron three counts for the publication of lewd and indecent articles in violation of the federal Comstock Laws.

The Comstock Laws had been passed by Congress in 1873. Their purpose was to close the mails to “obscene and lascivious” material, particularly the erotic postcards and pornographic magazines from Europe which, during the debauched and confused post-war and Radical Reconstruction period, were flooding the country. Anthony Comstock, their chief sponsor, was appointed a special agent of the Post Office, with the power to see that it was strictly enforced. For nearly half a century he fought an almost single-handed campaign to “keep the mails clean” and to “ensure just condemnation for the purveyors of filth, eroticism, and degeneracy.”10

If convicted-and conviction was practically a foregone conclusion—Margaret could be sentenced to as much as five years in the federal penitentiary. Frightened, she obtained several extensions of her court date. But then, deciding that her case was hopeless, she determined to flee the country under an assumed name. She had her socialist friends forge a passport, secure passage across the border, provide her with connections and contacts in Canada and England, and take charge of her now inconvenient children.

As a final gesture, just before she secretly slipped out of the country, she had them print and distribute one hundred thousand copies of a contraband leaflet she had written on contraception called Family Limitation. It was lurid and lascivious, designed to enrage the postal authorities and titillate the masses. But worse, it was dangerously inaccurate, recommending such things as “Lysol douches,” “bichloride of mercury elixirs,” “heavy doses of laxatives,” and “herbal abortifacients.”

Margaret Sanger’s dubious career as the “champion of birth control” and “patron saint of feminism” was now well underway.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:57 am

6: Babylonian Exile

Under all its parade of novelty, the modern world really runs to monotony, partly because it runs to monopoly.

—G. K. Chesterton1


Margaret spent more than a year in England as a fugitive from justice. But she made certain that the time was not wasted. She had found her key to the causer, revolutionary socialism. She had found her niche in the cause sexual liberation. And now she would further the cause with a single-minded zeal.

As soon as she came ashore, Margaret began to make contact with the various radical groups of Britain. She began attending socialist lectures on Nietzsche’s moral relativism, anarchist lectures on Kropotkin’s subversive pragmatism, and communist lectures on Bakunin’s collectivistic rationalism. But she was especially interested in developing close ties with the Malthusians.

Thomas Malthus was a nineteenth-century cleric and sometime professor of political economy whose theories of population growth and economic stability quickly became the basis for national and international social policy throughout the West. According to his scheme, population grows exponentially over time, while production only grows arithmetically. He believed a crisis was therefore inevitable -- a kind of ticking population time bomb that he believed threatened the very existence of the human race. Poverty, deprivation, and hunger were the evidences of this looming population crisis. He believed that the only responsible social policy would be one that addressed the unnatural problem of population growth -- by whatever means necessary. Every social problem was subordinate to this central cause. In fact, Malthus argued, to deal with sickness, crime, privation, and need in any other way simply aggravates the problems further; thus, he actually condemned charity, philanthropy, international relief and development, missionary outreaches, and economic investment around the world as counterproductive.

In his magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826, Malthus wrote:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. . . . Therefore ... we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague, In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.2


Malthus’s disciples—the Malthusians and the Neo-Malthusians -- believed that if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to somehow be suppressed and isolated—or perhaps even eliminated. And while Malthus was forthright in recommending plague, pestilence, and petrification, his disciples felt that the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization, and abortion were more practical and acceptable ways to ease the pressures of the supposed overpopulation.

The dumb certainties of experience have time and again disproven virtually every aspect of the Malthusian analysis, but that was of little impediment to the motley band of progressives who embraced its idealistic notions—and who still do. As historian Paul Johnson has shown, the Malthusians “were not men of action.” Instead, “They tried to solve the problems of the world in the quiet of their studies, inside their own heads. . . . They produced a new vocabulary of mumbojumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific, and relentless."3

Even so, their doctrines were immensely appealing to the intelligentsia and the kulturistas of the mod flapper set. According to Johnson:

All the ablest elements in Western society, the trendsetters in opinion, were wholly taken in by this monstrous doctrine of unreason. Those who objected were successfully denounced as obscurantists, and the enemies of social progress. They could no longer be burned as heretical subverters of the new orthodoxy, but they were successfully and progressively excluded from the control of events.4


They maintained an admirable don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts aplomb when faced with the utter fantasy of their scientific assumptions.

