| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
 Posted - 05/27/2008 : 05:01:21
|
We live in a time when Christian principles regarding families are no longer considered valid and, in reality, are despised. We have witnessed this change in all aspects of law but especially those laws affecting marriage. Divorce has become commonplace; artificial birth control is widespread; an abortion is easier to obtain than any other medical procedure.
The attack upon the family has been slow but steady and sustained for the past 200 years. We know, however, that its seed was planted in the Garden of Eden with Eve's first act of disobedience against God and her success in persuading Adam with visions of grandeur—if only he would do likewise. They, who had everything that God had to offer, opted instead for all of the empty promises and vain glories that were never to be realized. The effects of that decision remain with us today.
Now, as then, woman was the key. The appeal had to be made first to her. The fathers of marxism, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, understood this and saw in woman the means by which the struggle for the destruction of the family would be won. Engels identified the family as the basic unit of capitalist society and of female oppression. He said, "The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife." Marx wrote of private property as the root of women's oppression. The close alliance between feminism and socialism was forged in the nineteenth century. According to the book Socialist Women, "Socialists formulated the first political theory to encompass the rights of women and the political parties which they later founded were the first to inscribe women's rights in their programs and to open the doors of their meetings to females. In 1891, the Second International, an association that guided the international socialist movement, mandated that member parties advocate the equality of women."
Anna Kuliscioff (1854-1925), co-founder of the Italian Socialist Party and staunch advocate of women's liberation, pointed out that the final goal for women must be the radical transformation of society in which even the present family structure would disappear. She said that even the practice of having children brought up by the community would be only the slow and natural outgrowth of the already existing schools and day-care centers that aided in the education of the young. She also indicated that this could not be accomplished overnight as it was "not politic to arouse fears of the immediate destruction of the existing family structure." No, it was not good politics to let the people know what the real purpose was behind all of the propaganda called "equality."
The task before these early advocates of socialism was to convince enough women that they were oppressed and offer them the promise of "liberation" so that they could be persuaded to join the fight against their "oppressor." It would appear that the "plan" had come to fruition in the 20th Century.
Early in the beginning of the century, leading advocates of women's rights in this country were working in favor of a number of issues which they deemed important to women and they included socialism, free love, atheism, trade unions, birth control and easy divorce. Only later did they center their attention on issues like the vote. Opposition to marriage was primary as this was regarded as an institution designed for the subjugation of the female sex. It follows from this that what they regarded as the source of the "oppression" had to be Christianity and especially the Catholic Church. Elizabeth Cady Stanton (close associate of Susan B. Anthony) despised the Bible to the extent that she rewrote it calling it "The Women's Bible" which is widely used by feminists today.
Later on in the century, we encounter the feminists again-different names and faces but the propaganda is the same. This time the issue is the Equal Rights Amendment and while we cannot give it a proper explanation in this article, suffice to say it will accomplish, if it passes, what all socialists work toward—the rights of the family subjected to the dictates of the State.
On a world wide scale, in 1972 a resolution was introduced before the United Nations General Assembly by the Women's International Democratic Federation (WIDF) to declare 1975 as International Women's Year (IWY). The UN also designated that 1975-1985 be set aside as the Decade for Women and will use this time to push the World Plan of Action which was drawn up at the World Conference in Mexico in 1975. The theme of that conference was the establishment of a "New International Economic Order." Some of the goals of the World Plan include: "international cooperation and the strengthening of international peace [disarmament]; education and training as a right; recognition of domestic work as employment; adequate social security coverage and child care facilities; ready access to health and nutrition programs; reevaluations of the role of women in family life and marriage practices; and provisions of information and means for individual determination of numbers and spacing of offspring." All UN agencies, member governments, regional commissions and international organizations are called upon to implement these goals which will be overseen by the Economic and Social Council of the UN.
As part of the UN Decade for Women, the UN has declared 1979 as the International Year of the Child (IYC). This Year coincides with the 20th anniversary of the Declaration on the Rights of the Child adopted by the UN on November 20,1959, and to quote the UN—"to promote further its implementation." Not all countries have cooperated with the UN in adopting these resolutions which basically seek to make government responsible for the welfare, i.e. health, education, economic and social development of children. The Declaration states that the "special protection by law and other means" is in the "best interests" of the child but that is overshadowed by the fact that it never addresses the most important aspect of all—who decides what is in the "best interests" of the child? Parents get token recognition in the Declaration such as, "He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents ... a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother." What does it mean—"wherever possible?" What are these "exceptional circumstances?" Who decides?
The idea to proclaim a Year of the Child was first proposed, according to the UN, by Non-Governmental Organizations at the UNICEF Executive Board meeting in 1974. These NGO's were busy planning projects for IYC as early as 1975, a year before the UN even passed the resolution making it official. It was passed on the recommendation of the Economics and Social Council of the UN and UNICEF is in charge of its implementation.
On October 2, 1977, in Prague, Czechoslovakia, the first International Seminar in preparation for IYC was held and was sponsored by the International Committee for the United Nations Decade for Women. The president of this committee is Freda Brown. Ms. Brown is also the president of the WIDF which we have spoken of before and will again. Attending this conference were representatives from 84 international organizations, from 47 countries, and various representatives from the UN and member organizations. They were all there to report on their activities in connection with the IYC and to plan for a World Conference for IYC. The theme of this conference, they decided, would be "For a Peaceful and Secure Future for All Children."
Ms. Brown gave a report at this October conference in Prague in which she said that the highest priority for children was a world at peace. She said, "There must be an end to the arms race so that war budgets can be reduced and eventually abolished and money diverted to improve the conditions for all children." The examples she used of children deprived of their human rights were those living in South Africa, Chile, Palestine, Australia, and West Germany. She also quoted unemploy ment figures in the United States. She made her point very clear by her following statement, "In marked contrast, in the socialist countries all children have a free education, free health care, and a secure future."
"The intellectual and political forces more or less impregnated with atheism are set to destroy Christian civilization."
Some clarification is also needed by way of explanation of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) simply because they will play a large part in the implementation of the goals for IWY and IYC. These organizations are affiliated with the UN by choice because they accept the principles of the UN and then apply for NGO status. Some of them even have offices in the UN building and a complete list of NGO's is available from the UN Office of Public Information. A few of them are the ACLU, National Organization for Women (N.O.W.), NAACP, League of Women Voters, YMCA, YWCA, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, International Federation of Business and Professional Women, Planned Parenthood, ADA, and Gray Panthers. It isn't too difficult to understand how the ideas and plans of the IWY and IYC reach even the smallest communities.
|
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2008 : 05:59:39
|
Most feminists are products of a standardized indoctrination called "women's studies." (A large grant from the Ford Foundation in 1972 gave initial legitimacy to these programs, and now the majority of accredited colleges and universities have a program in "women's studies.")
In 1973 was published a book titled Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation. The author, Mary Daly, a former nun, announces a radical departure from Christianity; she no longer believes in a personal God. Her creed begins with: In the beginning was patriarchy and the exploitation of women. Everything in her world view is derived from this, and must be fitted to this, so the whole of Christianity is a "social construction" designed to exploit women. Chapter Five declares feminism to be Antiworld, Antichurch and Antichrist.
In 1978 appeared Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, about the close association between feminism and the ecology movement: "ecofeminism." In 1984 appeared Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy, having a cover resplendent with the image of a serpent, interpreted by Daly as satanic secret knowledge and extolled in lofty tones as "Dragon-identified" life.
In her books, Daly spends a great deal of effort mocking the Bible, Catholicism, and especially the Blessed Virgin Mary, a sore subject for all feminists. She frequently tries to shock the reader by statements like "To Sin is to come into the fullness of our powers." The subjects she is positive about, and which dominate the whole book, are sex (e.g., "Women-Touching women") and the demonic:
"As the reader recalls, the "fallen angels," according to Christian theology, are those who refused to surrender their natural autonomy to the Christian god and therefore were deprived of "eternal happiness," consisting in the "Beatific Vision" of the divine essence. Since Furiously Fey women refuse such surrender of autonomy, knowing that it involves a most unbeatific fission/fracturing of integrity, the "fallen angels" would appear to be important inspirers and allies".
Feminists are repeatedly and unmistakably identified with evil. More often than not, they are lesbians and many dub in witchcraft and other occult practices. An example:
"I suggest that there is a subliminal connection ... between the spirits represented by the names "principalities" and "powers"... and the spirits of Elemental Untamed women. Hostile and hateful intent expressed in violent statements about the former are also directed against the latter. Thus portrayals of Christ as one who "disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them" (Col. 2:15) can be decoded ... as ... descriptions of and justifications for male breaking, humiliating, and gloating over vanquished women".
Daly claims that witchcraft, magic, and divination are inherently and exclusively female powers. Males are jealous of this power, and their only purpose is "to hold down female power." Daly completely rejects the Christian world view, but clearly understands and explains that feminism is synonymous with what Christianity calls evil.
The empire of Satan is vast and totally confusing. If you invoke Satan, he is certain to come (assuming God permits it). He will come no matter what you claim to believe: by invoking him you have already stated your beliefs. And if he comes, you will be in his power. And it matters not how exactly you call him. Aleister Crowley did believe in Satan, whereas Anton LaVey (author of the Satanic Bible) claimed to be an atheist who did not believe in Satan, yet both were manifestly in the power of Satan. It matters little whether one is a "theologically oriented" Satanist offering explicit "worship" to Satan (through profaning a validly consecrated Host in what is known as the Black Mass), or one is just plain evil (secular sources call these "sick" Satanists), the eventual result is the same. Sexual perversions and licentiousness, homosexuality, abortion, killing and torturing humans and animals, ritual bloodletting and desecrating graves are among sure signs that one is in the power of the Evil One.
Feminist followers of Wicca strenuously insist that their "religion" is an innocent, ancient nature religion, and has nothing to do with Satanism. "I resent being classified with Satanism! Satanism has nothing whatsoever to do with women's religion." "Wiccans are not Satanists. I don't even believe there is a Satan."
Deliberately resorting to divination or magic is certainly an invitation to Satan. And feminist followers of Wicca do not for a second deny that they practice magic. Since magic cannot be practiced without the help of evil spirits, it is justified to consider them Satanists.
Another telling sign that evil is attractive to feminists is the increasing popularity in our times of Lilith, a female night demon, mentioned once in the Old Testament (Isaiah. 34:14). She came to play a great role in Talmudic demonology, where she (based on a misreading of Genesis) became the demon wife of Adam and the mother of demons. She is much like the gnostic Sophia: Sophia engenders the Demiurge, Lilith becomes the mother of countless demons. Both are considered feminist "role models."
Donna Steichen publishes the testimony of one feminist who was given the grace to disengage from Wicca:
"When I was a witch, I performed rituals. I evoked spirits. I called entities. I cast spells, burned candles, concocted brews. The only thing I didn't do was fly on a broom, but I probably would have figured it out if given time. But where did it lead to? Into darkness, depression and the creation of an aura of gloom around me. I was frequently under demon attack. The house where I lived was alive with poltergeist activity...due to residual "guests" from rituals. My friends and family were afraid of me. I knew I had no future; all I had was a dark present. I was locked in by oaths and "destiny." But I had power, something I'd always wanted. It wasn't Satan's fault. He didn't exist-or so I thought."
|
 |
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 10:13:21
|
The Family
The family is a divinely instituted society, and marriage is not only an indissoluble contract, but also one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, in 2002 AD, we have to spell out explicitly that, by divine decree, the family is made up of one man (the husband), one woman (the wife), and their children. This is because there is a war going on against the family, and one of the tools of secular society, hell-bent on destroying the family, is linguistic. The world offers numerous definitions for the family, mutually contradictory, none of them important in itself, but from the multiplicity of definitions one is to conclude that the concept of the family is arbitrary, fluid, and can mean anything one wants. (For example, according to the World Book Encyclopedia "a family commonly means a group of related persons who share a home."
On the sixth day of creation, one man and one woman were made directly by God, by forming the male body out of pre-existing matter, the female body out of the body of the first man, by creating out of nothing a soul for each, and then uniting soul to body as its form. God made only one man and one woman in this miraculous way; all others find their origin in descent from these two.
By creating one man and one woman in the beginning, God signified His will that marriage should come about between one man and one woman only. But He signifies His will continually by the remarkable and humanly inexplicable fact that the number of men and women remains always practically equal. With hardly any variation the number of boys and of girls born each year is the same. This peculiarity of nature, which cannot be influenced by man, also proclaims that the Lord and Creator of the world intended only one woman for each man.
Jesus Christ refers to this specific beginning of man and woman as the basis of the distinctive, unchanging (i.e., non-evolving) nature of marriage (Mt. 19:4). The divine intention could not be more clear and unmistakable, and as a consequence, the family cannot be changed or redefined.
" The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children ".
Jesus gives the desire to generate offspring as the reason for the existence of marriage. He says that in Heaven " they will not take wives or husbands, because they will no longer die..." In this gospel passage both procreation and life together are relegated to the passing world of earthly reality....When mortal life ceases, procreation ceases, and when procreation ceases so does marriage.
The secondary end of marriage is the mutual perfecting and fulfilling of the spouses, in the words of Pope Leo XIII:
...that the lives of husbands and wives might be made better and happier. This comes about in many ways: by their lightening each other's burdens through mutual help; by constant and faithful love; by having all their possessions in common; and by the heavenly grace which flows from the sacrament.
The lofty goal is to bring forth children for the Church, "fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God" (Eph. 2:19), ultimately to people Heaven with saints. A sublime dignity is offered to man and woman by this creative act which makes them, in the grand phrase of Pius XI, "the ministers of divine Omnipotence".
Human Sexuality and Reproduction
And God created man to His own image, to the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth (Gen. 1:27).
But the Creator had to do more than just give the command: "Increase and multiply"!
The human being is more weak and helpless at birth than any other animal and in accordance with a general law of nature, the great complexity and richness of the child's constitution is accompanied by a corresponding degree of fragility; if it is to live and develop it must receive unremitting attention from its mother for a number of years, such care as she cannot properly give unless she has a husband to ensure her own support. But there is a lot more to it than that, for it is the essential distinction of man from the beasts that his destiny is not fulfilled when his physical needs are provided for, biological requirements are not enough for his spiritual nature. The bringing-up of a child is much more than a matter of "raising"; it has to be educated in those practical and moral ideas which are its inheritance and help from the civilization in which it lives, and this is a long and hard task, almost impossible of success without a lasting and patient collaboration of the parents. We have only to look around us to see the increased moral and spiritual difficulties that beset children who have lost father or mother through death, and much the more when it is divorce that has broken up their natural home.
Bringing children not only into existence but to maturity in a manner consonant with the requirements of right reason is such an arduous and daunting task that the Creator had to motivate his creatures to propagate the human race by giving them the sexual passion, and by planting in the human heart a desire for parenthood. God purposefully attached the satisfaction of sex desire to the consequent process of procreation. Once man defies the divine intention by separating the two, he commits a grave sin against the natural law and the divine positive law. The sexual pleasure was meant by God to be the reward for the willingness to undertake the daunting task of having and properly raising children. So it is a violation of justice to seek a reward that one did not deserve.
This explains why the moral law is so strict concerning deliberate sins against chastity. One may be slightly intemperate, slightly dishonest, slightly untruthful, but no one can be slightly unchaste. A sin against the virtue of chastity, if fully deliberate, is always a mortal sin. This should not be surprising:
God is adamant that His plan for the creation of new human life shall not be twisted from His hand and distorted into an instrument to satisfy a perverse greed for pleasure and excitement.
That is why seeking sex-pleasure for its own sake, viewing it as an end in itself, is an utter repudiation of the natural law, manifestly injurious to society, and the Catholic Church never ceased to speak out against it:
Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
Scripture bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime, and at times punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it" (Gen. 38:8-10). The archangel Raphael spoke these words to Tobias:
Hear me and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut God out from themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power (Tob. 6:16-17).
The Indissolubility of Marriage
Marriage deprived of its sacred character, and made dissoluble, leads to tragedy, a veritable curse. Divorce is a curse on man, a still greater curse on woman, but it is the most dreadful curse on the children of the marriage. The wife is being deprived of her dignity and the children are left without protection as to their interests and well being. The human child needs both parents over a very long period of time, which is the main reason for the demand that marriage never be dissolved: "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mt. 19:6).
Pope Pius XII explains:
The family is sacred; it is the cradle not only of children but also of the nation....Do not let the family be alienated or diverted from the high purpose assigned to it by God. God wills that husband and wife, in loyal fulfillment of their duties to one another and to the family, should in the home transmit to the next generation the torch of temporal life and with it spiritual and moral life, Christian life; and that within the family, under the care of their parents, there should grow up men of straight character, of upright behavior, to become valuable unspoiled members of the human race, manly in good or bad fortune, obedient to those who command them and to God. That is the will of the Creator
Authority in the Family
In the home the husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The wife is subject to her husband and obeys him, not as a servant but as a companion. This is by explicit divine decree: "And thou shalt be under thy husband's power and he shall have dominion over thee" (Gen. 3:16). According to Genesis (2:21-22), woman is derived from man to take away his feeling of loneliness. Woman thus is second to man in creation. She is subject to man, but not because he is the end for which she exists. The end is the same for both: eternal life.
But in this modern world, mentioning of authority conjures up images of despots. The fact that God intends man to represent authority in the home does not mean that God put him there as a tyrant, or that obedience of the wife is the obedience of a slave to a master, of an inferior to a superior, of a minor incapable of decision to an adult. His headship in no way detracts from her dignity as wife, mother and companion.
The relationship cf husband and wife is that of Christ and His Church, the husband representing Christ and the wife the Church. "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church" (Eph. 5:22-23). This thought plainly shows that a wife's obedience is not toward man, but toward Christ. A wife obeys her husband for Christ's sake. Therefore it is quite natural that she obeys him only in things that Christ approves and allows.
[St. Paul's] words mean that order and domestic felicity cannot conform to the so-called "emancipation of women," whether the phrase is understood to mean physical or economic or social emancipation.
Physical emancipation would mean that a woman has the right to avoid the burdens that go with the dignity of wife and mother. Such a view Christianity condemns.
Economic emancipation would mean that a wife has the right to pursue an independent business career without her husband's knowledge and sanction, caring nothing for her family. Such a view Christianity condemns.
Social emancipation would consist in a woman's having the right to regard the realms of the home as too narrow, the right to neglect her domestic duties, to have no care of her husband and children, to engage rather in public affairs. Such a view Christianity cannot approve.
Where two people live together, one must lead, direct, we may even say "command." The family where this "commanding" and obedience are lacking will sooner or later disintegrate.
The natural place in which women express their personalities is the family and their particular task is the bringing up of children. Work away from the home is a disorder to be corrected. The wages of the husbands ought to be such as not to force mothers to work away from the home, to the detriment of family life and the upbringing of children. |
|
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 06:11:26
|
FEMINISM AS ANTI CHURCH
Religious Feminism
Marxism and feminism are closely related, and are similar in aims and methods. But according to Gertrud von Le Fort, feminism, and not the face of the Bolshevist proletarian disfigured by hatred, is the true expression of modern godlessness.
And when it comes to feminists claiming to be religious, it is again Gertrud von Le Fort who states most clearly what we have to understand: the feminist is dedicated only to the most miserable of all cults, that of her own body. At the First National Conference for Women's Spirituality, held in Boston in 1976, women danced bare-breasted in the church chanting The goddess lives! and Being a woman is divine! One recommendation of this conference was that women should set up altars with mirrors in their homes so as to be constantly reminded that they are the goddess. Their code of ethics is nothing but self-love: develop yourself, enjoy yourself, etc. The warnings of St. Paul: "the wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God...And they who are carnal cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7-8) are completely wasted on the feminist.
She defines herself by her rebellion against the Creator, and consequently, rejects the very basics of Catholicism, for example: "From the feminist viewpoint, the notion of an immortal soul is seen as fundamentally hostile to the body and to women."
The true religion, which accepts creaturely dependence on the Creator, and manifests itself in obedience to the Divine Will is, of course, totally and inevitably alien to the feminist. Feminists clearly understand that their views cannot be reconciled with Catholicism, and that is why nothing short of the extinction of the Church could placate them. Betty Friedan bluntly stated: the Church is the enemy, so the feminist agitation to dismantle the traditional Church is inevitable: The feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Yahweh....It is likely that as we watch Christ and Yahweh tumble to the ground, we will completely outgrow the need for an external God.
To feminists the Bible is a "loathsome book" and the Old Testament prophets, because of their opposition to polytheism, are virtual incarnations of evil. Jewish protests over their attacks on the Old Testament caused a rare instance of feminists restraining their venomous language.
Even the word "theology" should not be taken seriously when feminists use it, since they are concerned only with women and not with God. "The feminists will serve no transcendent deity, only the 'divine within': that is, only themselves." In fact, the place of "theology" (reasoned discourse about God), according to the wish of many feminist authors, is to be taken by "theo-fantasy" or "theo-poesy," which is justified when they freely invent for themselves an imaginary Trinity: "Our Mother, Jesa Christa and the Holy Spiritess."
For anyone who understands Marxism, feminism is easy to grasp:
At the center of feminist theology is a struggle for power in this world. The idea of a hope for the future that includes the individual person's living on after death is normally denied and spurned as a piece of patriarchal ideology ....religious feminists are not pious do-gooders, genuflecting in the face of oppression. [They] are committed agents for social change. (Steichen, Ungodly Rage, p.185)
The Goddess Is "Not Just God In a Skirt"
Feminism and Christianity cannot possibly be reconciled, and feminists fervently hope that the "male-dominated patriarchal Church" will simply wither away (another expression borrowed from Marxism). But feminist Carol P. Christ, in her essay "Why Women Need the Goddess," argued that women need a substitute (and the argument is repeating that of Jung):
Symbol systems cannot simply be rejected; they must be replaced. Where there is not any replacement, the mind will revert to familiar structures at times of crisis, bafflement or defeat....A question immediately arises, Is the Goddess simply female power writ large, and if so, why bother with the symbol of Goddess at all? Or does the symbol refer to a Goddess "out there" who is not reducible to a human potential?
She put the last question to Starhawk, who answered: It all depends on how I feel. When I feel weak, she is someone who can help and protect me. When I feel strong, she is the symbol of my own energy....
Not surprisingly, the favored alternative of feminists is pantheism, which is the inevitable triumph of immanentism. The feminist does not recognize God, she rejects Him. She wants to be the architect of her own destiny, she gives up every sense of law and the inner obligation of conscience. She trusts herself to her feelings, without feeling guilty about anything she does. She refuses to recognize her dependence on God, so she becomes an idol to herself.
And pantheism is combined with "myth-making," in which pursuit feminists increasingly rely on their "patron saint," Carl Gustav Jung. Many "feminist theologians," witches, and shamans are also trained Jungian psychologists. First of all, the Goddess is female: female physiology is the essential irreducible manifestation of the Goddess. Unlike the transcendent Father-God of the Bible, the Mother-Goddess, supposedly, gives birth to life and remains organically and tangibly connected to the earth, she is within all, not beyond all. The Goddess movement firmly aligns itself with the conception of the divine as naturally immanent within the physical universe: the world is intrinsically divine. This pantheism conveniently justifies the self-deification of feminists, and the total lack of a moral law to bind them. And from here it is but a short step to the "eco-feminist" contention that Mother Earth is alive, a concept commonly expressed through the name for the ancient Greek earth-goddess, Gaia.
Although monotheism, the claim that there is only one God, is the most implacable foe of the Goddess religion, feminists still want to claim that the Goddess is unique and singular (the innumerable polytheistic female deities are merely valuable images or representations of the one true Goddess). Unfortunately, the meaning of pantheism is that everything that exists constitutes a unity, and this all-inclusive unity is divine. So calling this unity a Goddess is just metaphoric speaking, but that suits feminists just fine (logic can be ignored, after all, it is only a tool of the male oppressors...). According to Starhawk, a feminist and practicing witch:
The symbolism of the Goddess is not a parallel structure to the symbolism of God the Father. The Goddess does not rule the world; She is the world ....The importance of the Goddess symbol for women cannot be over stressed. The image of the Goddess inspires women to see ourselves as divine, our bodies as sacred, the changing phases of our lives as holy, our aggression as healthy, and our anger as purifying. Through the Goddess, we can discover our strength, enlighten our minds, own our bodies, and celebrate our emotions.
The "symbolism of the Goddess" matches perfectly the description of Jung: "religion is imaginary, but good (meaning useful)." Feminists are enthusiastic supporters of Jungian psychology, which gives them a "scientific" justification for the pagan practices which spontaneously erupted among them.[/size=2] |
|
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2008 : 06:05:43
|
At the beginning of the 20th Century, huge fortunes were built by monopoly capitalists like J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller. Monopoly is the desire to have it all, and to drive everyone else out of existence. Evil is the spiritual cancer that seeks to "fulfill" itself not in God, but in unlimited material acquisition and sensual excesses.
It was not a large leap for the Rockefellers to go from owning the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry etc. to wanting to own the whole world. This is the reason that the Rockefeller foundation has been, and is, at the forefront of the population control and eugenics movement. Ultimately the goal is to reduce the earth's population for the simple warped reason that the less there is for you and me, the more there will be for the Rockefellers, Rothschild, Warburgs, and their cronies.
This so-called elite (Illuminati) loves birth control. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner are among the ultra rich that have donated billions to spreading the gospel of contraception, abortion, and feminism using the UN, EU, and USAID. Rockefeller funded the invention of the pill, the IUD and owns the rights to the abortion drug RU-486. In the last half century billions of public dollars have been pumped into family planning designed to limit population by deceit and coercion, including compulsory abortion and infanticide. In her book, The War Against Population (1988), Dr. Jacqueline Kasun writes that in 1981, a directory of population control agencies in Washington DC listed 92 private (but mostly publicly funded) agencies, 12 United Nations and 57 agencies of the US government (p. 198). She wrote, The real problem of government family planning is not one of families out of control but of planners out of control (p.211).
For the same reason, this same Elite is behind sexual liberation and gay liberation. Through funding and media control, they make us regard sex as a recreation/physical release rather than as the expression of a loving marriage resulting in children. Note that Women Studies departments in universities all over the world are the best funded departments. Why?
A blogger, somewhere on the internet, said I am having a hard time believing that a group of elites could agree on anything, let alone a far reaching evil agenda...[It] seems like the process of achieving this agenda is too slow for any bad people...requires too much flawless, seamless, secretive, cooperation...The only entity with that kind of plan and patience with that kind of plan and patience would have to be the devil himself, wouldn't it?
The Elite modus operandi is to finance and promote disgruntled minorities in order to destabilize and undermine the world. Feminism is a prime example. It pretends to be about giving women equal opportunity in the workplace when in fact it is devoted to discouraging women from seeking fulfillment in motherhood. In referring to feminism as the right of women to fair and equal treatment in the workplace, this Illuminati-Freemason cabal, the synagogue of Satan, has created a façade for a far more pernicious agenda, the destruction of heterosexuality and the nuclear family. Since the family is the foundation of society, their goal is to destroy the foundations of society, instituted by Almighty God, and replace it with their own evil, impious, and totally Godless society.
Now, who else would boldly rise up against Almighty God, if not that infernal spirit Lucifer, the eternal archenemy of God, and mankind.
In the view of Kenneth Minogue, Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics, the radical feminist revolution is nothing less than a destruction of our civilization. It has all happened in such a way that people have not yet realized what has happened. Mankind has entered a new Dark Age without knowing at all what is happening.
In the bible of modern feminism, The Feminine Mystique (1963), Betty Frieden makes this obscene comparison between housewives and Nazi concentration camp inmates:
They were reduced to childlike preoccupation with food, elimination, the satisfaction of primitive bodily needs; they had no privacy, and no stimulation from the outside world. But above all, they were forced to spend their days in work which produced great fatigue...required no mental concentration, gave no hope of advancement or recognition, was sometimes senseless, and was controlled by the needs of others...(306)
Clearly Frieden is talking about mothers. Comparing the nurturing of their children to the brutal slavery and poisoning of Auschwitz inmates is psychological warfare of the most vicious kind. Friedan, who hid the fact that she was a paid Communist activist, should have been denounced as a hate monger. Instead she was celebrated as the new oracle and received honorary degrees and fellowships at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. Saturday Review called her book "a scholarly work, appropriate for serious study" and anthropologist Ashley Montegu said it was "the wisest, sanest, soundest, most understanding and compassionate treatment of American woman's greatest problem."
Do we need further proof that the world is one-horse company town, and J.D. Rockefeller and his cabal own the company? They decide which politicians, universities and academics get funding, which books get published and reviewed, which movies get made. That's why we are so skeptical of conspiracy. That's why authors who try to publish writings and article in warning don't get published. On the other hand, Eve Eisler, is reading her pornographic play The Vagina Monologues on HBO. This "play, " which features women looking at their genitals with hand mirrors and describing steamy scenes of lesbian sex with minors, masquerades as feminist empowerment. In fact, it is an invitation to lesbianism.
Feminism fits the elite's depopulation agenda. Since 1963, when The Feminine Mystique was published we have experienced an unprecedented breakdown in the family. More than half of all children are now born out of wedlock; the number of single parent households has tripled. In The Broken Hearth, William Bennett writes: Most of our social pathologies, crime, imprisonment rates, welfare, educational underachievement, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, depression, STD's, are manifestations, direct and indirect, of the crackup of the American family (p.4).
The "developed nations" are now suffering from underpopulation. The US birthrate has been cut from 4 to 2 children per woman, the European and Canadian is 1.5. (2.2 is needed just for replacement). Russia (1.17 children) will see its population plummet from 145 million to 115 million by 2015. In the Death of the West, Pat Buchanan argues that population decline is responsible for the inevitable extinction of the West.
Reproduction requires the most delicate care. In the case of human beings, the female must be prepared for motherhood and honored for her contribution to society. The male must be shown that the standard of manhood is to provide leadership and sustenance for mother and children. Both mother and father must be able to give their children intellectual and spiritual guidance.
Instead, in schools and universities, the tender shoots of feminine sexuality are crushed under the feminist jackboot. Young women are taught that heterosexual sex, marriage and family are inherently oppressive. Homosexuality on the other hand is an act of rebellion that is "chic" and "normal."
Frieden's comparison of mothers with the concentration camp inmates is pertinent. Betty Frieden, agent of the elite cabal, has put mothers in the concentration camp. Mothers!? The ultimate aim is genocide. The Elite want the world's population to be much smaller.
Christian brethren, can there be any question that this is the devil's work?
It will also help to remember that great battle in heaven, which St. John describes in Apoc.12, in which the obedient and holy angels, filled with an ardent desire of hastening the glory of the Most High and the honor of the incarnate Word, to resist and contradict the dragon (Lucifer). Also another mystery was concealed in all this: When it was revealed to the angels that they would have to obey the incarnate Word, another, a third precept was given them, namely, that they were to admit as a superior conjointly with Him, a Woman, in whose womb the Onlybegotten of the Father was to assume flesh and that this Woman was to be the Queen and Mistress of all the creatures. The good angels by obeying this command of the Lord, with still increasing and more alert humility, freely subjected themselves, praising the power and the mysteries of the Most High. Lucifer, however, and his confederates, rose to a higher pitch of pride and boastful insolence. In disorderly fury Lucifer aspired to be himself the head of all the human race and of the angelic orders, and if there was to be a hypostatic union, he demanded that it be consummated in him.
The decree constituting him inferior to the Mother of the Incarnate Word, our Mistress, he opposed with horrible blasphemies. Turning against the Author of these great wonders in unbridled indignation and calling upon the other angels, he exhorted them, saying:
Unjust are these commands and injury is done to my greatness; this human nature which Thou, Lord, lookest upon with so much love and which thou favorest so highly, I will persecute and destroy. To this end I will direct all my power and all my aspirations. And this Woman, Mother of the Word, I will hurl from the position in which Thou hast proposed to place Her, and at my hands, the plan, which Thou settest up, shall come to naught.
This proud boast so aroused the indignation of the Lord that in order to humble it, He spoke to Lucifer:
This Woman whom thou refusest to honor, shall crush thy head and by Her shalt thou be vanquished and annihilated (Gen. 3, 15). And if, through thy pride, death enters into the world (Wis. 2, 24), life and salvation of mortals shall enter through the humility of this Woman. Those that are of the nature and likeness of that Man and Woman, shall enjoy the gifts and the crowns, which thou and thy followers have lost.
To all this the dragon, filled with indignation against whatever he understood of the divine will and decrees, answered only with pride and by threatening destruction to the whole human race. The good angels saw the just indignation of the Most High against Lucifer and his apostates and they combated them with the arms of the understanding, reason and truth (Mary Of Agreda, Mystical City Of God).
Brethren, can you not see that the battle that took place prior to the fall of Lucifer and his cohorts, is precisely the same battle that is raging on earth, since the time of Adam, until the consummation of time?
Do you not see the energumens and those who work in league with Lucifer here on earth, in those who, actively or passively, promote homosexuality, abortion, feminism, immodesty, pornography etc, and all those who undermine the order established by Almighty God ?
Now, ask yourself, on whose side are you ? When death surprises each one of us, and we must now face the Divine Judge, strict and rigorous, and before whom nothing can be hidden, on whose side shall we say we were on?
Brethren, there can be absolutely no neutrality here. We are either for God or against Him, and indifference or ignorance have never been means of salvation. Therefore, they shall not dine with the Lamb, those who simply sit on the fence waiting to join the victorious side, or who are willfully ignorant of the drama unfolding, since the times of Adam. He who doubts this is advised to carefully read the parable of the ten virgins, of the talents, and the description of the last judgment, in Matthew 25.
Also remember that, one third of the angels remained indifferent, choosing to take no side during that great conflict in heaven. It was, as it were, playing the waiting game, to see who is victorious, before taking sides. Alas, these, too, were kicked out of heaven.
|
|
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 15:20:50
|
The Devil's Work: Feminism and the Elite Depopulation Agenda
February 20, 2002
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
As my readers know by now, I believe the world has for the last hundred years or more been in the grips of a conspiracy by an ultra rich elite whose goal is nothing less than the destruction of civilization, as we know it. I believe we are in the advanced stage of a gradual decline into a "New World Order" which combines monopoly capitalism with communist totalitarianism.
Believe me, this is an argument I would be delighted to lose.
We have been conditioned to scoff at the mention of conspiracy The idea that people might plan something without telling the intended victims is much too far fetched! Nor would they ever disguise their aim! My purpose is not to convert you to my view. Rather, I want you to seek information that either confirms or refutes it.
We are like the passengers on a bus that keeps having "accidents" which cause untold death and suffering. These are wars, depressions and epidemics etc. We have just completed the bloodiest century in human history: Auschwitz, Dresden, Rwanda, Hiroshima, Cambodia. Over a hundred million people were murdered, and that's not counting abortions.
We keep changing the 'driver' but the accidents do not cease. This is because the drivers all take their orders from the same diabolical source.
Because the human race keeps running off the road, we are not reaching our destination. The road is G-d's plan. For Christians, this is Jesus' Gospel of Love. The destination: to know G-d. Mankind evolved for this purpose. G-d wishes to be known by His Creation.
Our purpose is to know ourselves to be Divine. G-d is the principle of our evolution, both personal and collective. Truth and Goodness are Absolutes: they are G-d. All great religions teach us to listen for G-d's voice and obey it.
When we deny the existence of G-d, we are denying the principle of our own evolution and stunting our development. When we deny God, we deny ourselves. When we deny man's divinity, we open the door for genocide.
A reader "Pat" wrote last week that he has "a hard time believing that a group of elites could agree on anything, let alone a far reaching evil agenda...[It] seems like the process of achieving this agenda is too slow for any bad people...requires too much flawless, seamless, secretive, cooperation...The only entity with that kind of plan and patience with that kind of plan and patience would have to be the devil himself, wouldn't it?"
I replied that he was on to something. At the beginning of the 20th Century, huge fortunes were built by monopoly capitalists like J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller. The "D" stands for "devil." What is monopoly but the desire to "have it all," and to drive everyone else out of existence. Evil is the spiritual cancer that seeks to "fulfill" itself not in G-d, but in limitless material acquisition and sensual excess.
It was not a large leap for a J.D. Rockefeller to go from owning the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry etc. to wanting to own the whole world. This is the reason that Rockefeller and his foundation have been in the forefront of the population "control" and eugenics movement. Ultimately the goal is to reduce the earth's population for the simple warped reason that the less there is for you and me, the more there will be for J.D. and his cronies.
The elite just loves birth control. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner are among the ultra rich that have donated billions to spreading the gospel of contraception, abortion, and feminism using the United Nations and "US Aid." Rockefeller funded the invention of the pill, the IUD and owns the rights to the abortion drug RU-486. In the last 50 years, billions of public dollars have been spent on "family planning" designed to limit population by deceit and coercion, including compulsory abortion and infanticide. In "The War Against Population (1988)," Dr. Jacqueline Kasun writes that in 1981, a directory of population control agencies in Washington DC listed 92 private (but mostly publicly funded) agencies, 12 United Nations and 57 agencies of the US government (p. 198). "The real problem of government family planning is not one of families out of control but of planners out of control," she wrote (p.211).
For the same reason, the Elite is behind "sexual liberation" and "gay liberation." Through funding and media control, they make us regard sex as a recreation/physical release rather than as the expression of a spiritual bond (i.e. a loving marriage) resulting in children.
The Elite modus operandi is to finance and promote disgruntled minorities in order to destabilize and undermine the world. Feminism is a prime example. It pretends to be about giving women equal opportunity in the workplace when in fact it is devoted to discouraging women from seeking fulfillment in motherhood.
In the bible of modern feminism, "The Feminine Mystique" (1963) Betty Frieden makes this obscene comparison between housewives and Nazi concentration camp inmates:
"They were reduced to childlike preoccupation with food, elimination, the satisfaction of primitive bodily needs; they had no privacy, and no stimulation from the outside world. But above all, they were forced to spend their days in work which produced great fatigue...required no mental concentration, gave no hope of advancement or recognition, was sometimes senseless, and was controlled by the needs of others..."(306)
Clearly Frieden is talking about mothers. Comparing the nurturing of their children to the brutal slavery and poisoning of Auschwitz inmates is psychological warfare of the most vicious kind. Friedan, who hid the fact that she was a paid Communist activist, should have been denounced as a hate monger. Instead she was celebrated as the new oracle and received honorary degrees and fellowships at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. Saturday Review called her book "a scholarly work, appropriate for serious study" and anthropologist Ashley Montegu said it was "the wisest, sanest, soundest, most understanding and compassionate treatment of American woman's greatest problem."
Do we need further proof that the world is one-horse company town, and J.D. and his cabal own the company? They decide which politicians, universities and academics get funding, which books get published and reviewed, which movies get made. We are condemned to look into mirrors that don't reflect reality. That's why we are so skeptical of conspiracy. That's why most people on this web site don't get published. On the other hand, Eve Eisler, is reading her pornographic play "The Vagina Monologues" on HBO this month. This "play, " which features women looking at their genitals with hand mirrors and describing steamy scenes of lesbian sex with minors, masquerades as feminist empowerment. In fact, it is an invitation to lesbianism.
Feminism fits the elite's depopulation agenda. Since 1963, when "The Feminine Mystique" was published we have experienced an unprecedented breakdown in the family. More than half of all children are now born out of wedlock; the number of single parent households has tripled. In "The Broken Hearth," William Bennett writes: "Most of our social pathologies, crime, imprisonment rates, welfare, educational underachievement, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, depression, STD's, are manifestations, direct and indirect, of the crackup of the American family (p.4)."
We are now suffering from underpopulation. The US birthrate has been cut from 4 to 2 children per woman, the European and Canadian is 1.5. (We need 2.2 just for replacement.) Russia (1.17 children) will see its population plummet from 145 million to 115 million by 2015. In the "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan argues that population decline is responsible for the inevitable extinction of the West.
Reproduction requires the most delicate care. In the case of human beings, the female must be prepared for motherhood and honored for her contribution to society. The male must be shown that the standard of manhood is to provide leadership and sustenance for mother and children. Both mother and father must be able to give their children intellectual and spiritual guidance.
Instead, in schools and universities, the tender shoots of feminine sexuality are crushed under the feminist jackboot. Young women are taught that heterosexual sex, marriage and family are inherently oppressive. Homosexuality on the other hand is an act of rebellion that is "chic" and "normal."
Frieden's comparison of mothers with the concentration camp inmates is pertinent. Betty Frieden, agent of the elite cabal, has put mothers in the concentration camp. Mothers!? The ultimate aim is genocide. The Elite want the world's population to be much smaller. Can there be any question that this is the devil's work? |
|
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2009 : 15:15:28
|
Hollywood Sexualizes Grannies
Henry Markow PhD
SEX AS ILLUMINATI WEAPON
Western society has been secretly run by a satanic cult, the Illuminati for hundreds of years. The gradual phasing out of Christianity and the triumph of "secularism" are but stages in the inauguration of Satanism as the new world religion. (Satanism is not really a religion because Satan replaces God. A religion by definition is about obeying God.)
The Illuminati aim is to totally control and dominate every human being. After war and debt, sex is their primary weapon for the degradation and enslavement of mankind.
Until the "sexual revolution" (1960's) most men and women were quite able to restrict sex to marriage. This ensured that women weren't exploited sexually and children were brought up in an emotionally and financially stable environment. Young children are vulnerable and need the undivided attention of at least one loving parent. Mothers need husbands to support them while raising children. Men and women are less likely to stay together if sex is freely available.
When the institution of marriage is undermined, everyone is sexualized - granny, mom, little sister. Everybody is potentially "do-able."
SEXUALIZATION OF GRANNIES
The movie Calendar Girls, is a heart warming "true" story of Yorkshire women, age 50-60, who raise money by posing nude for a calendar. It's for a good cause. Mary's husband John needs an operation and National Health doesn't cover it. The women will pose nude for the calendar while performing traditional activities like baking and gardening.
The trailer extols Yorkshire women. "The last stage of their growth is the most glorious." They're "changing the world one month at a time."
By "sexualize" I mean treating a person as if her value lies in her appearance and sex appeal. In other words, she must be sexually desirable to be loved.
This has driven women crazy for years. Recently prepubescent girls were sexualized by "role models" like Britney Spears. Now postmenopausal women are suffering an epidemic of eating disorders.
The Illuminati run Hollywood. They mess with our psyches by pretending the unnatural is perfectly normal.
Calendar Girls is an outrage. A woman's physical attraction is a function of her fertility. To pretend otherwise is cruel and insulting, not just to older women but to all heterosexuals.
This is part of an undeclared elite war on heterosexual institutions (marriage, family, fatherhood, children). It began in earnest in the 1960's when Communist/ CIA provocateurs like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem were lionized in the media for stigmatizing mothers and homemakers.
Sexual appeal is related to one stage of life: courtship, mating and procreation. Postmenopausal women should not be made to compete with young women on this basis. The secret of a successful marriage is that years of mutual devotion more than compensate for appearance when it comes to sex.
A friend married 30 years wrote to me: "Old naked women are repulsive. A wife of age, however, is beautiful because of history; and when a man looks at his wife he sees the young girl he married, not the age and wrinkles, as her eyes light up for him."
Postmenopausal women deserve dignity and respect. They are our mothers, grandmothers and wives. Their beauty derives from their soul. Their importance lies in the love they give their families.
Feminists, like their Communist sponsors, want to redefine nature. Hollywood is pushing the feminist fantasy that women have the same sexual pattern as men.
A woman's sexual window of opportunity corresponds with her peak years of fertility.
In contrast, male sex appeal is based on power. Men become more attractive as they get older and more secure.
Hollywood portrays middle-aged women in sexual terms because there's no other reason to love them. They devoted their lives to careers not families, as they were taught. Now millions are alone and desperate. So feminists compound their hoax by pretending these women are still eligible, and can even attract younger men.
FEMINIST AGITPROP
This is the theme of Something's Got to Give, another "Christmas movie" which apparently includes nude scenes of 57-year-old Diane Keaton. In one case, Jack Nicholson gets an accidental peak at her breasts.
"I've never seen a woman that age naked before," he exclaims in shock.
According to the synopsis:
"Harry Langer (Jack Nicholson) ... has the world on a string -- and a string of beautiful young girlfriends to prove it. During a romantic rendezvous with his newest girlfriend, Marin, at her mother's Hamptons beach house, he develops chest pains and is nursed by Marin's reluctant mother, Erica Barry (Diane Keaton) -- a successful, divorced New York playwright. In the process, Harry develops more heart pangs, the romantic kind, for Erica, a woman who is right for him in every way.
However, some habits die hard. When Harry hesitates to pursue Erica, his charming thirty something doctor (Keanu Reeves) becomes smitten with her. Harry undergoes a true change of heart and fights to win Erica back."
Dream on ladies. Feminists who devoted their lives to the rat race do not miraculously transform into tender receptive creatures. Their reputed maturity and sophistication do not compensate for their wrinkles and emotional baggage. This is written and directed by Nancy Myers, who also gave us the movie What Women Want. Apparently they want to fool themselves.
Admittedly Jack Nicholson is 66 and his face has more stitches than a quilt, but as long as he can attract a fertile woman, he will choose her. It's nature. Ultimately sex is an act of procreation. Men want to procreate too, or at least have the option.
Ultimately we reap what we sow. If women make independence and careers their first priority, they will end up with a pension.
THE BIGGEST MISTAKE MEN MAKE
Men can have successful marriages with younger mates as long as they behave like men. The biggest mistake men make is to sacrifice their power for love.
Most women will test a man to see what he will do for sex. They will see how much abuse he will take, and then try to control him.
For example, a girlfriend once said she found me "repulsive." She was testing me. Rather than dump her, I overlooked this outburst hoping to win her with my love. She tried very hard but she couldn't love me under those circumstances.
A woman cannot love a man she cannot respect. She cannot respect a man she can control i.e. who does not respect himself. Paradoxically the way to win a woman's love is to not take any crap.
A man must dedicate his life to a higher purpose and obey his inner voice. That's what women respect.
Another example. I know a man whose wife insists on remaining "best friends" with a former lover. This drives him crazy but she refuses to drop her ex. He accepts the situation, but this is a mistake. He should ask her to leave. His marriage is doomed.
You get the picture. Men cannot afford to be with women who do not accept their leadership.
On the other hand, a man must provide leadership. He must provide money, direction and vision. He must take the time to win his wife's assent. He will compromise because he wants his wife to be happy. But on essentials, he must have the final say.
Many men are too selfish. They don't give a woman what she needs. A woman will do anything so long as she is loved in return. A husband constantly needs to show his wife how important she is to him.
WEIRD THINGS
Sexualizing grannies is part of a larger trend to depravity promoted by our Lucifer loving elites. Our planet has been hijacked by pagans who think man's animal nature is divine.
That's the reason for our increasing adolescent obsession with sex and nudity characteristic of arrested development.
It's the reason why vulgarity and debauchery are presented as "daring"; why music videos and movies resemble sex orgies and satanic bacchanalia. The media is initiating an unsuspecting public into the occult. Many entertainers belong to satanic societies. We are being subverted; degraded to the level of dogs sniffing genitals.
They abolished God in order to control us. Without that reference point, we are defenseless and gullible. We accept false Gods: money, sex, experts and entertainers. The media manipulates us. The movies define our social norms.
There is also a political dimension. In the Preface to Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote:
"As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom...it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate."
Mankind is the interface between God and nature. God's Plan is for humanity to become more God-like. Our Divine Spirit is supposed to refine our animal nature. Hollywood should help us to evolve by celebrating what is highest in us.
God has imprinted his Plan in our conscience. We must return to that inner voice and proclaim it from the rooftops.
Send the Illuminati a message in the only language it understands. Boycott the movies and the mass media. |
|
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2009 : 15:40:35
|
The Devil's Work: Feminism and the Elite Depopulation Agenda
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
As my readers know by now, I believe the world has for the last hundred years or more been in the grips of a conspiracy by an ultra rich elite whose goal is nothing less than the destruction of civilization, as we know it. I believe we are in the advanced stage of a gradual decline into a "New World Order" which combines monopoly capitalism with communist totalitarianism.
At the beginning of the 20th Century, huge fortunes were built by monopoly capitalists like J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller. The "D" stands for "devil." What is monopoly but the desire to "have it all," and to drive everyone else out of existence. Evil is the spiritual cancer that seeks to "fulfill" itself not in G-d, but in limitless material acquisition and sensual excess.
It was not a large leap for a J.D. Rockefeller to go from owning the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry etc. to wanting to own the whole world. This is the reason that Rockefeller and his foundation have been in the forefront of the population "control" and eugenics movement. Ultimately the goal is to reduce the earth's population for the simple warped reason that the less there is for you and me, the more there will be for J.D. and his cronies.
The elite just loves birth control. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner are among the ultra rich that have donated billions to spreading the gospel of contraception, abortion, and feminism using the United Nations and "US Aid." Rockefeller funded the invention of the pill, the IUD and owns the rights to the abortion drug RU-486. In the last 50 years, billions of public dollars have been spent on "family planning" designed to limit population by deceit and coercion, including compulsory abortion and infanticide. In "The War Against Population (1988)," Dr. Jacqueline Kasun writes that in 1981, a directory of population control agencies in Washington DC listed 92 private (but mostly publicly funded) agencies, 12 United Nations and 57 agencies of the US government (p. 198). "The real problem of government family planning is not one of families out of control but of planners out of control," she wrote (p.211).
For the same reason, the Elite is behind "sexual liberation" and "gay liberation." Through funding and media control, they make us regard sex as a recreation/physical release rather than as the expression of a spiritual bond (i.e. a loving marriage) resulting in children.
The Elite modus operandi is to finance and promote disgruntled minorities in order to destabilize and undermine the world. Feminism is a prime example. It pretends to be about giving women equal opportunity in the workplace when in fact it is devoted to discouraging women from seeking fulfillment in motherhood.
In the bible of modern feminism, "The Feminine Mystique" (1963) Betty Frieden makes this obscene comparison between housewives and Nazi concentration camp inmates:
"They were reduced to childlike preoccupation with food, elimination, the satisfaction of primitive bodily needs; they had no privacy, and no stimulation from the outside world. But above all, they were forced to spend their days in work which produced great fatigue...required no mental concentration, gave no hope of advancement or recognition, was sometimes senseless, and was controlled by the needs of others..."(306)
Clearly Frieden is talking about mothers. Comparing the nurturing of their children to the brutal slavery and poisoning of Auschwitz inmates is psychological warfare of the most vicious kind. Friedan, who hid the fact that she was a paid Communist activist, should have been denounced as a hate monger. Instead she was celebrated as the new oracle and received honorary degrees and fellowships at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. Saturday Review called her book "a scholarly work, appropriate for serious study" and anthropologist Ashley Montegu said it was "the wisest, sanest, soundest, most understanding and compassionate treatment of American woman's greatest problem."
Do we need further proof that the world is one-horse company town, and J.D. and his cabal own the company? They decide which politicians, universities and academics get funding, which books get published and reviewed, which movies get made. We are condemned to look into mirrors that don't reflect reality. That's why we are so skeptical of conspiracy. That's why most people on this web site don't get published. On the other hand, Eve Eisler, is reading her pornographic play "The Vagina Monologues" on HBO this month. This "play, " which features women looking at their genitals with hand mirrors and describing steamy scenes of lesbian sex with minors, masquerades as feminist empowerment. In fact, it is an invitation to lesbianism.
Feminism fits the elite's depopulation agenda. Since 1963, when "The Feminine Mystique" was published we have experienced an unprecedented breakdown in the family. More than half of all children are now born out of wedlock; the number of single parent households has tripled. In "The Broken Hearth," William Bennett writes: "Most of our social pathologies, crime, imprisonment rates, welfare, educational underachievement, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, depression, STD's, are manifestations, direct and indirect, of the crackup of the American family (p.4)."
We are now suffering from underpopulation. The US birthrate has been cut from 4 to 2 children per woman, the European and Canadian is 1.5. (We need 2.2 just for replacement.) Russia (1.17 children) will see its population plummet from 145 million to 115 million by 2015. In the "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan argues that population decline is responsible for the inevitable extinction of the West.
Reproduction requires the most delicate care. In the case of human beings, the female must be prepared for motherhood and honored for her contribution to society. The male must be shown that the standard of manhood is to provide leadership and sustenance for mother and children. Both mother and father must be able to give their children intellectual and spiritual guidance.
Instead, in schools and universities, the tender shoots of feminine sexuality are crushed under the feminist jackboot. Young women are taught that heterosexual sex, marriage and family are inherently oppressive. Homosexuality on the other hand is an act of rebellion that is "chic" and "normal."
Frieden's comparison of mothers with the concentration camp inmates is pertinent. Betty Frieden, agent of the elite cabal, has put mothers in the concentration camp. Mothers!? The ultimate aim is genocide. The Elite want the world's population to be much smaller. Can there be any question that this is the devil's work? |
|
|
|
spaxx
Junior Member
205 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2009 : 10:43:06
|
The Status Of Women In Society And In The Church
Exhortations to a virtuous life. The mutual duties of man and wife, by the example of Christ and of the Church.
According to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the Church is subject to Christ: Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. (Eph. 5, 24). The Church, therefore, is ever obedient to Christ, and can never fall from him, but remain faithful to him, unspotted and unchanged to the end of the world. Today, this never failing Church, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, teaches us the true role of women in society. A role that is utterly opposed to everything that militant feminism espouses.
Christ had a very high idea of women. In these days when, paradoxically, women are on the one hand promoted at the expense of men, but on the other hand degraded by the modern sexual license, it is especially important that we understand and keep hold of the real Catholic understanding of the matter.
The Catholic woman has a serious mission in the world, which, if she fulfills it well, will bring herself and others to heaven. We first find it in the Book of Genesis, which was written long before Christ under the inspiration of God. It deals with God's purposes in creation. And we read there that God said, after He had created Adam, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So God made the first woman, for the benefit of the man! So, from her origin, she has a primary purpose: to help the man. This excludes the modern ideas of emancipation inspired by feminism.
The best confirmation of this is the example of the Holy Family. In that family, though Jesus was divine and His mother was blessed with the highest imaginable favors from God, yet they both submitted to Joseph, as the head of the family. He was recognized as such in heaven: we see how, when they had to move to Egypt, and, after some years, back again, it was to Joseph that the angel came with the message. The humility of Mary and Jesus in accepting what he said was motivated by their recognition of his divinely appointed position of headship. By obeying Joseph they pleased God, the Father.
St. Paul, too, insists on the leading role of the man (on the purely human level) and on the need of the woman to be faithful to her original vocation as given in Genesis. In the first book of Corinthians we read, "The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man" (1 Cor. 11:3). St. Paul further develops this idea in the famous chapter in Ephesians, which is the traditional epistle for a marriage Mass. He compares the union between man and woman in marriage to the union between Christ and His Church so, as Christ is the head of His Church, so is the husband the head of his wife. And as the Church is subject to Christ, "Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things." (Eph. 5:24). But also, Christ gave Himself up for His Church: so He is the example for the husband. St. Paul follows with several verses saying how the husband must love his wife as himself.
There we have the formula for a happy marriage. Because in any association of people, there is a need for someone to have the power to decide when there is disagreement.
The Power of Complementarity
I have been indicating the general basic principles of the relations between the sexes, one of which has the power to produce children and look after them, and the other the aptitude for supporting the mother, and for doing the world's work. There are, of course, constant legitimate exceptions to the basic principle, because individuals and their circumstances vary so. It is nothing new, for example, for a country to be ruled by a queen, and many women do not marry, either by inclination or through a vocation to study, or to art, or to religion-in all of these fields, many have enriched the world, especially in the Catholic civilization of Europe.
For men and women are equal in this: that they are both subject to the law of work, and the burden of work, which God laid on humanity when Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. Men have the physical burden, or the social burdens, of work. Women have the burden of giving birth to and bringing up their children and making a home for the family. And this is very important work, and we cannot say that it is less important than the father's work. A father may be respected publicly; he may be a Cabinet Minister or a famous lawyer, but one cannot say that this work is really more important than his wife's. Usually, others could do his work; but her work in helping bring up the children to be good Catholics and good citizens is irreplaceable.
There is also a supernatural equality between the sexes. We have St. Paul's words already quoted (Gal. 3): "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." And the institution of marriage, which gives the husband the headship of the family, is for this life on earth. For in heaven, as Our Lord once said, there will be neither marriage nor giving in marriage. We can conclude from this that in heaven all that will remain of our marriages will be the relations of mutual love that they have given rise to.
The Ultimate Woman
No consideration of women in general is complete without considering the case of the supreme example of her sex, the Second Eve, the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is the supreme example not only of women, but of all humanity. Our Lord, of course, was a man, but He was also God. He is in a class by Himself. But among all purely human persons, Mary is supreme. She is supreme because human greatness must be judged by the person's closeness to the Source of all virtue, which is God. And Mary, as you well know, was freed from all imperfection by a special decree at her immaculate conception, and she retained always the grace then given her. So she was invited by the Holy Ghost to be His bride, and become the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity in His human existence. And she shared His life and suffering as much as it was permitted her to do.
This special intimacy with The Holy Trinity gives Mary a unique place among all the saints, and among all human beings . Furthermore, it pleases God to make use of her for the distributing of His graces to mankind. This has been strikingly confirmed by the visions at Fatima, when Mary declared how Russia would be converted and peace given to the world when the Pope and the bishops consecrated that country to her Immaculate Heart - not to God, but to her!
This has still not been done in the clear, unambiguous way she desires, so much resistance is there among a section of those in high position in the Church, who evidently rebel at the idea of the safety of the world being dependent on a woman! But our Lord wishes it so. As our sorrows began with the disobedience of Eve, so it was by the Second Eve that our Savior came to earth: and now when her greatness is unknown to most of mankind, God has decreed that the world must be brought to recognize it by the fact that the peace everyone desires is obtainable only by a public act of devotion to her!
So if we consider the position of women in the light of Mary, it is clear that the subordinate position of the wife in a family is in no way a mark of inferiority. It is an arrangement for the sake of marriage, which is suitable to that general, fundamental role of women enunciated at the beginning in Genesis, namely, to be the helpers of men. Servants of men, if you like, but did not Our Lord say, "I am among you as one who serves" when He washed the disciples' feet. Christian greatness comes from service: the popes have traditionally styled themselves "Servants of God's servants."
All that I have said so far provides the Catholic answer to the current agitation for "Women's Rights." The error of these agitators is to wish to have women treated as though they were the same as men. This is to fly in the face of nature. For the two sexes are evidently different, biologically and psychologically, and to wish women to take over men's functions is to do violence to their nature, and to leave undone their own real functions in life - which must then, presumably, be taken over by men, thus compounding the error by doing violence to masculine nature!
Out Of The Home...
What can be the motive that drives these feminists towards such an insane conclusion? As I have not studied any writings they have penned, I can only guess. First, I should say that, for some who adopt their line of thinking, it may be due indirectly to the abandonment of Catholicism by Protestantism, and eventually, to the abandonment of all Christianity. Protestantism ulitmately leads to infidelity. This has led in some cases to tyrannous behavior on the part of husbands, which has caused some wives to turn against marriage altogether. But those who lead this movement, and preach it, go further. They enter the realm of the Church, and they insist that leadership in the Church should be exercised by women equally with men. In the Protestant bodies, they have been tremendously successful. The Anglican communion which is so weak in doctrine that it could make no coherent defense of its customs, has allowed the ordination of women ministers. I say ministers, not priests, as thoughtless people do, because a priest represents Our Lord, and offers a sacrifice on an altar. It is only the Anglo-Catholic minority in the Church of England who claim to have priests: and they resist the intrusion of women ministers into the churches they control - when they haven't taken the logical further step and joined the Catholic Church.
...And Into The Sanctuary
But the Catholic Church, as you must know, has suffered from feminist intrusion. It is seen in a quite unnecessary intrusion of Eucharistic ministers - often female, and women readers, and also girl altar-servers, in spite of the Pope's expressed disapproval. And propaganda for women priests, in spite of the Pope having clearly declared that this is against Divine law. The reason for this, we may note in passing, is that it is contrary to the whole tradition of the Church, starting from its foundation. If Our Lord had wanted women priests, He could have included some. There were Mystery religions at that time which had them. But He did not. His priests were to represent Himself, and as He was male, so must they be. So the agitation for women clergy is in defiance of all Catholic tradition. And this is very likely deliberately intended by its promoters, who seem to share the anti-Catholic feeling that is a definite strain in modern life (especially directed against Christian morality) and are very likely discreetly financed by Freemasonry, and ultimately by talmudic/kabbalistic Jews, who, in are definitely anti-Catholic and totally opposed to our Lord Jesus Christy and His Gospel of salvation for all mankind..
Words To The Wise Woman
If there was any good sense in these feminists, they would turn their attention to the Moslem world, where they really would find women relegated to an inferior position, instead of undermining the Catholic religion, which, in the last two millennia, has assured them the freedom they themselves enjoy. Or they would turn their attention to the current spread of pornography, and radio- and television-indecency. These, which were held in check when Catholic influence was strong, are the real threats to the dignity of women. These are what all those seriously interested in the rights of women should attend to.
It is time to try to draw some practical conclusion from all this. Several ideas have probably suggested themselves to you already. But I think that at this point we must look again at the institution of Catholic marriage because this is what shows most clearly the Catholic concept of the relations between men and women.
It is founded upon vows taken mutually, in the presence of God. That is what gives the marriage the essential quality of stability. Each party knows that, even if they are going through a difficult period, the other will not break the union. And so they can persevere until the crisis is over. Their characters mature through trial, and each is able to live at ease with the other.
By marrying, of course, a woman loses her absolute freedom. But so does the man. If he behaves as if he was as free as before, he will not have a happy relationship with his wife. So they mutually surrender liberty for the sake of a greater gain. The husband's right to be obeyed is needed for the important decisions, like where they will live. Naturally, that must depend largely on where the husband can find work. But in smaller matters, his main object must be to please his wife, as St. Paul's epistle makes clear. By the process of living together, they come to think in terms of "we" rather than "I and you": each instinctively knows what the other wants. And so they attain the peaceful harmony that is the great charm of a good marriage.
Marriage is not for all. There are always some who would like to marry, but are just unlucky, and must make the best of the single state. But it is the state of life for most. So we may ask, why it is that such an admirable, such a beautiful way of life, is increasingly not attempted-why couples join together, and even have children, but do not marry? It is not a satisfactory situation: it lacks that security that even a registry-office promise gives, let alone a vow in church. Why do people put up with these loose associations?
I think one important cause must be having no confidence that one is able to bind oneself for the future by a promise. Keeping open "one's options" becomes a state of mind. But on that principle one would never achieve anything. Any worthwhile activity must involve a long-term commitment. Anyone who continually changes for something else will never achieve anything solid. That is a general rule of life, and so it applies to marriage, and particularly to marriage on account of the long period it takes to bring up the children. And two millennia of successful Catholic marriages is surely sufficient proof that the system works. What else does?
Nevertheless, marriages are now increasingly breaking down, and this is perhaps the chief discouragement from making any promises at all. So, why are they breaking down?
I think the answer to that must be found in an element I have not yet mentioned: and that is prayer. Or rather, a lack of prayer. The general decline of the Catholic faith means that far fewer people either know how, or want, to pray seriously and persistently. But Catholic marriage is not possible unless Christ is brought into it,-not only at the moment of making the promises, but persistently. So the marriage crisis is really a crisis of religious faith and practice...So, I say, if you meet a couple who are not married or whose marriage is shaky, get them to pray. That will both save the marriage and save their immortal souls.
Feminism is rebellion against the natural law established by God. Where you find feminists, there you will also find abortionists, lesbians and homosexuals, transverstites, as well as all sorts of deviants. Feminism is thus from the infernal depths of Hell.
Moreover, they who embrace the principles of feminism never enjoy fruitful and stable marriages. And, having its origins in hell, feminism must necessarily lead to eternal damnation for those who depart this life unrepentant. Enduring the company of demons and the devouring flames of hell for all eternity, is the final outcome of feminism. This is the price paid by a woman for refusing to be a woman.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Feminism - Diabolical Plan To Destroy The Family
