Gradual Genocide: Fertility, Feminism And Fascism

ToogoodReports ^ | May 8, 2002 | Henry Makow Ph.D.

[Starmaker]

A smoking gun! The elite doesn't want us to reproduce.

In 1970, Frederick Jaffe, the VP of Rockefeller-sponsored "Planned Parenthood" organization outlined how "social constraints" should be used to achieve "fertility control." ("Family Planning Perspectives" Oct.1970.)

These "constraints" included encouraging "increased homosexuality," altering "the image of the ideal family," and encouraging women to work outside the home.

If this failed, the agency recommended the placement of "fertility control agents in the water supply." We're not talking about unwanted pregnancies here.

The unprecedented decline of the American family since 1960 did not take place by accident. We are victims of a campaign of psychological warfare carried out by the CIA and foundations through the media, government and education.

They put the neutering agent in the cultural drinking water. The main ingredient is the promotion of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality.

Feminism, which masquerades as "woman's rights," is in fact a pathological lesbian movement. It coerces women to believe that their feminine instincts are socially taught, oppressive and evil. It teaches them to fear and compete with men, and to find fulfillment in career instead of family.

Women who devote their lives to their families are the finest aspects of human life. They are saints who bring love and beauty into the world and tend to the real everyday needs of men and children. To disparage these women is a foul, vicious calumny worthy of the devil himself. Yet that's what the feminist movement is all about, though they deny it.

Betty Frieden, the "moderate" feminist founder, who hid the fact that she was a Communist activist, compared homemakers to concentration camp victims. Simone de Beauvoir, another Communist founder, said women must not be given a choice to be mothers and homemakers because they'll choose that option.

According to feminist Ellen Willis, feminism "is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values...The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion...to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values." (The Nation, Nov. 14, 1981)

What part of traditional family values do feminists object to? Love? Sacrifice? Devotion? Loyalty? Security? The preparation of a new generation for life?

THEY'RE NOT CALLED FEMINAZIS FOR NOTHING

Rockefeller financed the Nazis through I.G. Farben. He sponsored the American Eugenics Society that had close links to its Nazi counterpart.

Rockefeller financed Alfred Kinsey, the homosexual pederast whose "Kinsey Report" replaced married love with casual sex.

Rockefeller continues to finance "Women's Studies" which is a training ground for fascist zealots who spread their poison in society as "change agents." (See Daphne Patai, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.)

The elite is promoting homosexuality to bring about a fascist New World Order. Homosexuality is a developmental disorder characterized by a failure to bond with a member of the opposite sex. Lesbianism (feminism) which coerces women to be like men (and vice-versa) makes it difficult to achieve such a bond. As a result, millions of men and women have been defrauded of happiness and suffer the same symptoms as homosexuals, i.e. arrested development, and obsession with sex.

The elite's purpose is to transfer power from the nation state to their minions at the world level. Once our democratic power is gone, the elite will lower the standard of living. Look at the economic disparities in the Third World for a blueprint of the future. For the elite, the motto is "the less there is of you, the more there is for us."

A distracted, dysfunctional population, deprived of its history and culture, will not recognize its fate in time. Men, emasculated and demoralized, will not be able to resist.

FROM ROCKEFELLER CENTER TO WINNIPEG SQUARE

I ran headlong into this stealth elite policy when I was teaching English part-time at the University of Winnipeg. I was exploring the subject of male-female love in works by DH Lawrence, Chekhov and Henry James.

A handful of militant feminists objected to my defense of traditional femininity and wrote a letter slandering me. Constance Rooke, the university president, accepted their allegations without investigation. The university ignored my complaint of discrimination. The Manitoba Human Rights Commission, another feminist bastion, also dismissed my complaint without investigation.

Winnipeg Sun Editor Lyn Cockburn portrayed me as a 50-year-old man who got his jollies by importuning his 18-year-old female students after class with questions about their sex lives. She compared me to a MD who should be disbarred for making "inappropriate remarks and gestures" to a young female patient. I am suing The Winnipeg Sun for defamation in court this week.

Vile slander is the lot of anyone who questions feminist dogma. Professors are afraid to speak to me.

This case is not about protecting innocence.

