By Theodore Shoebat
Why did the pro-life movement in America get so upset at Donald Trump for simply saying that the woman who commits abortion should receive some sort of punishment? For years I have known about the corruption and superficiality of the pro-life movement, and this is what I have learned: the pro-life movement has never succeeded in outrightly abolishing abortion, because it really isn’t interested in making abortion illegal, because it knows that once abortion is abolished, their money is gone. The pro-life movement has really become the pro-life industry. According to the American Right To Life (ARTL), “An ARTL spreadsheet, compiled by a Michigan CPA volunteering for ARTL, documents that the pro-life industry raised more than a quarter of a billion dollars in it’s 15-year effort to secure a “ban” that never had the ability to save a single child.” This pro-life industry includes the National Right to Life Committee, Concerned Women for America, and others such as Americans United for Life and Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice.
If abortion were to be outlawed, and those involved in abortions punished by the state, then for what reason would we need the pro-life movement, the marches for life, the funding to finance anti-abortion organization? The money would be gone, the fat paycheck given to those who talk against but do nothing beyond that against abortion, would be gone. So of course the “pro-life” elites would not want an absolute ban on abortion. Look at the recent controversy that just took place in Oklahoma with the bill, SB 1118. If passed, this bill would have treated abortion -— at any stage after conception — a crime of first-degree murder. for what it is, first-degree murder. The bill was not even given a chance for a hearing at the senate floor. Why? Because of pro-life industry elitists, such as the National Right to Life, Oklahomans For Life, and most of all of the Republican senators in Oklahoma, who all opposed the bill. Only 11 of Oklahoma’s 39 senators supported the bill, and many of them had “100% pro-life voting records from the pro-life and pro-family groups.”
Pro-life elitists like Tony Lauinger, vice-president of National Right to Life and the chairman for Oklahomans for Life, opposed SD 1118, giving the typical hypocritical response of, “do we want to make a statement, or do we want to make a difference?” Lauinger was confronted by some good Christians and this encounter he refused to call abortion murder:
All of these pro-life fraudsters reject the absolute abolishment of infanticide, and instead advocate for the strategy of “incremental pro-life legislation”, which simply means that the pro-life movement must work gradually, with increments, to stop abortion. They want to take it slowly, and reject stern and quick legislation against this crime against humanity. In other words, they just want activists to continue their activism, because that means more funding, and more funding means more money. In one report we read that “there are differing schools of thought in the pro-life movement regarding whether state legislatures should go as far as total criminalization before overturning Roe v. Wade.” In other words, they don’t want abortion to be outlawed, they don’t desire for the murder of children to be outlawed, they don’t want the law to dissuade through punishment mothers who may wish to murder their own children. They want to keep the activism industry going.
They use the emotions and zeal of young Christian teenagers to go on the marches, the rallies, the pass fliers, while they rake in the dough, and the last thing they want is for this flow of income to end. The pro-life industry and the pro-life Republican senators leech on each other. Pro-life industry organizations simply nibble at the edge of abortion, giving a false confidence to American voters who are actually pro-life; these very pro-life groups then will voice support for Republican candidates. These candidates will act as though they are fighting to end abortion, when in reality they are simply taking just a chip off the the killing machine that we call the abortion industry, giving the voters a sense that they must vote for them so that they could just make another small measure against the murder of unborn children, when in reality it will end nothing. When abortion is not ended, the pro-life industry simply covers up for the politicians, making excuses that they musk keep working to end abortion, while they will directly oppose bills that would abolish abortion as a criminal act. As one good blogger put it:
The Republicans, who like to pay lip-service to the preborn and see value in having them used as political footballs, are more than happy to accommodate the worthless legislation proposed by the pro-life groups. This gets them votes and pro-life endorsements.
The pro-life organizations legitimize the Republicans, and the Republicans legitimize the pro-life organizations. They both win. The one who loses is the helpless preborn whom they both disingenuously claim to care about – but whose suffering they refuse to end.
Many of these “conservatives” use the pro-life title as simply a facade to cover up their own evils. Bill Graham, while declaring himself to be pro-life, said in 1978: “I want to state clearly that I am opposed to abortion, except possibly in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at stake.” IF abortion is murder, then EVERY abortion must be considered as a crime, without exceptions. This is the consistent position. Consistency is something that is most lacking amongst these modern heretics. They will try to portray themselves as being in support for human life in one moment, but in the next they will advocate some form of violence against the innocent.
Another example of this is Mike Philips, a Republican who lost in his campaign for Congress in Maryland. After he lost he became the campaign manager for Christopher Beck, a mutant who got a sex change operation and now walks around in a dress and identifies himself as a woman, to help him run for Congress.
I decided to call Mike Philips and he told me that he has no problem with murdering an unborn child because he has deformities:
Take Ann Coulter for example. While this wretch claims to be pro-life, she supports the murder of children conceived in rape:
No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.
Ann considers herself to be a Christian, but she utterly spits on the verse of the Bible: “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son: the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” (Ezekiel 18:10) Therefore, it is utterly unbiblical and evil to kill children simply because they were conceived in rape, a crime for which they are absolutely blameless.
When Donald Trump said that women who commit abortions should get some form of punishment, all of the abortion industry elitists condemned him. March for Life, Students for Life, Concerned Women for America, and Susan B. Anthony List, all went against Donald Trump. All of these organization condemned him for simply saying that a woman who commits an abortion should be punished. Why do they take this position? Because they really don’t believe that abortion is murder, they really don’t believe that an unborn child is a human being. Plain and simple. If abortion is murder, then both the mother who wants the abortion and the one who commits the abortion are to be prosecuted and charged with first-degree murder. End of story. This is the only honest approach, and if you do not accept it, then you really aren’t being honest.
I find it interesting that one of these pro-life industry organization named itself after Susan B. Anthony, a feminist who hated Christianity and the Bible. I did a whole article exposing Susan B. Anthony, and I thought it best to post it up here:
If you can influence women, then you conquer the culture. Anytime some great diabolical scheme desires to conquer, it will corrupt women. Throughout history, from the beginning of mankind’s existence, the spirits of the abyss have conspired to have women revolt against the natural order and authority. To understand this we should look to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden, which is the archetype of how Satan corrupts society through women, and the microcosm of how “women’s liberation” effects a society.
The vital position that women have for the order of society is why Satan slithered, not to Adam, but to Eve. The old serpent knew that in order to get to Adam he would first have to get to the woman. Eve was not oblivious to the truth. She knew that “the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” (Genesis 3:3) She knew the same truth that Adam knew. So why only go to the woman and not to Adam, or both? Its because Satan knew that to corrupt humanity necessitated the corruption of women.