Not surprisingly, Margaret immediately got on the Malthusian bandwagon. She was not philosophically inclined, nor was she particularly adept at political, social, or economic theory, but she did recognize in the Malthusians a kindred spirit and a tremendous opportunity. She was also shrewd enough to realize that her notions of radical socialism and sexual liberation would never have the popular support necessary to usher in the revolution without some appeal to altruism and intellectualism. She needed somehow to capture the moral and academic “high ground.”

Malthusianism, she thought, just might be the key to that ethical and intellectual posture. If she could argue for birth control using the scientifically verified threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension, and over-population as its backdrop, then she would have a much better chance of making her case. So she began to absorb as much of the Malthusian dogma as she could.

Margaret also immersed herself in the teachings of each of the Malthusian offshoots. If a little bit of something is a good thing, then a lot is even better. There was phrenology, Binetism, and Craniometricism. There was Oneidianism, Polygenesis, Recapitulationism, Lambrosianism, Hereditarianism, Freudianism, and Neotenism. From each group she picked Up a few popular slogans and concepts that would permanently shape her crusade.

But Eugenics left the most lasting impression on the malleable mold of her nascent worldview of radicalism. Eugenics was perhaps the most revolutionary of the pseudo-sciences spawned by Malthusianism. Having convinced an entire generation of scientists, intellectuals, and social reformers that the world was facing an imminent economic crisis caused by unchecked human fertility, Malthusian thought quickly turned to practical programs and social policies.

Some of these managerial Malthusians believed that the solution to the imminent crisis was political: restrict immigration, reform social welfare, and tighten citizenship requirements. Others thought the solution was technological: increase agricultural production, improve medical proficiency, and promote industrial efficiency. But many of the rest felt that the solution was genetic: restrict or eliminate “bad racial stocks” and gradually “help to engineer the evolutionary ascent of man.”

This last group became the adherents of a malevolent new voodoo-science called Eugenics. They quickly became the most influential and powerful of all the insurgent ideologists striving to rule the affairs of men and nations. In fact, for the rest of the twentieth century they would unleash one plague after another—a whole plethora of designer disasters —upon the unsuspecting human race.

The Eugenicists unashamedly espoused an elitist White Supremacy. Or to be more precise, they espoused an elitist Northern and Western European White Supremacy. It was not a supremacy based on the crass ethnic racism of the past but upon a new kind of “scientific” elitism deemed necessary to preserve “the best of the human race” in the face of impending doom. It was a very refined sort of supremacy that prided itself on rationalism, intellectualism, and progressivism.

And this racial supremacy, they believed, had to be promoted both positively and negatively. Through selective breeding, the Eugenicists hoped to purify the blood lines and improve the stock of the “superior” Aryan race. The “fit” would be encouraged to reproduce prolifically. This was the positive side of Malthusian Eugenics. Negative Malthusian Eugenics, on the other hand, sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control, and abortion. The “unfit” would thus be slowly winnowed out of the population as chaff is from wheat.

By the first two decades of this century, according to feminist author Germaine Greer, “The relevance of Eugenic considerations was accepted by all shades of liberal and radical opinion, as well as by many conservatives.”5

Some forty states had enacted restrictive containment measures and established Eugenic asylums. Eugenics departments were endowed at many of the most prestigious universities in the world, including Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and Stanford. Funding for Eugenic research was provided by the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations. And Eugenic ideas were given free reign in the literature, theater, music, and press of the day.6

The crassest sort of prejudicial class bigotry was thus embraced against the bosom of pop culture as readily and enthusiastically as the newest movie release from Hollywood or the latest hit tune from Broadway. It became a part of the collective social consciousness. Its assumptions went almost entirely unquestioned. Because it sprang full-grown from the sacrosanct temple of science—like Aphrodite on the crest of the sea or Athena from the brow of Zeus—it was placed in the modern pantheon of “truth” and rendered due faith and service by all “reasonable men."7