Last year, Cockburn had nothing to say when the same university was on the front page of The Winnipeg Sun for teaching lesbian masturbation to 14-year-old high school girls. The girls signed on for a summer school course on "women in the arts" and received an introduction to lesbianism instead. They learned that they didn't need men and could use bananas and vegetables. President Rooke was unrepentant but opined that it may have been too early to introduce the girls to this subject.

Normally Rooke would have lost her job for this outrage. But there wasn't a peep from the Minister of Education or other stalwarts of the community. Rooke is brazen because her orders come right from the top.

This became clear when I saw Jim Carr, the executive director of the Manitoba Business Council. I thought the province's leading enterprises would be concerned that feminists teach the hatred of males, the overthrow of capitalism and discrimination in favor of women, minorities and homosexuals.

He denied this is happening. Carr's previous assignment was biographer of Duff Roblin. A former Manitoba Premier, Roblin is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (the elite's US coordinating body.)

Hartley Richardson, a longtime leader of the Manitoba business community, is a member of the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller interests set up these bodies to promote elite world government and (Canadian PM) Jean Chretien and (Manitoba Premier) Gary Doer dance to their tunes.

In conclusion, elite planners and their stooges (in government, education and the media) are actively promoting homosexuality in order to destabilize and neuter us. Their ultimate goal is to steal our birthright, in every sense of the word.

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Henry at scruples@escape.ca .

[Unassuaged]

If you look the word up, you will find that it is not necessarly solitary..

[petuniasevan]

You know, I worked on a ranch, built fences, served in the Air Force as an aircraft mechanic, raised livestock and poultry, unloaded trucks, and work now in a high-speed packaging mill. All this because I WANTED to. I'm married too, for almost 17 years now.

And you're a feminist? How CUTE.

[weikel]

The man hating comes out Rush is almost never wrong.

[Lorianne]

So? What's your point?

[Lorianne]

I have zero respect for blind idealogues of any stripe or any gender. Think about it.

[moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing]

The man hating comes out Rush is almost never wrong.

I think you missed the point; she doesn't hate men, she only hates people like you.

[weikel]

Shes a feminist she hates men .

[weikel]

Wow and the hatred of other women who don't buy into your man hating philosphy comes out quickly too very interesting. Textbook feminist.

[The Raven]

Somebody forgot to tell teenagers

[petuniasevan]

Point is, there's feminists, and there's strong women. I come from a line of strong women. No feminists. They're not the same.

[Billthedrill]

If you look the word up, you will find that it is not necessarly solitary..

Correct - etymologically "mastur" refers to "hand"...uh...not that I'm interested in this sort of thing, you realize...I, uh, read that in a book...no, not that sort of book...it was...uh...it was...what was the question again?

Actually, for all the conspiratorial blather and the political polemic on both sides, I don't think we're in too much trouble. Men still like women and women men, and both still like sex...I think...uh, I read that in a book...no, not that sort of book...

[Tribune7]

People who base their self-worth on the degree of victimhood perceived to have been inflicted on their gender (or race or whatever) are unpleasant to be around.

People who insist that there are no significant differences between the genders are fools, and hence unpleasant to be around.

[Lorianne]

I take your point, and I agree many women don't wish to call themselves feminists even though they are in principle feminists because they believe in the core value of women as autonomous human beings. It is their perogative to label themselves however they wish, but it doesn't change the core beliefs.

I respect that while I personally disagree on strategy. To me this is a sign of weakness; allowing yourself to be pushed around by a small group of women who want to usurp that name. Why abandon the hill you're on and retreat to a new hill with a different name? All this is semantics, really, the core beliefs are what matters most.

By the way there are lots of Conservative women organiziations who use the word "feminist" in the their name and subscribe to the core principles of feminsm for exactly that reason.

[valkyrieanne]

This is NOT what the feminist movement is all about.

No one has a clue what the "feminist movement" is all about. All that's left of it are a bunch of sour, disgruntled college professors in "womyn's studies" who are most likely on the verge of retirement.

Most "revolutionary" feminist ideas have become entirely mainstream - read this and other conservative news sites on the plight of Afghani women, for example. There is a LOT of conservative support for the horrors women experience under sha'riah Islam, but these people wouldn't call themselves "feminist."