Women are extremely influential in the society. The moral fabric of society is, to a great extent, determined by women. Why? Because they are beautiful, and that which is beautiful, influences. Women are not only beautiful but are of the utmost emotionally desirable to men, and so men will at many times submit to their demands.
Satan knew that to convince Eve to eat the forbidden fruit would inevitably lead to Adam consuming the very thing that God prohibited. But how was Satan to do this? He told Eve that she had the potential to be like God. “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4)
How does the next verse describe what occurred next? It says that when Eve looked to the fruit, “it was pleasant to the eyes” (Genesis 3:6). The fruit elated Eve to think that she could surpass her current state of womanhood. She obviously wasn’t content with her position, to be “a helper comparable to him.” (Genesis 2:18) She wanted to be like God, and not simply human. In esteeming the fruit as “desirable to make one wise” (Genesis 3:7), Eve sought to go beyond herself. Thus is the great mother of pernicious desires: discontentment with life. It is discontentment that leads one to crime to make “quick money,” and it is discontentment that moves a people to rival against the One Who gave them life, and compete against God Himself. G.K Chesterton wrote on the interconnection between man’s fall and discontentment:
There runs a strange law through the length of human history — that men are continually tending to undervalue their environment, to undervalue their happiness, to undervalue themselves. The great sin of mankind, the sin typified by the fall of Adam, is the tendency, not towards pride, but towards this weird and horrible humility. This is the great fall, the fall by which the fish forgets the sea, the ox forgets the meadow, the clerk forgets the city, every man forgets his environment and, in the fullest and most literal sense, forgets himself. This is the real fall of Adam, and it is a spiritual fall. (1a)
When the Scripture says that the fruit was pleasant to the eyes of Eve, I cannot help but imagine her eyes looking glossy and elated, looking the eyes of the women adored Hitler.
Eve forgot herself, she was not happy with the perfect position that God placed her in. She wanted to surpass whatever role God bestowed upon her, and from such a desire comes the valediction to the natural order, and the introduction to chaos. A society that is content with God’s blessings and societal order, is a society that would not indulge itself in crime; being content with the roles of motherhood and fatherhood, it would not partake in infanticide, nor infidelity or murder, or robbery, or divorce. Yes these sins have always been amongst us, but not to the level that they have intensified to in the modern era.
In Christendom such evils were not tolerated or praised or facilitated, it would be intolerated. I remember when I was in Spain having a conversation with a local about morality in the country over dinner. I told this man that in the sixties and seventies Spain had the lowest rate of divorce in Western Europe. He explained, “That is because in those days if a woman were to be divorced or sleep around, the whole society would look down on her.”
I said, “Thats good,” to which he responded with that facial expression that spoke as though I was from a different planet. In a society that is content, women partake in their roles with contentment, and do not wish to revolt against their position.
I also remember in Spain going to the beach and — quite unexpectedly — seeing a group of women completely bear chested in the sand. I was shocked, and not in the least bit aroused by what I saw. Modesty after all is what cultivates a sense of mystery, and stirs the best attractions. To me — and to many other men not enslaved to the animalistic mind of the modern male — it all appeared to be nothing but a pile of flesh that rebelliously screamed “look at me!” and saw the man as just an animal whose impulses are instantly controlled by the site of nudity. All good men should feel insulted for being deemed as an animal without a higher self by which to control the raging of the flesh, and shun such wretches. While I was in the beach I told the harlots in Spanish, “Eres son prostitutes!” (You are prostitutes!). One of them said, “Guapo!” (Handsome!) to which I replied, “Si, eres correcto! Soy guapo pero ustedes son feas!” (Yes, you are correct, I am good looking, but you are all ugly!”) Of such women I must say with Jefferson:
A lady who has been seen as a sloven or slut in the morning will never efface the impression she has made, with all dress and pageantry she can afterwards involve herself in.
It was a fun experience, with me trying to mimic John the Baptist, but with all humor put aside, the behavior of the women reflected something much more deeper than lasciviousness. It was as if they were saying, “Yes God wanted us to cover ourselves after the fall in the Garden of Eden, but we are going to rebel. We refuse to do as our first parents did, and desire to take the side of the serpent!”
Now these women probably don’t think explicitly this way, but the sins of the flesh always want to bring us back to the sinful mindset of Adam and Eve when they fell, while Christ wants to restore us to the original state of humanity before the Fall, to be an image of God, living in pure contemplation on the divine. The women on the beach wanted to revolt against natural morality, and this is because they are not content with the laws engraved by God’s fingernails onto the natural order and on our hearts. They want to rise above, just as Eve wanted to rise above her divinely conferred state.
And so, since Satan wants to bring us back to the fallen nature of Adam and Eve, then all of the evils that we see around us are merely repetitions of the same falls done by our first parents, and the same manner of deceptions that Eve fell for, and that Adam obeyed. This is why I say that what took place in the Garden is the archetype model as to how Satan corrupts humanity, and how he invades a society and a nation. When Adam and Eve were on earth, they were humanity, they were the human race, they were a nation. So how Satan corrupts humanity today and floods a nation with his diabolical influences, is going to be of the same manner that he brought Adam and Eve into his grasp.
What happened in the Garden? He corrupted the woman by convincing her that she could rise above her current state, and by this he got to Adam, and because of the woman’s allurements and beauties that naturally stir a man’s heart, he ate (Genesis 3:6). From this one bite, man fell and we have been suffering the consequences ever since. Why? Because woman wanted to revolt against her position, be above womanhood and go into godhood, and man listened. Mankind’s fall was thus a result of woman’s liberation. As Chrysostom wrote: “The woman taught once, and ruined all.” (1) Since women are forbidden to teach in the sanctuary of men’s souls, how is it all sudden permissible for women to be allowed to vote?
We should take heed to the fact that the first sin to be done in humanity’s history involved a woman telling her husband to obey the devil. This should shed an ever exposing light on the dangers of feminism and the so-called “women’s liberation” movement. If Adam had reprimanded Eve and refused to listen to her, then we would not have fallen. But, because Adam did listen to her, and accepted her opinion, and treated what she had to say as equal to his inspired convictions, then man fell. Thus, there is a distinction between the roles of men and women, with the former placed as the spiritual authority, and the latter as the one who receives that truth, supports it and validates and conveys this truth to her children.
Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), not his wife. St. Paul tells us:
I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Notice that St. Paul does not say, “The head of every man and woman is Christ,” this is because there is a profound distinction between the roles of manhood and womanhood. They are not the same in how they come to conclusions, and how they determine decisions, nor are they equal in authority, for if they were, Christ would be the head of both. Since Christ is the head of man, then man rules over woman in a distinct and exclusive position.
