Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gradual Genocide: Fertility, Feminism And Fascism
ToogoodReports ^ | May 8, 2002 | Henry Makow Ph.D.

Posted on 05/08/2002 12:47:57 PM PDT by 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 .


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: henrymakow; skinheadsonfr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: petuniasevan
Cool bet she is not b****ing about men or talks about women's rights.
61 posted on 05/08/2002 7:53:30 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I am going to try my hardest to say this and not be rude about it, so please re-read what I wrote and pay special attention to the portion that said who I am and what people like you should not misconstrue. (POST #39) I WAS NOT defending what most people call "feminism." I was defending womens rights (and all other people's rights from black, yellow, and yes even the white male in this day and age) which some of those women call themselves feminists, and hate the fem-nazi femenists as much as we do. Do you understand?
62 posted on 05/08/2002 8:27:35 PM PDT by THROW?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Arioch7
Everybody in America, by virtue of their Constitutional rights is allowed free association and free speech. That includes feminists of any stripe, and any other group who wants to form and enter the public fray politically.

I don't doubt your experience on a college campus. Blind idealogues are like that. They don't think. They are sheep so they are not dangerous. The people at the helm of political movements DO think and we need to keep track of what they are up to. The people at the helm need the sheep stationed around the country, because a). they do all of the grunt work but b). they are easy to manipulate and control. I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about what the sheep think of me.
63 posted on 05/08/2002 8:34:11 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: weikel
....everyone says life was better in ther 50's( im too young) when women to put it bluntly knew their place...

LOL . I know some conservative Republican women who would tear you to shreds over that comment, not even leaving a scap for the liberal femists to fight over. .... women are happier with their home, man, and family

There are 3.1 BILLION females on the planet. You have zero authority to speak for all women. I trust each individual woman to decide for herself what makes her happy. Presuming to tell 3.1 billion human beings what to do, how to live and what their "place" is is the pinnacle of arrogance. Congratulations for reaching the top!
64 posted on 05/08/2002 8:59:03 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I mentioned exceptions.
65 posted on 05/08/2002 9:05:13 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I will have to differ with you on the dangers of sheep. Sheep have gotten pictures of George Washington taken down because he is white. Sheep got (or at least are in the process of getting) all Christian aspects out of education while tolerating all other forms. I know this is off the subject, but the "seperation of church and state" was not in the constitution. It was coined many years later. Our country was founded on religion and sheep are trying to take it away. What next? No more "In God We Trust" on money. Like I said, I know it is off subject, but in today's world of equal rights (which I agree with) people can do things like this. Unfortunately we have politicians that are more concerned with their next party/hooker/paycheck/election than the longevity and security of the United States. They are the ones who should stop these sheep, but don't.
66 posted on 05/08/2002 9:05:26 PM PDT by THROW?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: THROW?
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." --- Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

They thought Christianity had a good moral code but they weren't fans of organized religion and most were deist.

67 posted on 05/08/2002 9:40:54 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: THROW?
Ok you're right. Sheep are dangerous if you can get them to vote.
68 posted on 05/08/2002 9:53:36 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
It seems like you're upset about the traditional female role. There is a reason that women are nurturers and men providers. IT WORKS. God made us that way. No bit of whining is going to change that.
69 posted on 05/08/2002 9:56:11 PM PDT by FreedomFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
It seems like you're upset about the traditional female role. No I'm not. Not in the least. If that is what a woman wants I'm all for it! There is a reason that women are nurturers and men providers. IT WORKS. God made us that way. God made each of us with free will. With that comes the responsibility to treat our fellow humans as if they have free will and not to pretend to be God by pretending to know what's best for everyone. I'll trust God to be God, not human imposters pretending to take his place and direct the universe. No bit of whining is going to change that.

Who's whining? It seems to me like the author of this article is the one whining because he can't control other people and make them all be what he wants them to be. He doesn't want others to have free will, free speech. He wants to control others, assign the roles to the various actors, direct people's lives like we're all in a theatre play. His little temper tantrum is silly and really rather unmanly.
70 posted on 05/08/2002 10:48:07 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I guess I have to parts to my reply. #1) I disagree with organized religion and the belief system as it is today. I am Christian and believe in God. I know that I know extremely little about our Creator, why we are here, etc., so I try to keep an open mind and the moral code as you put it which I agree with. I actually think that is the main point of all religions. "The Golden Rule"

#2) What in the world are you trying to point out.

71 posted on 05/09/2002 12:09:00 AM PDT by THROW?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: THROW?
That our founders liked Christian morality but did not base the country on religion.
72 posted on 05/09/2002 11:01:27 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
Bump I would say we evolved that way buyt you are correct and feminist want to upset the natural order of things.
73 posted on 05/09/2002 11:03:07 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I gotcha. Thanks. My point is it is based on religios principles. I don't mean Christianity, or Catholism, or any other sect. But yes, I agree with that. I still don't get its relation to feminism though.
74 posted on 05/09/2002 11:22:11 AM PDT by THROW?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: THROW?
Oh you brought it up on your post it had little to do with feminism. Yes I agree that the founders though religion was good for keeping morals among the common people( but were leery about it instilling superstition and irrationality in them too).
75 posted on 05/09/2002 11:30:52 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Ok, lost track. Thanks, now that I am on the same page. ;)
76 posted on 05/09/2002 11:37:21 AM PDT by THROW?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson