Lawrence Lader, the Father of the Abortion Rights Movement.

Before we begin with today's topic, it should be known that I oppose abortion, except in the instances of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. If you are interested, you can read more of my views on the subject here. Also, please note that this is a very long post. I ask your forgiveness in advance.

What's crackin folks?

Now it's pretty common knowledge that Betty Friedan and company made abortion one of the central issues of the feminist movement.

What is perhaps, less well known is that, even when it comes to abortion, there was a MAN working behind the scenes to urge the lemm... err feminists, and the women that buy into such foolishness, over the cliff.

That man would be Mr. Lawrence Lader.

As we read in the Washington (Feminist) Post:

Lawrence Lader, 86, an abortion rights activist who wrote an influential 1966 book on the history of the procedure and started a laboratory in suburban New York to manufacture the French abortion pill RU-486, died of colon cancer May 7 at his home in New York.

For 40 years, Mr. Lader was a clarion voice on behalf of women seeking abortions and for ensuring that the procedure was safe, legal and available. One of his books, titled simply "Abortion" (1966), was cited eight times in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Note his involvement in the Roe v. Wade decision, which was the first step to the total dismemberment of the traditional Rights of Man to a stable family life and even to their own offspring.

The Post continues:

He was one of the founders of what is now known as NARAL-Pro Choice America. He left that group 30 years ago to start Abortion Rights Mobilization, and through it set up a secret laboratory to copy RU-486, or mifepristone, for distribution by clinical researchers because its European makers declined to enter the U.S. market...

... Described as the father of the abortion-rights movement by feminist Betty Friedan, Mr. Lader was an uncompromising advocate of a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. But after years of debating abortion opponents on radio and television, he ultimately refused to appear with them, his wife said, and he discarded the reams of hate mail that opponents sent to his home...

... He first addressed reproductive issues while writing a 1955 biography of birth-control pioneer Margaret Sanger. Sanger was anti-abortion and argued that birth control could solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies, but Mr. Lader believed that medical advances since she formed her opinions had made abortions safer. He came to believe "a woman had to be able to control her own fertility," he told the Los Angeles Times in 1995. While researching Sanger, he also realized that there had been no serious book or article written on abortion."

In addition, the Catholic League tells us that:

Lawrence Lader had come to the abortion issue through his involvement with various leftist causes in New York politics after World War II through the American Labor Party. According to Nathanson, "(Lader) had a long history of being ultra-radical and anti-Catholic. He was for a time a political aide to Vito Marcantonio, who was the only card-carrying Communist ever elected to Congress."8 Vito Marcantonio (1902-1954) was considered the most radical congressman to ever serve consecutive terms and was charged with being a Communist.

Representing New York’s East Harlem from 1935-1937, 1939-1950, he espoused various radical causes (he was opposed to the Marshall Plan and cast the lone vote against the Korean War) and claimed to be the unofficial congressional representative of Puerto Rico. He defended America’s Communist Party, and ran for office when abandoned by Republicans and Democrats under the American Labor Party, which was considered a Communist front group.9 Through this early involvement with Marcantonio and extreme leftist circles, Lader was, according to Nathanson, "inoculated with the anti-Catholicism virus"10 years before he was involved in the abortion movement.

Lader, the son of a wealthy family, became a wandering journalist developing articles on different causes until he struck on Margaret Sanger’s birth control crusade in the 1950s. In 1955 he authored his first book, "Margaret Sanger and the Fight for Birth Control," which nurtured his animus toward Catholics, as Sanger certainly faced strong opposition from the Catholic Church in her campaign to encourage widespread contraceptive use among the poor and minorities. Lader was clearly influenced as well by the eugenics crusades of the 1930s and 1940s that would evolve into the Zero Population Growth movement. (In 1971, he would author "Breeding Ourselves to Death.")

But very early, Lader would focus his efforts on the issue of abortion: "(Sanger’s) doctrines shaped my future writing and campaigns on birth control and abortion. Sanger opposed abortion – she was horrified after watching large numbers of poor women line up on Saturday nights outside the offices of quack abortionists during her nursing days in New York. But she stirred my thinking by making me read the one medical text on the subject. I agonized over abortion for years, increasingly convinced that contraception alone could never handle the problem of unwanted pregnancies; that the horrors of back-alley abortions must be stopped and the procedure safely performed in hospitals and clinics. When I published my first book calling for legalization of abortion in 1966, and became overnight a campaigner rather than a writer, it was as though every step I made was with Margaret Sanger’s ghost at my side, directing my strategy."11

Firstly, please note the connection between Lader and Sanger, one of the leading figures in the Eugenics movement. As readers of this blog know from earlier posts, Sanger was a firm advocate of selective breeding; in other words, those who were "unfit," the wrong skin color, or not intelligent enough, didn't deserve to reproduce. You can read the full text of "The Pivot of Civilization", one of her most influental works here.

Furthermore, I have shown extensively how Sanger and others have been tools in fulfilling an agenda that was first proposed over two thousand years previous. Observant readers will note that, although Sanger "officially" was opposed to abortion, Mr. Lader was ready, willing, and able to implement the next step of the endgame. I've pointed out before that our Leftist friends are masters at using the technique of Just Noticeable Difference in order to soften up We the People for the next level of heartlessness and brutality.

Secondly, it is plain that Friedan and feminist thinkers haven't been able to produce a truly original philosophy. At every stage of their "movement," they were being manipulated by MEN, perish the thought.

Women's liberation my ass.

Sanger herself was influenced heavily by the Eugenicists that came before her, and powerful men such as John D Rockefeller, gave her valuable funding and other material support.

As Eugenics-Watch.com notes:

A feminist author, Germaine Greer, commented on the post-war movement, saying: "It now seems strange that men who had been conspicuous in the eugenics movement were able to move quite painlessly into the population establishment at the highest level, but if we reflect that the paymasters were the same -- Ford, Mellon, Du Pont, Standard Oil, Rockefeller and Shell -- are still the same, we can only assume that people like Kingsley Davis, Frank W. Notestein, C. C. Little, E. A. Ross, the Osborns Frederick and Fairfield, Philip M. Hauser, Alan Guttmacher and Sheldon Segal were being rewarded for past services."

In other words, the population control movement was the same as the old eugenics movement -- the same money, the same leaders, the same activities -- but with a new excuse.

When I say that feminism is a symptom of a larger sickness, this is what I mean. There is overwhelming evidence that the bulk of the feminist movement was planned, aided, and executed by men. Feminism is nothing but a Trojan Horse, constructed by those that seek to dominate and destroy.

Consider:

A. Plato, The Republic, 375 B.C.

“… our men and women Guardians should be forbidden by law to live together in separate households, and all the women should be in common to all the men; similarly, children should be held in common, and no parent should know it’s child, or child its parent (p.168).”

“As law-giver, you have already picked your men Guardians. You must now pick women of as nearly similar natural capacities as possible to go with them. They will live and feed together, and have no private home or property. They will mix freely in their physical exercises and the rest of their training, and their natural instincts will necessarily lead them to have sexual intercourse… But … it would be a sin either for mating or anything else in a truly happy society to take place without regulation. Our Rulers would not allow it (p. 169).”

Plato goes on to give an example of “hunting dogs and game birds (p. 170),” and how breeders of these animals take great care to make sure that they, “breed from the best of them (p.170).”

The philosopher sums it up by saying that, “We must, if we are to be consistent, and if we’re to have a real pedigree herd, mate the best of our men with the best of our women as often as possible, and the inferior men with the inferior women as seldom as possible, and bring up only the offspring of the best. And no one but the Rulers must know what is happening, if we are to avoid dissension in our Guardian herd (p.171).”

B. Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical get riled up about this shameful intention of the communists.

What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution.

The family of the (41) bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes.

Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime.

But, you say, we abolish the closest relationships, by putting social education in place of the domestic one.

And, isn't your education, too, determined through society? Through the social circumstances, within whose scope (42) you educate, through the direct or indirect involvement of society, by means of the education system, etc.? The communists are not inventing the influence of society on education, they are only changing its character, they tear education away from the influence of the ruling class.

The common turns of speech about family and education, about the close relationships of parents and children become the more revolting the more as a result of burgeoning industrial development the family ties for the proletarian are torn apart and children are simply transformed into articles of trade and instruments of labour.