But we should not see this rulership as some sort of abusive, deranged and megalomaniacal behavior (that is the Jehovah’s Witnesses amongst whom the husband is seen as a god to the wife). No. For while man has authority over the woman, at the same time there is an equilibrium of equality and difference.
While the wife has a submissive role, it is not an inferior role. This is one thing that feminists and their ilk need to understand: the roles of men and women are different, but one is not inferior to the other, nor is one superior to the other. They are both different, and yet at the same time equally necessary and significant for a society and a nation. Difference does not signify at all inferior or superior, but simply differences that are equally needed. This equilibrium of equality and difference is found in the writings of St. Paul. He says in one place:
For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. (1 Corinthians 11:8-12)
While man is the symbol of authority for women, nonetheless, there is an equal importance placed between the two. The woman came from man’s rib, and women are dependent on men; and so all men come from the womb of women, and are dependent on women. There is a beautiful equality and within this equality there is a profound difference. This equilibrium leads to strong families and strong nations; for while the man rules the woman, he does not abuse her, for while wives are to be submissive, Paul says, “Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.” (Colossians 3:19) While the woman is submissive, she does so contently, and brings forth children and raises them up in the Faith, to further strengthen and perpetuate the empire of Christendom. This emphasis on difference in roles that are equally important is found in St. Paul when he writes:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:11-15)
So while she is submissive under her husband, she has a role in society that can bend nations. She bears forth children and it is her duty to raise them up to have zeal, and if women neglect this, the whole society falls to the devil. Chrysostom, commentating on this line says:
Let her not however grieve. God hath given her no small consolation, that of childbearing. And if it be said that this is of nature, so is that also of nature; for not only that which is of nature has been granted, but also the bringing up of children. “If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety”; that is, if after childbearing, they keep them in charity and purity. By these means they will have no small reward on their account, because they have trained up wrestlers for the service of Christ. (2)
With women raising their children up to the Faith, I am reminded of that woman in the fourth book of Maccabees, who rallied for her seven sons as they were butchered by Epiphanies for refusing to worship idols.
Mary did not tell her Son to leave His mission, but rather submitted herself to the will of God, and never precluded her Son, unlike Peter. This is because Mary is the exact opposite of Eve; she did everything the opposite to her. Eve went against her own husband, Mary obeyed God; Eve submitted herself to Satan, Mary submitted herself to God, just as the good wife submits herself to her husband; Eve listened to the devil, Mary brought forth the Son Who crushed the head of the serpent. In the Garden of Eden, soon after the Fall, God told the serpent:
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel. (Genesis 3:15)
It was as if God was saying, “You have placed yourself under the control of the devil, but a woman is coming whose Seed will crush the head of the serpent and free mankind from the bondage you helped bring humanity to.” Mary gave birth to God in the flesh — Christ — and raised Him well, and He crushed the devil. In Mary we find a model for the strength of women for the foundation of Christendom: Women who give birth to children for the strength of the Faith, and raise them up to have zeal for God, those children will effect the society, for the glory of Christendom. If women generally did this, then the whole of society would be zealous for God. Do you not see the power and strength that women have? Do you not see what importance and authority God has given them?
Such a role, such a position of power! And yet how many wicked people want to destroy it! How many people want to neglect it! Was Mary submissive? Yes. And yet her role in the history of humanity was far greater than the “woman’s suffrage movement”; the actions of Mary are far so eternally great, that when compared to them they make anything any these feminists have done to nothing. What Mary did, no man could ever do.
What strength is found in a woman’s submission! What beauty! What fortitude! To have the privilege to give birth to children to grip the nation and be lights to the world! A rebellious woman only brings destruction; a submissive woman transforms nations. She brings forth new life and raises her children in God, and they grow older to be the strength of the nation. Women don’t need to vote to influence the nation; they already influence the nation through their children. J. B. Sanford, Chairmen of Democratic Caucus, who was against woman’s suffrage in America, wrote on the dangers of suffrage:
Suffrage is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place for a woman consequently the privilege should not be granted to her.
The mother’s influence is needed in the home. She can do little good by gadding the streets and neglecting her children. Let her teach her daughters that modesty, patience, and gentleness are the charms of a women.
Let her teach her sons that an honest conscience is every man’s first political law; that no splendor can rob him nor no force justify the surrender of the simplest right of a free and independent citizen. The mothers of this country can shape the destinies of the nation by keeping in their places and attending to those duties that God Almighty intended for them.
The kindly, gentle influence of the mother in the home and the dignified influence of the teacher in the school will far outweigh all the influence of all the mannish female politicians on earth.
The courageous, chivalrous, and manly men and the womanly women, the real mothers and home builders of the country, are opposed to this innovation in American political life. There was a bill (the Sanford bill) before the last legislature which proposed to leave the equal
suffrage question to women to decide first before the men should vote on it. This bill was defeated by the suffragettes because they knew that the women would vote down the amendment by a vote of ten to one.
The men are able to run the government and take care of the women. Do women have to vote in order to receive the protection of man? Why, men have gone to war, endured every privation and death itself in defense of woman. To man, woman is the dearest creature on earth, and there is no extreme to which he would not go for his mother or sister. By keeping
woman in her exalted position man can be induced to do more for her than he could by having her mix up in affairs that will cause him to lose respect and regard for her.
Woman does not have to vote to secure her rights. Man will go to any extreme to protect and elevate her now. As long as woman is woman and keeps her place she will get more protection and more consideration than man gets. When she abdicates her throne she throws down the scepter of her power and loses her influence.
Woman suffrage has been proven a failure in states that have tried it. It is wrong. California should profit by the mistakes of other states. Not one reform has equal suffrage effected.
On the contrary, statistics go to show that in most equal suffrage states, Colorado particularly, that divorces have greatly increased since the adoption of the equal suffrage amendment, showing that it has been a home destroyer. Crime has also increased due to
lack of the mothers in the home.
Woman is woman. She can not unsex herself or change her sphere. Let her be content with her lot and perform those high duties intended for her by the Great Creator, and she will accomplish far more in governmental affairs that she can ever accomplish by mixing up in the dirty pool of politics. Keep the home pure and all will be well with the Republic. Let not the sanctity of the home be invaded by every little politician that may be running up and down the highway for office. Let the manly men and the womanly women defeat this amendment and keep woman where she belongs in order that she may retain the respect of all mankind.
Here is a video I made showing the evils of feminism:
Just because the Christian faith gives women different roles, does not mean it is placing a position of inferiority. Difference does not mean inferior. St. Paul said that “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) Men and women are one in Christ, but “there are many members, yet one body.” (1 Corinthians 12:20) While they are one, they are different, and thus have different roles in Christendom.
St. Peter wrote:
For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Peter 3:5-7)
Women who are submissive to God and husband, are not referred to as inferior, but as holy. To be holy means to be used by God, thus righteous women are not ignored by God but used by Him for His glory. A woman’s obedience to her husband signifies her obedience to God. Women who are rebellious, and who are always trying to dominate, are never at peace with God; they are revolting, contentious, wretched, and have flooded the modern churches with their rebellion. “A foolish woman is clamorous; She is simple, and knows nothing.” (Proverbs 9:13)
So repulsive are these rebellious women that we must say with Solomon, “Better to dwell in the wilderness, Than with a contentious and angry woman.” (Proverbs 21:19) What civilization needs is not rebellious wretches, but women who are more than willing to fight evil, and to encourage men to do so, just as Deborah stirred the spirit of Barak to fight the Canaanites. When the Assyrians were invading Israel, the woman Judith got the enemy general Holofernes drunk and beheaded him. This is the action of a noble woman. St. Clement, a direct student of the Apostles, praised righteous women and used Judith as an example:
many women, being strengthened by the grace of God, have done many glorious and manly things on such occasion. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, desired the elders that they would suffer her to go into the camp of their enemies, and she went out, exposing herself to danger, for the love she bare to her country and her people that were besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. (Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians, 45)
If somebody was about to kill a man, and his wife had a gun, would she not shoot the enemy? Of course; such is the action of a righteous woman. But this does not mean that she is dominating man, or being above him in any way, or being political. Nor does this mean that the rule that says that man must die for his wife, should be reversed. It simply means that she is righteous. Every woman can do her part for Christendom within her own means and limits, and this in every case is submission to God, and if she is married, to her husband as well. Most women are not like Judith or Deborah; but they can all do their part by being good wives. But again, this does not mean slavery.
Many of you will sit there and bring up American ideals such as “liberty,” and express your reverence for the Founding Fathers. “The Founding Fathers! The Founding Fathers!” is what I hear from so many today. Lets go to the Founding Fathers. Lets go to Thomas Jefferson, the most revered amongst them, and what we’ll find out is that “woman’s liberation” is not even an American ideal. Jefferson’s Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, expressed his concern for the lack of efficient applicants for public office, and suggested that women be placed in certain positions. To this Thomas Jefferson replied:
The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor am I. (3)
For Jefferson, as he wrote to Angelica Schuyler Church in 1807, “The tender breasts of ladies were not formed for political convulsion,” and women “miscalculate much their own happiness when they wander from the true field of their influence into that of politicks.” (4)
And such a statement is most true. Woman who want to get into politics don’t know how fortunate there are to partake in womanhood: to raise children and influence them to change society. France was invaded by feminism — on account of the effects of the French Revolution — before the United Stated was infected by its hysteria. When Thomas Jefferson went to France at this time, and saw how women were in government and high positions of power, he did not say, “Oh, we definitely need this!” or “Look, how progressive!” But instead he wrote:
The manners of the nation allow them to visit, alone, all persons in office, to solicit the affairs of the husband, family, or friends, and their solicitations bid defiance to laws and regulation . . . [Few Americans] can possibly understand the desperate state which things are reduced in this country from the omnipotence of an influence which, fortunately for the happiness of the sex itself, does not endeavor to extend itself in our country beyond the domestic line.
Here are the words of the most famous Founding Father, and he completely agrees with me. We sit here in our comfortable seats acting as though the Founding Fathers would want to allow two men to sodomize each other; we pompously act as though we are acting American when we accept these evils, when in reality we are un-American by doing so.
Mary gave birth to God, and the Holy One destroyed the works of Satan. How much more do we need women to cease emulating Eve, and start following Mary as their model! Let my detractors dare call me a sexist, as I praise the mother of mankind’s Redemption! Let my enemies accuse me of being a Muslim because I do not conform to the feminist herd, as I give my gratitude the actions of a woman —- Mary! Before we ever existed, Mary was in the mind of God, and destined her to bear God the Son in her holy womb; she was destined to bring forth the One Who would vanquish the evil spirit who Eve followed in the Garden. Gabriele Amorth, the official exorcist for the Vatican, in explaining the role of Mary in the war against the devil as such:
If the firstborn creature is the Word become flesh, she who would be the means of the Incarnation must also have been present in the divine thought before every other creature. From this stems Mary’s unique relationship with the Holy Trinity. (5)
Before any creature was created, God thought of a woman, and contemplated on her sublime role in the war against evil. Call me a sexist, while I again write so highly of a woman. Call me a sexist because I dare say that women should act like women, and emulate their archetype, Mary, and raise sons as she raised Christ, and guide them to be as Christ, and war against the enemies of humanity.
Now the feministic Christians would have us alter the words of Paul to be in accordance to their agenda, but this would only warp the roles found within order, and tear everything holy apart. Ah, alas, this is what they have already done! By cutting asunder what God hath put together, and creating this feminist movement, the modern woman sees not marriage as something to look forward to, but only a career as her aspiration. And to prevent children from getting in the way, just pop contraception pills, and if children get in the way, then one could just murder them, all for the sake of “liberation.” Look at the voting record and you will see that women tend to lean more Democrat when voting. Women have generally voted more Democrat for the last past six presidential elections, from 1992 to 2012. 56% of female voters voted for Barack Obama in 2008, versus 43% for John McCain. As the AP wrote:
Women tend to believe that government has a role to play, that it should be a partner in their life,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “Men tend to think it’s been a good day when the government hasn’t done anything bad to you.
In other words, these women are voting for evil: they are voting for abortion and homosexuality. They are like Eve, falling for the serpent and eating the fruit, because they are rageful for power.
This destructive voting can be attributed to the increased amount of single mothers and women in the workforce. Lets not forget that 70% of these Democrat women who voted for Obama were single mothers. Journalist Libby Copeland wrote:
Though there was evidence of some voting differences between the genders as far back as the 1960s, many political scientists date the emergence of the modern gender gap to the 1980 election, which served as the culmination of years of change in women’s lives. By then more women were working, more were single and living on their own. The women’s movement reinforced the growing sense that women’s political interests could and should be different than those of their husbands and fathers.
The reason why there are so many single mothers is because of divorce, and the fact that less people are getting married, choosing careers and university education over marriage and children: and all of this can be attributed to feminism.
This obsession with having a career over having children, was humorously — but realistically expressed by Gavin McInnes:
What the story of Eve tells us is that women are susceptible to being attracted to evil. Women are voting for evil. Look to any evil man in power and what do you always see him surrounded with: crazy women.
Millions of women donated their wedding rings to Mussolini, with 250,000 rings coming from Rome alone, in order to fund his regime after it faced sanctions for its invasion of Ethiopia. When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) was running in Germany there was tremendous amounts of women voters who supported him. Hitler himself said, “women have always been among my staunchest supporters” and “we have more than all of the parties together”. (6) Dick Geary, Professor of Modern History at the University of Nottingham, gives a fair and balanced view on the female vote for the Nazi Party:
The NSDAP, at least in the Depression of the early 1930s, was much more attractive to female voters than the German Left in general … Until 1930 women remained unlikely to vote for the Nazi Party. Moreover, in the presidential election of 1932 a clear majority of women preferred Hindenburg to Hitler. However, the early 1930s did see a narrowing of the gap between male and female voting patterns, especially in Protestant areas. Indeed, in some of these by July 1932 the NSDAP was winning a higher percentage of the female to male vote. In that month some 6.5 million women voted Nazi, many of them probably with few or no previous political ties. Where they came from the working class, they were likely to be non-unionised textile operatives or domestic workers. (7)
Alois, the uncle of Eva Brown, Hitler’s wife, said: “Hitler was the great temptation for so many women. Who could blame poor Eva, or fail to understand if she fell victim to the fascination of this man? After all, women of far greater intellectual and personal stature fell for the man, one way or another!” (8)
Joseph Smith, Charlie Manson, Muhammad — all were surrounded by women.
We laud America as this beacon of “women’s rights,” but in the West women are allowed to marry the most wicked of men in prison. Here is a photo of Charlie Manson with his new wife:
There are only two types of women: the ones who emulate, and follow the devil, or the ones who emulate Mary and follow Christ. Jezebel, Salome, Herodias, and Athaliah all followed Eve; Judith, Deborah, Jael, Mary Magdalen, all of them emulated Mary. All men can either emulate Adam, being as Ahab and Herod, and listen to the treachery of Eve, or emulate Christ, loving the woman, but hating evil.
Feminism has cut marriage asunder, with the majority of divorces being done by women. In the 1970s more than 70% of divorces in some American states were done by women. Now, throughout the country, over two thirds of divorces are done by women. Even though its less financially advantageous for women to get divorced, since the majority of the time the man is the greater bread winner, the majority of divorces are done by women.
Do not think that this article was written to demonize women, rather it is merely an observation. Men are as well to blame for this, for just as Adam consented to Eve’s exhortation to eat the fruit, so are men consenting to the feminist onslaught. I love watching this video of Peter Hitchens (Christopher Hitchens’ brother) making a most essential — and yet almost unheard of — observation: What the world calls progress is in reality darkness. We complain of “black and white” ways of looking at the world, but if not being black and white means wives and husbands freely divorcing and abandoning their families, then by all means we are better off being black and white, with the oh so common accusations of classical sexism patiently and graciously received.
That the story of Adam and Eve demonstrates the danger of women’s liberation, is shown in St. Paul. Paul explains the reason as to why women are not to be preachers or priests: because it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent, and because of this, the placing of women in positions of authority would only further enable Satan’s influence in that position through the woman, just as Satan influenced Eve to vanquish Adam. Let the acolytes of feminism read what the Apostle says, and then let them dare advance their rebellion in the Church:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:11-14)
Notice how Paul affirms here that Adam was not deceived, but Eve. How is this so? Did they not both eat the prohibited fruit? Yes. But, there is a difference between obeying an inferior animal and listening to an equal. Adam agreed with an equal — a woman —; this is not deception but merely a man heeding to the natural agreeableness of a woman. Eve, on the other hand, heeded to a serpent, which is simply ridiculous and unreasonable.
It is more reasonable to listen to a woman than it is to listen to a talking snake. Adam would have never listened to a snake, but he would have listened to a woman. This is because he was reasonable. Eve, on the other hand, preferred to subscribe to the words of a serpent over the words of her husband, and ultimately God. This indicates the distinction between Adam and Eve: one was obviously more reasonable than the other. Why then should suffrage be given to women, when in their original state they demonstrated a significant unreasonableness and vulnerability to the beguiling of Satan?
The first woman fell for the devil, and for this the Apostle Paul forbids them positions of authority in the Church, since they would be a danger to their own souls and to the souls of others. Eve told God, “The serpent deceived me” (Genesis 3:13); but Adam did not say, “The woman deceived me,” but rather, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” (Genesis 3:12) Now the modern feminists who have overrun the churches will read this verse and say, “Adam was playing the blame game!” These very people place themselves in a position above God when they speak this way. For even God Himself did not correct Adam when he said this of his wife, rather he punished both, not for blaming, but for revolting against their roles. Adam was suppose to correct his wife for listening to the devil, and Eve was to listen to God and her husband, bur rather she chose the ideas of Satan. God did not say to Adam, “Don’t blame your wife!” But rather He punished Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife” (Genesis 3:17).
Ah! Let the feminists melt at such words! The modern jezebels who roam about these modern circuses they call churches burn in agony at such verses, for it reminds them that the woman was not to be listened to; that Eve fell and because of this, women are not permitted any seat of power in the churches. I do not heed to modern interpretations, tainted by the evils of modern Delilahs, but to the pillar of authority that raises the truth in its foundations. Let us quote St. John Chrysostom to see what he said on the verse of St. Paul:
To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming. “But I suffer not a woman to teach.” “I do not suffer,” he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. (9)
Read these words and contemplate. He says that women are to be listeners, and not teachers. For Eve taught, and Adam listened, and from that time look what evils have transpired; how many countless millions massacred, how many wars, how many inhumanities! all because a man listened to the wicked teachings of his wife. People take the action of Eve so lightly. Do they not realize that entire oceans of blood have been spilt because the husband submitted to his wife? I ask you, dear reader, to remove the veil that was placed on your eyes from decades of feminism, and see divine history with clear eyes and with your soul! Let these modernist heretics tell us about how “liberated” they are from “the Church’s tyranny” and then have them read what St. Paul had to say to the Corinthians:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 2:34-35)
After Eve wickedly led her husband astray, God told her :
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you. (Genesis 3:16)
Why should she be ruled by her husband? Because when she was not ruled by her husband, she was ruled by the devil. So many parallels are found in Scripture of men committing evil because of the desires of women. Josephus tells us that when the Moabites and Midianites could not defeat the Hebrews, the king of Moab — Balak — consulted the wizard Balaam and he, under the influence of Satan, advised him to use the sensual power of women and this proved to be more conquering than arms. Balaam told Balak:
So that if you have a mind to gain a victory over them for a short space of time you will obtain it by following my directions:— Do you therefore set out the handsomest of such of your daughters as are most eminent for beauty, and proper to force and conquer the modesty of those that behold them, and these decked and trimmed to the highest degree you are able. Then do you send them to be near the Israelites’ camp and give them in charge, that when young men of the Hebrews desire their company, they allow it them; and when they see that they are enamored of them, let them take their leaves; and if they entreat them to stay, let them not give their consent till they have persuaded them to leave off their obedience to their own laws and the worship of that God who established them, and to worship the gods of the Midianites and Moabites; for by this means God will be angry at them. (10)
The plan was initially successful: Hebrew men joined themselves with Midianite women at the expense of their souls, just as Adam ate the forbidden fruit at the allurement of Eve. This is why “the people began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab.” (Numbers 25:1) Ah, and here we read of Satan grasping men through the means of women.
Delilah, through her charm, got Samson to confess where his strength lied. Satan worked through a woman to tell Job, “Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9). Jezebel convinced Ahab to allow the murder of Naboth so that he could possess his vineyard. David murdered Uriah after his wife presented herself naked upon the roof, and betrayed her husband. Potiphar’s wife convinced him to imprison Joseph after he refused to sleep with her.
Herodias had her daughter erotically dance for Herod and used her attractions to get him to behead John the Baptist. Even God describes His enemy as the Harlot of Babylon; He describes the adversary as an evil woman, who uses her sex to control kings:
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. (Revelation 17:1-3)
And for what reason does she fornicate with the kings? The same reason as to why Herodias harloted her daughter to Herod; the same reason why Jezebel influenced Ahab; the same reason why Eve beguiled her husband: power, to rival God, and control humanity, and from this desire comes death and blood. As St. John writes:
I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. (Revelation 17:60
The fact that God uses the image of a wicked and lascivious woman, is a reflection as to the evils of women seeking and violently striving for power. Satan uses the woman as a vehicle to corrupt and use men and as a means to his evil men. St. Maximus of Turin wrote: “Wickedly did Eve deceive Adam, wickedly” and in another place he wrote Satan “was used to attacking faithful men through nothing else than a woman.” (11) St. Paulinus of Nola wrote:
For quite wantonly these angels tempt the weaker vessels, just as the serpent assailed not Adam but Eve. So for this reason women are forbidden to teach in church, so that their spirits may not be puffed up and so that they may not dare to gaze on the decrees of wisdom, and then secede through becoming haughty with pride. (12)
Since women are primary targets for the devil’s influence, then how is it all of a sudden acceptable that women be allowed to vote? In many cults, and in some of the diabolical systems in history, you will see the call for women to revolt against God. I will give a few examples; observe how they interconnect.
In the medieval era of France, Bulgaria and Armenia, there were people called Cathars, Albigensians, Bogomils and Paulicians. These groups believed that there were two gods, one evil and the other good. They considered the god of the Old Testament “evil,” because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and had the wicked slaughtered; and they called the god of the New Testament, “good” because they saw him as peaceful. In each of these sects women were given equal status and were allowed to be priests. Presbyter Cosmos, who fought against the gnostic heresy in Bulgaria, said:
The heretics absolve themselves, though they are tied to devilish fetters. This is done not only by the men but by the women also, which is most damnable. (13)
In one document we find that out of a group of 719 gnostic priests in Southern France, 318 were women. (14) The dualist Lollards of 15th century England also advocated and practiced the equality of the sexes in the priesthood. As one of the Lollard female priest, Hawisia Mone, said:
[E]very man and every woman being in good life out of sin is a good priest and has [as] much power of God in all things as any priest ordered, be he pope or bishop.” (15)
All of these heretics revolted against orthodoxy, and like the serpent in the Garden, told women that they could surpass their God given position. To revolt against traditional hierarchy, is to revolt against God, for such was created by God.
The woman’s suffrage movement in America, from its beginning, was riddled with heresy and rebellion. In 1848, 68 women and 32 men — all advocates for suffrage — signed what is called the Declaration of Sentiments. It was written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the most infamous pioneers of woman’s suffrage in America, who was right up there with Susan B. Anthony. Stanton modeled it after the Declaration of Independence, and it contained negative affirmation against the traditional role of women in the Church:
He [Man] allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.
Stanton hated the Bible and believed that the teachings on women in the Bible were “evil,” writing:
We have made a fetich of the Bible long enough. The time has come to read it as we do all other books, accepting the good and rejecting the evil it teaches.
Now, the Cathar and Albigensian heretics broke the Bible down and considered one part of Scripture “evil” and the other part “good.” This way of seeing the Scripture is no different than that of the women’s suffrage advocate Stanton: she saw parts of the Bible as “evil” and other parts as “good.” The feminists of the Middle Ages continued on into the modern era, with women’s suffragists considering the Bible as an evil book while trumping “gender equality.”
The founder of the Cathar heresy, Mani, thought up a heresy so satanic that to him the serpent was literally Christ, showing Adam and Eve the way to enlightenment and divine wisdom, that they could become gods. Stanton, the praised pioneer of women’s suffrage, agreed with this demonic belief. She taught that Eve’s submitting to the teaching of the serpent, that she would be “like God,” is not something worthy of condemnation, but a sign of intellectual superiority, and that the convincing arguments of the snake were far more exciting than spending time with Adam:
The tempter evidently had a profound knowledge of human nature, and saw at a glance the high character of the person he met by chance in his walks in the garden. He did not try to tempt her from the path of duty by brilliant jewels, rich dresses, worldly luxuries or pleasures, but with the promise of knowledge, with the wisdom of the Gods.
Like Socrates or Plato, his powers of conversation and asking puzzling questions, were no doubt marvellous, and he roused in the woman that intense thirst for knowledge, that the simple pleasures of picking flowers and talking with Adam did not satisfy. Compared with Adam she appears to great advantage through the entire drama. … The conduct of Eve from the beginning to the end is so superior to that of Adam. The command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge was given to the man alone before woman was formed. Genesis ii, 17. Therefore the injunction was not brought to Eve with the impressive solemnity of a Divine Voice, but whispered to her by her husband and equal.
It was a serpent supernaturally endowed, a seraphim as Scott and other commentators have claimed, who talked with Eve, and whose words might reasonably seem superior to the second-hand story of her companion nor does the woman yield at once. She quotes the command not to eat of the fruit to which the serpent replies “Dying ye shall not die,” v. 4, literal translation. In other words telling her that if the mortal body does perish, the immortal part shall live forever, and offering as the reward of her act the attainment of Knowledge.
For Stanton, the liberation of women required the overthrow of the entirety of Scripture, the Church, Christian tradition, and Christendom. To do this she wrote the infamous “Women’s Bible,” in which she took the whole Scripture and distorted and mutilated all of Holy Writ to conform to her feminist heresies, filled with ideas of female superiority and paganism. In the beginning of this damnable book, Stanton shows her desire to overthrow Scripture, Church Creeds, Christian marriage, and all things holy for the advancement of her utopian vision of female rebellion:
The canon and civil law; church and state; priests and legislators; all political parties and religious denominations have alike taught that woman was made after man, of man, and for man, an inferior being, subject to man. Creeds, codes, Scriptures and statutes, are all based on this idea. The fashions, forms, ceremonies and customs of society, church ordinances and discipline all grow out of this idea.
The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man’s bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire on the vital questions of the hour, she was commanded to ask her husband at home. Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up.
In the same writing Stanton refers to women as “worthy our worship as the mother of the race”, and says that those who would translate the Bible to conform to feminist superiority, “are to be congratulated as having a share of the occult mystic power of the eastern Mahatmas.” Stanton wanted to destroy all orthodoxy and its history, reconstruct Christianity into a pagan religion, filled with astrology and heathen Egyptian mythology. In the same heretical book, she wrote:
The Book of Revelation, properly Re-Veilings, cannot even be approximately explained without some knowledge of astrology. It is a purely esoteric work, largely referring to woman, her intuition, her spiritual powers, and all she represents. Even the name of its putative author, John, is identical in meaning with “dove,” the emblem of the Holy Ghost, the female principle of the Divinity.
This book came down from old Egyptian “mystery” times, and was one of the profoundly “sacred” and profoundly “secret” books of the great temple of Luxor, the words “sacred” and “secret” possessing the same meaning during the mysteries. All knowledge was anciently concealed in the mysteries; letters, numbers, astrology (until the sixteenth century identical with astronomy), alchemy, the parent of chemistry, these, and all other sciences were hidden from the common people. Even to all initiates the most important part of the mysteries was not revealed.
Paralleling with the Mormons, Stanton taught that God had a wife, writing, “If a Heavenly Father was necessary, why not a Heavenly Mother?” Like all those under the power of Antichrist, Stanton saw the Trinity as irrational and believed it more rational to say that it consists of “ a Heavenly Father, Mother, and Son” She was such an antichrist, and agreed with the Muslims that Christ is not God, rejecting His divinity and the orthodox teaching of the Hypostatic Union, or the union of Divinity and Humanity in Christ, and seeing Jesus as just a mere man. She also rejected the Virgin Birth, and like the Cathars before her, saw God as unjust. She wrote:
The Jewish idea that Jesus was born according to natural law is more rational than is the Christian record of the immaculate conception by the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Trinity.
In another place she wrote:
This thought of Jesus as the second person of an inconceivable trinity, a being neither of heaven nor earth, but between the two; a being having two natures and one will; a being who was ignorant as a man, and who suffered as a man, while he knew everything as God and could not suffer as God—this conception is part of a scheme of the universe which represents humanity as ruined and lost and hopeless, God as unjust, and man as looking only to a fearful judgment in the ages that are to be. I believe that thousands of people have lived since the time of Jesus as good, as tender, as loving, as true, as faithful, as he. There is no more mystery in the one case than in the other, for it is all mystery.
To be fair, there were numerous women suffragists who were against the book, but the book was not condemned by the most famous of the suffragists, Susan B. Anthony.
In fact, she actually approved of the heretical writing. In addressing the remonstrances against the book, Susan wrote:
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires. All the way along the history of our movement there has been this same contest on account of religious theories. …The question is whether you will sit in judgment on one who has questioned the Divine inspiration of certain passages in the Bible derogatory to women. …. Many things have been said and done by our orthodox friends that I have felt to be extremely harmful to our cause; but I should no more consent to a resolution denouncing them than I shall consent to this. Who is to draw the line? Who can tell now whether Mrs. Stanton’s commentaries may not prove a great help to woman’s emancipation from old superstitions that have barred her way?
She saw the sentiments of orthodox associates as “harmful to the cause”. Why? Because she understood that orthodoxy is in direct opposition to her agenda. And she believed that Stanton’s heresies could advance her agenda over “old superstitions”. By “old superstitions” she was no doubt speaking of the Christian Faith and its teachings on womanhood. And following her gnostic predecessors, she calls the teachings of the Bible “derogatory to women.”
The suffrage movement was not just about allowing women to vote; it had more to do with uprooting Christianity and bringing the world back to pre-Christian and pagan times. Matilda Joslyn Gage, another major player in the suffrage movement in America, absolutely hated Christianity and saw it as the biggest hinderance for the fulfillment of the feminist agenda. She envisioned a return back to pagan times, with its worship of goddesses, and said that the world was best for women when it was under paganism, and that Christianity ruined female liberation. She wrote, “Until the introduction of Christianity woman largely preserved the liberty belonging to her in old civilizations.” By “old civilizations” she is speaking of pagan societies. While scolding Christianity, she adulates Roman, Egyptian, Greek, and Native Indian pagan cultures.
Helen Gardener, another pioneer in the women’s suffrage movement, also expressed her disdain for Christianity as a sexist religion, saying, “The religion and the Bible require of women everything and give her nothing. They ask her love and support, and repay her with contempt and oppression”. (16) Even as far back as the 1800s, the bile of feminist rebellion wreaked reeked ever so strongly. In one lecture Helen Gardener said:
I believe that love for our fellow-men is infinitely nobler, better, and more necessary than love for God.
Not only did she put man above God, but esteemed the devil highly, just like the gnostics before her. She said:
Abraham and Saul lived in a healthier climate — in God’s congressional district, where murder was above par and decency was out of fashion. Take it all in all, and the devil seems to make the best governor. (17)
Its quite telling, that while these women praise the devil, the God says that there will be “enmity between you [Satan] and the woman,” showing that Satan actually hates the woman. Amazingly, these feminists are adulating the devil. God says to the devil, that the Seed of the woman “shall bruise thy head” (Genesis 3:15), showing clearly that the woman has a very active role in the defeat of the devil. Christianity gives victory to the woman; but these daughters of Jezebel want to promote the worship of the devil. It is the feminists who hate women, not Christianity.
We see this same antichrist spirit of “women’s liberation” advocacy in the history of Communism. Communism is purely antichrist, and its sole purpose is to strip the society of Christianity. This entails having women revolt against Christian roles. Once the Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917, women were given the right to vote for the time in the nation’s history. In 1919 Vladmir Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks, wrote:
To effect [woman’s] emancipation and make her the equal of man, it is necessary to be socialized and for women to participate in common productive labor. Then woman will be the equal of man.
Feminism is an inevitable consequence of communism. If the state is to rule a collective family, as opposed to individual families, then the Christian concept of the family must be destroyed. After the Bolshevik Revolution, the communist revolutionary Alexandra Kollontai wrote in the Komunistka:
There was a time when the isolated, firmly-knit family, based on a church wedding, was equally necessary to all its members…But over the last hundred years this customary family structure has been falling apart in all the countries where capitalism is dominant. …There is no escaping the fact: the old type of family has had its day. The family is withering away not because it is being forcibly destroyed by the state, but because the family is ceasing to be a necessity. The state does not need the family, because the domestic economy is no longer profitable…The members of the family do not need the family either, because the task of bringing up the children which was formerly theirs is passing more and more into the hands of the collective.
The woman’s suffrage movement in America was just as controversial and tense as the sodomite movement is now. And just as there are many Americans who oppose the hijacking of marriage today, there also many Americans who opposed woman’s suffrage. There was Kate Douglas Wiggin, a famous America children’s book writer, who was opposed to woman’s suffrage. She wrote:
I am probably an antisuffragist by instinct and temperament, but all the experience of my busy life has confirmed my natural attitude of mind. I would not for the world retard the development of woman nor hamper her in her struggle for still greater freedom than she now possesses, though to my mind she had not at any time gone to the limit of her powers under present conditions, but I can not believe that the ballot is the first or th next best thing to work for. I want her to be a good citizen, but above all to be a helpful, stimulating, inspiring force in the world rather than a useful and influential factor in politics. I do not question a woman’s ability to concentrate her mind on political questions, to grow steadily in knowledge and power, and to vote wisely and conscientiously, but I would prefer her to develop still higher powers, for there are higher ones. (18)
In the early days of the modern feminist movement, there were numerous opponents against it. One of these was G.K. Chesterton. One correspondent of his told him: “Would not our women be spared the drudgery of cooking and all its attendant worries, leaving them free for higher culture?” To this Chesterton responded that there is more freedom for the housewife than the man who works for a living:
The Ladies and Gentlemen of the Smart Set are quite free for the higher culture, which consists chiefly of motoring and Bridge. But the ordinary man who typifies and constitutes the millions that make up our civilization is no more free for the higher culture than his wife is. Indeed, he is not so free. Of the two sexes the woman is in the more powerful position. For the average woman is at the head of something with which she can do as she likes; the average man has to obey orders and do nothing else. He has to put one dull brick on another dull brick, and do nothing else; he has to add one dull figure to another dull figure, and do nothing else. The woman’s world is a small one, perhaps, but she can alter it. …She can put the flowers or the furniture in fancy arrangements of her own. I fear the bricklayer cannot put the bricks in fancy arrangements of his own, without disaster to himself and others.
…A woman cooking may not always cook artistically; still she can cook artistically. …The average woman, as I have said, is a despot; the average man is a serf. I am for any scheme that any one can suggest that will make the average woman more of a despot. So far from wishing her to get cooked meals from outside, I should like her to cook more wildly and at her own will than she does. So far from getting always the same meals from the same place, let her invent, if she likes, a new dish every day of her life. Let women be more of a maker, not less. (18)
I don’t want women working in factories, or in corporations, where they are either slaves to men who don’t care for them, or enslaving others; I want women to be the queen of their own castles, to rule nations through their children, and to guide the salvation of humanity with their families.
People will argue and say, “If you are against woman’s suffrage then are you also against blacks having the right to vote.” Such an argument is not valid because it equates race with gender. The two are not the same. We have girl scouts and boy scout, not white scouts and black scouts, because race and gender are completely different. Blacks in America are more enslaved now after the advent of feminism than they were when they were open slaves on the plantations.
Millions upon millions of black infants have been murdered, and the shedding of their blood is praised as an advancement of feminism. Truly this is slavery, and far worse than the slavery that was done in the past. Feminism has murdered so many blacks, and yet we hear how the “women’s liberation” movement has brought freedom to women and minorities. It is the feminists that should answer for their slavery of blacks, not me.
Moreover, Christianity does not portray blacks as inferior, nor any other race, and nor does it make women inferior. When the prostitute submitted herself to Christ, and anointed His feet with perfume, and Judas berated her, Christ said:
Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. (Matthew 26:10)
Christ did not make her inferior in any way, but credited her for her surrender to Him. When the Ethiopian approached Philip, the Apostle did not reject because he was African, but rather God Himself guided him to bring the Ethiopian to repentance and baptism. Why? Because both the woman and the African are human beings, one in humanity, the humanity that God became to save humanity.
But here comes the slithering serpent, to bring people to revolt, to tempt them with superficial power to have them worship him. The serpent did not come to the man, but to the woman, in order to bring humanity into disorder. Such is what feminism has brought — disorder and chaos — and such is the reason why I say that the worse mistake America ever made was allowing women to vote.
(1a) *Chesterton, introduction to the Defendant*
(1) *Chrysostom, homily ix, on 1 Timothy, 2:11-15*
(2) *Chrysostom, Homily ix, on 1 Timothy 2:11-15*
(3) Jefferson, To Albert Gallatin, Jan. 13, 1807; infra, XI.4*
(4) Jefferson, To Angelica Schuyler Church, Sept. 21, 1788; in J.P. Boyd et al., ed., Papers of Thomas Jefferson , XIII, p. 623*
(5) Amorth, An Exorcist Tells His Story, ch. 1, p. 20*
(6) “Our Last Hope”; Women’s Votes for Hitler: A Reappraisal
Helen L. Boak, German Studies Review, Vol. 12, No. 2 (May, 1989), pp. 289-310*
(7) Dick Geary, Who Voted Nazi, History Today, 1998*
(8) *Quoted by Guido Knopp, Hitler’s Women*
(9) *Chrysostom, Homily IX, on 1 Timothy ii. 11-15*
10 Josephus, Antiquities, 4.6.6
(11) *Maximus of Turin, sermons 75.3-76.1*
(12) *Paulinus of Nola, letter 23.24*
(13) *Quoted in Georgi Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 3, p.44*
(14) *Georgi Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 3, p. 47*
(15)Quoted Georgi Vasilev, Heresy and the English Reformation, ch. 3, p. 50. I adapted the old English style to modern English*
(16) *Plain Talk 8, 10*
(17) *Men, women, and gods, and other lectures*
(18) Chesterton, All Things Considered, 1908*