Of course, not all men are “reasonable,” and so, quite thankfully, Malthusian Eugenics was not without its critics. The great Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton, for example, fired unrelenting salvos of biting analysis against the Eugenicists, indicting them for combining “a hardening of the heart with a sympathetic softening of the head,” and for presuming to turn “common decency” and “commendable deeds” into “social crimes.”8 If Darwinism was the doctrine of “the survival of the fittest,” then, he said, Eugenics was the doctrine of “the survival of the nastiest."9

In his remarkably visionary book Eugenics and Other Evils, Chesterton pointed out, for the first time, the link between Neo-Malthusian Eugenics and the evolution of Prussian and Volkish Monism into Fascist Nazism. “It is the same stuffy science,” he argued, “the same bullying bureaucracy, and the same terrorism by tenth-rate professors, that has led the German Empire to its recent conspicuous triumphs.”10

But singular voices like Chesterton’s were soon drowned out by the din of acceptance. Eugenics was the progenitor of political correctness. Long latent biases heretofore held at bay by moral convention were suddenly liberated by “science.” Men were now justified in indulging their petty prejudices. And they took perverse pleasure in it, as all fallen men are wont to do.

Keen as she was to remain on the cutting edge of the haute kultursmog, Margaret readily embraced the racist aims and ambitions of Eugenic elitism. She was at the forefront of the fad. And it was to shape all that she was to do and all that she was to be in the momentous years that followed.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Killer Angel: Biography of Margaret Sanger, by George Gr

Postby admin » Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:03 am

PART FOUR: The End of Man

The whole point of the Eugenic pseudo-scientific theories is that they are to be applied wholesale by some more sweeping and generalizing money power than the individual husband or wife or household. Eugenics asserts that all men must be so stupid that they cannot manage their own affairs; and also so clever that they can manage each other’s.

—G. K. Chesterton1
 

7: Sex Education

Mankind declares this with one deafening voice: that sex may be ecstatic so long as it is also restricted. That is the beginning of all purity; and purity is the beginning of all passion.

--G. K. Chesterton2


AS IMPORTANT AS HER MALTHUSIAN Institutional and intellectual connections were in shaping her destiny, Margaret’s English exile gave her the opportunity to make some critical interpersonal connections that were more important still. Her bed became a veritable meeting place for the Fabian upper crust: H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Arbuthnot Lane, and Norman Haire. Free from what she considered “the smothering restrictions of marital fidelity,” she indulged in a nymphomaniacal passion for promiscuity and perversion.

Not satisfied even with this kind of extreme lasciviousness, she also began an unusual and tempestuous affair with Havelock Ellis.

Ellis was the iconoclastic grandfather of the Bohemian sexual revolution. The author of nearly fifty books on every aspect of concupiscence from sexual inversion to auto-eroticism, from the revolution of obscenity to the mechanism of detumescence, from sexual periodicity to pornographic eonism, he had provided the free love movement with much of its intellectual apologia.

Much to his chagrin, however, he himself was sexually impotent. Thus, he spent his life in pursuit of new and ever more exotic sensual pleasures. He staged elaborate orgies for his Malthusian and Eugenicist friends; he enticed his wife into innumerable lesbian affairs while he luridly observed in a nearby closet; he experimented with mescaline and various other psychotropic and psychedelic drugs; and he established an underground network for both homosexual and heterosexual extemporaneous encounters.

To Margaret, Ellis was a modern-day saint. She adored him at once, both for his radical ideas and for his unusual bedroom behavior. Their antics are beyond the pale of decent discussion and somehow manage to transcend the descriptive capacities of pedestrian prose. They are best left unexamined.3

But the inculcation of animal instinct was not the only perversity they conjured together. The two of them began to plot a strategy for Margaret’s cause. Ellis emphasized the necessity of political expediency—he believed that she would need to shortly return to New York in some sort of triumphant display of faux courage and leadership. But that would mean a few public relations adjustments. Margaret would have to tone down her rabid pro-abortion stance, of course. And she would have to take charge of her children once again—as distasteful as that chore would be for her—in an effort to rehabilitate her image. She would also, he said, have to distance herself from revolutionary rhetoric. The scientific and philanthropic-sounding themes of Malthus and Eugenics would have to replace the politically charged themes of old-line labor Anarchism and Socialism.