Feminism disgraced itself deeply in the 1970s not only when large parts of "the movement" adopted lesbian separatism (think Mary Daly) but when being a 'feminist' meant being pro-abortion.

Feminism also became entirely identified with political correctness. Women who were doing everything the feminists said women "should" do - like going to law school; starting their own radio programs and newspapers; getting involved in national lobbying, etc. were trashed entirely by feminists if they were politically conservative or politically "incorrect." (The example I gave refers to Phyllis Schlafly, by the way.) So feminism got tarred not only by the brush of abortion but by radical socialism/liberalism as well.

When the goddess worship got dragged in it entirely went to you know where, and that's why people around here, I imagine, just gag when they hear "typical" feminist rhetoric.

[Lorianne]

People who base their self-worth on the degree of victimhood perceived to have been inflicted on their gender (or race or whatever) are unpleasant to be around.

I agree completely! That is why I prefer to be around people who actually do something instead sit around and complain about others. There are lots of women who are actually doing things to make the world a better place. And they vote! They don't sit around waiting for others to take action. It's a lead, follow or get the hell out of the way sort of thing. People who insist that there are no significant differences between the genders are fools, and hence unpleasant to be around. Again, I agree. Ditto for people who insist on valueing/devalueing those differences to pretend one set of humans is worthwile and the other set of humans is of lesser value. These types are fools and bigots to boot. Differences are great! We need differences.

[chilepepper]

They don't NEED secret meetings. The millieu in which they operate (the Hollywood morass) insures that leming like, they try to outdo each other to (1) make things as sensational (e.g.- stimulate the sensibilities of their viewers) as much as possible and (2) promote the leftist PC agenda, which, you got it, IS TO BREAK DOWN THE FAMILY

In particular, to attack those who are religious as 'supersticious', stupid and/or evil, and to promote homosexuality by showing man/man or women/women sex, to promote promiscuous sex in and out of marriage, always show white males as homosexuals and white women selecting blacks instead of white males.

Agendas do not have to be "planned" in a secret meeting if everyone consciously or unconsciously already does things that way...

[Tribune7]

Ditto for people who insist on valueing/devalueing those differences to pretend one set of humans is worthwile and the other set of humans is of lesser value.

I agree very much. Here's something on which you may mull. If some horrific event should occur in which our technology reverted to what it was circa 1820 -- where life expentancy was about 30 years and which strong muscles were needed for 90 percent of workplace positions -- what would happen to gender roles?

[THROW?]

To those against Lorainne, I think that you are missing her point. And to the person that said her hate comes out because she is a feminist is wrong. Her "hate" came out because of your biased and illogical thoughts of grouping all feminists in a group. It is like saying a black person can not fight for freedom because he is in the NAACP or a Jackson minion. I am a conservative white male and hate what feminism and affirmative action has come to, so don't misconstrue what I am saying. I also think that is what Lorainne is trying to point out. She doesn't want women to be "put in their place." but she isn't what people would call a femnazi or what you mean by femanism. As she stated, it is just a matter of semantics.

[Lorianne]

Feminism disgraced itself deeply in the 1970s not only when large parts of "the movement" adopted lesbian separatism ....

This is a bogus claim. The vast majority of feminists (like the vast majority of women) is heterosexual. I agree that lesbians tried to usurp feminism, but they failed. This is old news. The fact that (as you yourself admitted) core feminist values are now "mainstream" and lesbians are still only 5% or less of the female population** is proof of that.

**By the way, there are a lot more homosexual men. Homosexual men are estimated at 10% (some say 15%) of the male population. But I don't see a big commotion about men vis a vis .... being politically active makes men homosexual. Yet another double standard (Call politically active women lesbians).

.... when being a 'feminist' meant being pro-abortion.

Not all feminists are pro-abortion. There is a large minority who aren't. Granted, they are in the minority, and this speaks ill of feminism in my view, but it is no reason to abandon feminism. In fact it is all the MORE reason for Conservative and pro-Life women to get involved in politics and make their voices heard loud and clear and join organizations like:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

http://www.geocities.com/johnaugus/modernquotes.html

http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nwclstmt.html