C. Bill Woods, 1926 - late 1970's.

THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL

In 1926, an Italian communist named Antonio Gramsci ended up in Mussolini’s prison after a return from Russia. While there, he wrote his “prison notebooks” and they laid out a plan for destroying Western faith and culture. His plans included ways to undermine and discourage Westerners through the intentional collapse of the existing social structure from within.

Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time. His theories and the “slow march through the culture” (or institutions) which he envisioned to destroy the West are enshrined in current American social policy. His theories surrounding “hegemony” and a “counter-hegemony” were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the “West” from within.

Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people. Western social structures holding society together (i.e. “the hegemony”) include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth. His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message.

"... Hegemony operates culturally and ideologically through the institutions of civil society which characterises mature liberal-democratic, capitalist societies. These institutions include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture, etc." [ii]

Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the “slow march through the culture,” Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world. A similar form of these theories was tried before America by the National Socialists (Nazis) headed by Hitler.

Many of the Gramscian Marxist Communist ideals have been implemented in government, education, and law. In practice, women have become the vehicle deceived and used in this quest to tear down and destroy Western culture. This has been done by enlisting their help in ripping apart marriage and the traditional family.

Since economic Marxism was a failure, Gramsci reasoned that the only way to topple… Western institutions was by, what he called, a “long march through the culture.” He repackaged Marxism in terms of a… “cultural war”…

“Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and ‘fathers’ who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society.”

…[A]nother cultural Marxist (George Lukacs) brought the Gramscian strategy to the schools… As deputy commissioner in Hungary… his first task was to put radical sex education in the schools… it was the best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the family. Hungarian children learned… free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived man of pleasure. Children were urged to deride and ignore… parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality. If this sounds familiar, it is because this is what is happening in our public… schools.

…Under the rubric of ‘diversity,’ its hidden goal is to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. The cultural Marxists, often teachers, university professors and administrators, TV producers, newspaper editor and the like, serve as gatekeepers by keeping all traditional and positive ideas, especially religious ideas, out of the public marketplace.

Herbert Marcuse was largely responsible for bringing cultural Marxism to the United States… He believed that all taboos, especially sexual ones, should be relaxed. “Make love, not war!” was his battle cry that echoed through ivy-covered college campuses all over America. His methodology for rebellion included the deconstruction of the language, the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of the culture. By confusing and obliterating word meanings, he helped cause a breakdown in the social conformity of the nation, especially among the… young of America...

Marcuse said that women should be the cultural proletariat who transformed Western society. They would serve as the catalyst for the new Marxist Revolution. If women could be persuaded to leave their traditional roles as the transmitters of culture, then the traditional culture could not be transmitted to the next generation.

What better way to influence the generations than by subverting the traditional roles of women? The Marxists rightfully reasoned that the undermining of women could deal a deadly blow to the culture.

If women were the target, then the Cultural Marxists scored a bullseye… Women have traded the domestic tranquility of family and the home for the power surge of the boardroom and the sweaty release of casual sex. Divorce court statistics, wife and child abandonment, abortion and even spousal murder can be laid at [the feminists] doorstep to a large degree. [iii]

D. Mansfield, Manliness, 2006.

"Manly in substance, feminism is womanly in manner. Rather than by violent revolution, feminism undertook to bring on the gender neutral society by raising consciousness. Unlike the manly suffragettes, who broke the law and demonstrated scandalously in public places, the feminists... were so law abiding that none of them spent a moment in jail. Raising consciousness was intended to make women and men aware of how much society is prejudiced against women... (Mansfield, Manliness, p. 149)."

The author goes on to expose the real villains behind feminism, and their brand of "shaming language":

"Consciousness is a word used by Marx, and conscious-raising is a compound of neo-Marxist origin that was apparently first used in 1969 in the Red Stocking Manifesto, coauthored by Shulamith Firestone when she helped found a radical feminist group in New York... the term is a reminder that feminism came from the left and that it owed much to Marx's critique of Liberalism; many of the early feminists considered themselves to be Marxists, and (Betty) Friedan herself was either a communist or close to communists in the 1940's (p. 150) [a][b][c]."

E. Mansfield, Manliness p. 151.

"The way to liberation that economics (i.e. Marxism - Kumo) could not provide was open to psychology, and feminists turned gratefully to (male) psychologists. Friedan actually studied with two of the most important: Erik Erikson, who touted the concept of identity, and Kurt Lewin, who pushed sensitivity. Erikson, following Nietzsche, showed how identity could be both an individual and a social creation, but Lewin had an even greater sucess with the notion of sensitivity, to which we owe the Sensitive Male. The gender neutral society is much indebted to post-Nietzchean pyschology of this sort."

F. Mansfield, Manliness p. 159-159.

"... the academic feminists base their psycho-philosophical theories on the work of two men particularly, Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault. Both were French, and they provided sophisicated simplification of the thoughts of great minds (such as Nietzsche and Heidegger) for the use of academic disciplines. Difficult thoughts were brought down to the level where common professors could handle them...

... While Lacan helped out the feminists with Freud, Michel Foucault translated Nietzsche for them into a theory they believed they could use. Foucault took from Nietzsche the idea that knowledge is a form of power ("will to power") rather than the result of a simple desire or yearning to know...

... If women are not defined in some fixed respects by nature, then women are either what they make of themselves or what they are made by others, either creators or creatures."

G. Dinesh D'Souza, The Enemy at Home, 2007.

"I believe the reason why feminism prevailed so easily is that from the beginning, the feminists had the tact support of many men. Contrary to the predictions of the feminists, the patriarchy offered no serious resistance to women's liberation. Many men realized that feminists were championing something men have always sought, something that the ethic of the nuclear family denied them. Men discovered in women's liberation a means to have sex with many women without having to marry or support any of them. This was even better than polygamy, which allowed men to have multiple wives but required the husband to look after all of them. Consequently many men--especially rich, powerful men looking to expand their options---enthusiastically backed the feminist goal of liberation (D'Souza, The Enemy At Home, p. 170)."

F. D'Souza.

It may seem odd, given the state of the American family, that a group of Americans would seek to attack and transform the domestic institutions of other cultures where the family remains intact, most children grow up with two parents and a host of relatives, and where divorce rates remain extremely low. Yet for the past three decades, the cultural left (i.e. Cultural Marxists [d][e], Globalists and others) has been conducting a global campaign to impose liberal (i.e. Platonic [f] ) family values on non-Western cultures. Nicholas Kristof expresses the rationale for this enterprise: "The central moral challenge we face today is to address gender equality in the developing world (D'Souza p. 154)."

"The problem... is that most of the world subscribes to traditional values.
Therefore, "cultural change is a necessary condition for gender equality." Feminist Ellen Wills calls for a "serious long range strategy" to combat what she calls "authoritarian patriarchal religion, culture and morality... all over the world, including the Islamic world." Consequently, the family has become ground zero in the global culture war (p.154)".

So what does the UN have to do with all this? According to the author:

"The campaign to undermine traditional values worldwide is spearheaded by feminist groups like the Association for Women's Rights in Development, population control groups [g] like Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives one third of its funds from the U.S. government, has clinics all over the world (p. 154)"...

"Feminist groups provide funding and legal support to indigenous
activists seeking to pressure non-Western courts and governments to make divorce as easy to obtain as it is in the West.

With the help of ideologues like Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland who served as the U.N. high comissioner for human rights, the left works through international agencies to pass resolutions undermining the traditional family. This campaign has been going on since 1979, when the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) first defined women's rights in opposition to the family and proposed abortion as a "reproductive right" protected by international law.

These rights were affirmed and extended at the 1994 Cairo conference on population, the 1995 Bejing conference on women, and the 2002 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Armed with the proceedings of these international meetings, the left proclaims a whole set of newly enacted rights and then browbeats non-Western governments to change their laws or be declared in violation of international norms and treaties. For the cultural left, "international law" provides a mechanism to penetrate the otherwise-opaque barrier of national sovereignty (p. 155)."

There are many more examples of feminists borrowing the ideas of great male philosophers and making them their own, as well as men pulling the strings behind the scenes. And unfourtunately, those who believe that they can murder unborn children at will are being manipulated on a level they cannot begin to contemplate.

So then the story of Mr. Lader should be a reminder that, while feminism is the active and best weapon of those who wish to deceive, to focus exclusively on the bad things that women do, or the feminist movement that eggs them on, are those who cannot see the forest for the trees. There are bigger powers at work here, ladies and gentlemen, and we must focus our efforts on finding them, exposing them, and neutrilizing their poisonious idealism.

Be sure to read more about Mr. Lader at your leisure [1][2]

Kumogakure Out.