By the time her year in England was over, Margaret’s ideas were firmly in place, her strategy was thoroughly mapped out, and her agenda was carefully outlined. She set out for America with a demonic determination to alter the course of Western civilization. Ultimately, she would succeed, but the course she and Ellis designed was not without its high hurdles.

Margaret’s first task after crossing the Atlantic, of course, was to face up to the year-old legal charges still outstanding against her. Using the skills she had long before developed in the IWW protests and labor strikes, she launched a brilliant public relations campaign that so rallied public support for her cause that the authorities were forced to drop all charges.

She had won her first victory.

Then, in order to capitalize on all the publicity that her victory had generated, she embarked on a three-and-a-half month, coast-to-coast speaking tour. She was a stunning success, drawing large, enthusiastic crowds and garnering controversial press coverage everywhere she went.

Another victory.

Next, she decided to open an illegal, back-alley birth control clinic. Papers, pamphlets, and speeches could only do so much to usher in the revolution. Following her Malthusian and Eugenic instincts, she opened her clinic in the Brownsville section of New York, an area populated by newly immigrated Slavs, Latins, Italians, and Jews. She targeted the “unfit” for her crusade to “save the planet.”4

But there would be no victory for Margaret Sanger in this venture. Within two weeks, the clinic had been shut down by the authorities. Margaret and her sister, Ethel, were arrested and sentenced to thirty days each in the workhouse for the distribution of obscene materials and the prescription of dangerous contraband and deleterious medical procedures.

Predictably, Margaret was undeterred. As soon as she was released, she founded a new organization, the Birth Control League, and began to publish a new magazine, The Birth Control Review. She was still intent on opening a clinic, but her time in jail had convinced her that she needed to cultivate a broader following before she made another attempt at that. She thought that perhaps the new organization and magazine would help her do just that. And, she was right—the organization and the magazine were the inauspicious beginnings of the international empire she would later dub with the innocuous-sounding moniker, Planned Parenthood.

Though she was now drawing severe public criticism from such men as the fiery popular evangelist Billy Sunday, the famed Catholic social reformer John Ryan, and the gallant former president Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret was gaining stature among the urbane and urban intelligentsia. Money began to pour into her office as subscriptions and donations soared. And the fact that articles from influential authors such as H. G. Wells, Pearl Buck, Julian Huxley, Karl Menninger, Havelock Ellis, and Harry Emmerson Fosdick appeared on the pages of the Review only boosted Margaret’s topsy-turvy respectability that much more.

By 1922 her fame and fortune were unshakably secure. She had won several key legal battles, had coordinated an international conference on birth control, and had gone on a very successful round-the-world lecture tour. Her name was quickly becoming a household word, and one of her numerous books had become an instant bestseller in spite of -- or perhaps because of— the tremendous controversy it had caused.

Entitled The Pivot of Civilization, it was one of the first popularly written books to openly expound and extol Malthusian and Eugenic aims. Throughout its verbose 284 pages, Margaret unashamedly called for the elimination of “human weeds,” for the “cessation of charity,” for the segregation of “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,” and for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.”5

In one passage, she followed the Malthusian party line advocating the abandonment of all forms of charity and compassion. She wrote:

Even if we accept organized charity at its own valuation, and grant it does the best it can, it is exposed to a more profound criticism. It reveals a fundamental and irremedial defect. Its very success, its very efficiency, its very necessity to the social order are the most unanswerable indictment. Organized charity is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defective, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the failure of philanthropy, but rather at its success. These dangers are inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste.6


Again, she wrote:

The most serious charge that can be brought against modern benevolence is that it encourages the perpetuation of defective, delinquents, and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression. Philanthropy is a gesture characteristic of modern business lavishing upon the unfit the profits extorted from the community at large. Looked at impartially, this compensatory generosity is in its final effect probably more dangerous, more dysgenic, more blighting than the initial practice of profiteering.7


Published today, such a book would be labeled immediately as abominably racist and totalitarian. But writing when she did, Margaret only gained more acclaim. It was, after all, the heyday of Socialism and its ideological kissing-cousin, Fascism.

Paradoxically, her cause seemed all but unstoppable now. Margaret’s great social revolution had truly begun.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Next

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron