FEMI-COMMUNISM

This following article is by a woman with strong Christian values; she tackles the topics of communism and feminism from this viewpoint. She addresses issues I have oft written or posted on but her slant is highly religious at points whereas mine were political. Anyone familiar with the work of Henry Makow will also find her words resonate with their beliefs.

Due to pressure regarding feminism, what was once illicit became tolerable; now the merely tolerable has been normalized. But, as tolerance comes to an end, so will the illusion that moral diversity is truly a viable long-term strategy for a society. 

It is a good idea for us to begin to question in earnest what is good and evil in human life. 

By Harmony Daws
National Prayer Network

October 11, 2011

I’m no longer sure women should have the right to vote. 

This shocks even me, but I never before knew the entire truth about what feminism ~ birthed by Jewish cultural Marxists ~ has done to destroy all that is most precious to freedom, civilization and my faith. 

In this article I examine:

1. The Jewish roots of second-wave feminism;

2. The outcomes of feminism on American society and, finally;

3. The presence of feminism as an emasculating force in the church.

Second-wave feminism is a brainchild of Jewish activists from the school of cultural Marxism. It has taken a wrecking ball to the structure of our society ~ which was patriarchy ~ to the relationship between the genders in marriage and, finally, to gender itself.

It describes the concept of two separate and distinct genders as a mere human invention rather than a biological or divinely ordered fact. 

It teaches that gender-specific division of labor ~ men in the world, women at home ~ is a male invention created for the domination of women.

A direct outcome of Eastern European Marxism, feminism has brought about:

1. Abortion on demand;

2. No-fault unilateral divorce;

3. Anti-father family law;

4. And a general denigration of men known as “consciousness raising.”

It’s almost impossible to overstate what this revolution has done. It is a singular means by which Jewish supremacists have subtly ~ and baldly ~ disenfranchised men of their reputation and identity and divested them of legal power in the areas they care about most.

Males today are raised, most often fatherless, without a clear sense of how they are valued or needed. 

As adults, they face treacherous legal disadvantage compared to women in the area of the family, literally second-class citizens behind women. 

They are financially responsible for children they create but powerless to stop their mother from killing them in the womb. 

Thanks to no-fault divorce and custody laws that massively privilege women, men can’t stop women from moving their children across as many state lines as they wish. 

Hysteria-ridden restraining and domestic violence laws prevent many good men from even seeing their children on a regular basis. 

Men face recrimination and slander in media while women are painted as innocent, helpless victims of male lust, power and aggression. 

Modern portrayals of wise, disciplinary fathers and husbands are almost impossible to find.

Some men have had enough. 

Tom Martin is suing the London School of Economics for being taught anti-male discrimination. He said,

“Compulsory core texts we had to read before each class were typically packed with anti-male discrimination and bias, heavily focusing on, exaggerating, and falsifying women’s issues perspectives, whilst blaming men, to justify ignoring men’s issues.”

If misandry were confined to universities, that would be one thing. But it is enshrined in law. 

In a ludicrous example, Spain in 2005 passed laws forcing men to agree at marriage to do fifty percent of the housework.

“Failure to meet the obligations will be taken into consideration by judges when determining the terms of divorces. Men who refuse to do their part may be given less frequent contact with their children.”

JEWISH ORIGINS

WHERE DID FEMINISM COME FROM?

Karl Marx wanted to rearrange human societies and economies ~ “make them more fair” ~ through centralized power and redistribution of wealth. (Anyone who doesn’t understand the mechanisms of why this won’t work and is egomaniacal should order Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics right now.) 

Cultural Marxism applies the same egomania to gender, the family, religion and society at large ~ believing human beings can improve on basic realities (first denying their existence). Conservatives will be required to keep up, inevitably by the force of the state. 

It is widely agreed that cultural Marxism was largely created by German Jews at the Institute for Social Research at the Frankfurt school. (You can read its history straight from its website www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/history.htm.) Its beginnings were funded by the widow of Jewish banker Georg Speyer, inspired by the work of Jewish scientist Paul Ehrlich. 

ED: Paul Erlich was also a great promotion of population control via his best selling publication The Population Bomb.

Frankfurt was the first university to create a chair, in 1918, for the dubious “science” of sociology. 

Sociology is the reason your 19-year-old college student will be taught that:

1. American suburbia is no more advanced than aboriginal huts; 

2. That motherhood is an invented value; 

3. That mass murderers aren’t evil, just traumatized; 

4. And that prejudice against others is the worst kind of thought crime.

In other words, sociology is good wholesome fun. 

.

The Institute also included the first chair for “scientific Marxism,” funded by the Weil family, also Jewish. Felix Weil was kicked out of southwest Germany for trying to start a political revolution, but he was able to earn a doctorate at Frankfurt and help create the Institute along with two other “economists.” 

ED: See list below for in-depth articles on the Frankfurt School and its devious effects upon the sexual mores of the Western world. These are the same mores they are introducing as “democracy” into Muslim cultures, with the same end goal, the weakening and destruction of the fabric of society by hitting at its most primal link, that of the family unit.

SNIPPITS AND SNAPPITS: THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL: CONSPIRACY TO CORRUPT

'Until now’, wrote Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason, ‘nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is? 

Also present was Willi Munzenberg whose proposed solution was to ‘organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.’

‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.'

The first director of the Institute was Jewish Carl Grunberg who established a journal of socialism and strongly believed that it must overthrow western (Christian) capitalism. 

The German cultural Marxists were intellectual blood brothers with the Jewish revolutionaries who toppled thrones across Europe in the late nineteenth century, plunging whole kingdoms into bloodshed and chaos. 

Perhaps they recognized that a cultural assault would be more effective, long term, at uprooting Christian capitalist society. 

ED: This was actually an attempt to conquer a nation to communism in a non-violent manner. Please refer to the links I supply below to get to the true meat of the matter.

The Institute enjoyed a heyday during the twenties, and then came the Nazis. The Institute eventually emigrated to New York and Columbia University. In the United States the research continued with “comprehensive studies… on authority and the family, and…prejudices and authoritarian personality structures…” 

Cultural Marxism’s emphasis has not left us today. Undermining the “prejudices” and social structures of traditional white Christians is still a prime concern of academics in every major university. 

TREASON AT THE TOP: FEMINISM, FERTILITY AND FASCISM

In 1950, the Institute of Social Research was reborn in Germany. One of its main aims was to make sure “social science” was taught in western universities. The Institute continues its work today. Its three areas of study include “conflict of the sexes in liberal democracies, in ethno-centric, racist and sexist forms of discrimination.” (In other words: what straight white men are doing wrong.) 

.

But cultural Marxism has spread far beyond the Institute, carried by Jewish immigrants and their Gentile proselytes, eventually into every area of American life. Jewish immigrants founded big media in America, Hollywood, major newspapers and big television stations as well. (See, Jews Confirm Big Media is Jewish) 

Thus, cultural Marxism came across the Atlantic to the thrones of opinion-makers throughout the United States. There it would have devastating consequences for Christian culture, especially in its embodiment in second-wave feminism. 

 .

A NOTE ABOUT FIRST-WAVE FEMINISM

Original feminism meant fighting for the right of women to vote. It was led mostly by non-Jews but had several prominent national Jewish leaders, including Maud Nathan and Martha Klatschken. 

Jewish scholar Rafael Medoff says Jewish women were at least 17 percent of the founding members of the Women’s Suffrage Party ~ which is a lot more than their percentage of the general population. He includes this quote:

“Without the immigrants’ participation, it is doubtful if middle-class women alone could have gathered the grassroots political base that secured the victory.”

Suffrage itself was not universally supported by Christians, though today it is considered as wholesome as apple pie. Many men and women opposed female suffrage in the early twentieth century, believing women exercised their true political power by supporting their husbands and influencing their sons, who would represent them at the ballot box. 

Helen Kendrick Johnson, an activist against suffrage and socialism, wrote the classic Woman and the Republic which can still be read online at womenshistory.about.com.  Johnson believed women’s role in the home is essential to keep the American republic alive and that we don’t need the vote in order to be equally valuable. 

With great foresight she wrote:

“The Suffragists have taken fewer steps in the direction of removing the social plague-spot [here she was referring to sexual immorality] than in the direction of bringing about a system of easier divorce--a thing that strikes a blow directly against, instead of for, the virtue of their sex.”

Opponents of suffrage believed women’s right to vote would result in strife in the home and higher rates of divorce. Regarding divorce, they were right in ways they could not even hope to imagine. 

I don’t honestly think we could or should repeal women’s suffrage. 

As a woman, I exercise the right to vote and will continue to.

But I do pray for repeal of the legislation which Jewish feminism conceived and for which American women have voted: abortion on demand, unilateral no-fault divorce and especially the unjust family laws that make divorce so attractive to women desiring a show of force against their husbands.

THE SECOND WAVE (OF TERROR)

The second wave of feminism, begun in the early sixties, is the ultimate example of cultural Marxism. It makes sweeping denials of basic facts about human nature and champions the intervention of the state in personal affairs. 

Jewish feminists, and the Gentile women who eagerly followed their lead, applied cultural Marxism’s anti-God, humanist principles to gender and society, in the ultimate temper tantrum against realism and reality itself.
.

Their roll call includes (Jewish) Gloria Steinem who famously said:

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

She also said:

“Men should think twice before making widowhood women’s only path to power.”

This is a stunningly ignorant statement, considering the fact that widows have been historically the most vulnerable and disenfranchised of women, lacking the protection, status and appreciation of their husbands. 

A daughter of divorce and dysfunction, Steinem helped form the National Women’s Political Caucus. The NWPC has fought for more female involvement in politics and elimination of “gender discrimination.” 

ED: Like Betty Friedan, Steinem was a card carrying member of the Communist party when she was brought in via the CIA and the Rockefellers to bring about this onslaught on the American family.

Betty Friedan, another Jewish woman, is almost synonymous with second-wave feminism. Her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique, bemoaning the unhappiness of housewives, has been credited with its creation. 

ED: Friedan lied about her past from the getgo. Her whole “history” was based on falsehoods.

She also founded the National Organization for Women, whose top six issues today are:

1. Abortion rights, 

2. Violence against women (read: demonizing men),

 

3. Constitutional equality,

 

4. Promoting diversity/ending racism, 

5. Lesbian rights, 

6. The ever vague “economic justice.”

Friedan also founded NARAL Pro-Choice America. 

Not to be forgotten is Bella Abzug, lesbian, daughter of Russian-Jewish immigrants, who was especially concerned that women get more involved in American politics. Abzug earned a law degree at Columbia University; she served in Congress and introduced the first gay rights bill to Congress in 1974. She outspokenly supported civil rights laws and Zionism. 

These are just three of the many influential Jewish feminists.

Today, Marxist feminism has had its way with America.

Since 1973, 52 million innocent Americans have been murdered by their mothers in the womb, and the number continues to climb. 

And second-wave feminism has completely changed the face of the American family that remains alive ~ an outcome that will be discussed further on.

It’s come to this. 

.

Pop superstar Beyoncé hip-thrusts surrounded by half-naked girls and sings, 

“Who run the world? Girls! Who run this motha? Girls!” 

Ignore for a moment that Beyoncé is wearing fake Caucasian hair and the clothes of a whore, surrounded by exploitatively-dressed young women and using a mother-bashing expletive to celebrate “girl power.” In North American politics, she is right.

Women have rewritten divorce and custody laws in their favor, graduate and vote more often than men and now have sole power over their offspring. 

Feminism has sought to erase the reality that women are specially and uniquely needed in the home by their children or husbands, describing such a life as slavery. 

Even worse, it tells massive and sweeping lies about men, male sexuality and male roles throughout history ~ painting average men as pigs and brutes who suppress their wives, beat their children and will rape if given half a chance. 

It can’t be argued that men possess a depraved human nature;

but second-wave feminism denies that women do as well,

elevating the identity and rights of women

while continually denigrating men.

It’s particularly obnoxious because it denies what is so great and wonderful about men:

their drive, doggedness, vision, initiative, curiosity and courage.

Why exactly do men rule virtually all societies, and continue to dominate women in the top intellectual and political fields despite Western feminism?

Men rule because they deserve to. 

Throughout history, men have done 95% of the most unpleasant, difficult and dangerous work. 

They fought the bloody battles, blazed trails through terrifying wilds, worked filthy underground mines and built the cities brick by brick. 

They have surrendered their lives to singular obsessions with atoms, antibodies, exploration and art. 

Above all, they have labored twelve to sixteen to eighteen hours a day, day in and day out, to feed their wives and children. 

The notion that women have been the only beasts of burden in patriarchal manors is a myth that can’t withstand any serious scrutiny, yet is widely repeated.

Today, men still do the vast majority of the most unpleasant, difficult and dangerous work ~ and they always will. 

Women spend more time bearing children, caring for children, forging communities and making homes ~ and we always will. 

Given the option since the sixties, women still choose easier and lighter careers and spend less time doing them than men. Dr. Warren Farrell’s book Why Men Earn More documents that women do earn about 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man, not because of discrimination. 

Men do more nasty, hazardous and inconvenient work, with harder-to-attain skills, for longer hours and bigger risks. 

We women are not paid less for the same work.

We don’t do the same work!

And, seriously, when is this myth going to die?

Businessmen don’t care more about personal prejudice than the bottom line.

If female labor was really cheaper, CEOs everywhere would hire women over men.

Men now aren’t even recognized for their heroism, faithfulness and willingness to literally slave for women and children.

Indeed they are actively slandered as oppressing women and receiving an unfair advantage when they are, in fact, daily disenfranchised of the rights they work so hard to deserve.

LEGAL DIVESTMENT

Feminist Carol Hanisch has been credited for first using the phrase, “the personal is political,” in 1969.

This concept is at the heart of both feminism and its progenitor, Jewish cultural Marxism. 

It means involving the state in family affairs, overriding individual rights to conscience or individuality. Feminists were downright proud of how communism inspired and influenced their cause. 

In 1968, Hanisch wrote a paper called “Women of the World Unite ~ We Have Nothing to Lose But Our Men,” a direct spin-off of the Communist Manifesto. Feminists showed incredible short-sightedness as they bragged about their sisterhood with a regime responsible for at least 94 million deaths during the 20th century. 

ED: Most of us did not know this. We were sucked into the horrendous lies. It was the leaders of this movement who were pure Communists. I do not mean to “pass the buck” but we were far too naïve and a very trusting generation who had no idea of what we were dealing with until decades later when the damage we helped create began to backfire on our society.

Indeed, women have repeatedly shown themselves vulnerable to the emotion-stirring claims of socialism.

Conservative scholars John Lott and Larry Kenny argue that the federal government mushroomed in scope and power in the twentieth century almost entirely because of the female vote!

Women seeking legal freedom from their husbands were delighted at the promises of government to aid them through welfare and woman-privileging family law. 

Women were also especially prone to vote for the welfare state, often uneducated, unwilling or unable to see past heart-rending social inequalities to the far greater injustices that always proceed from overgrown government.

As one measure, the federal government spent nearly 55 times more on each American in 2004 than it did in 1910! This sounds like an improvement only to those unfamiliar with the economic and personal devastation accomplished by government redistribution of wealth. 

.

It is fitting that big government today is called “the nanny state” ~ giving a female face to the changes for which women have voted. 

A 2009 Gallup poll revealed that women, regardless of age or race, are significantly more likely than men to vote Democrat.

ED: Could this be that, the female public, unaware of the double-headed one party system in America voted Democrat because the war prone stance of the Republican party seemed illogical and just plain violent?

In 1991, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala fantasized aloud about the ultimate outcomes on children of the feminist nanny state for which Democrat women vote. After school, her imaginary girl of the future

“will play gender-neutral games in government day care and think of herself as part of the world, not just her town or the United States."

Feminists have been clear that ultimately children should be removed from homes with “oppressive” patriarchs and “gender stereotyping.” 

The state will be a more fitting parent for citizens of the future. 

In this way, feminism could not bear more resemblance to Jewish cultural Marxism, with its goals of completely uprooting all that has been planted by Christian, capitalist patriarchy.

The majority of women, whether they subscribe to feminism, cooperate seamlessly with the agenda laid out for us. 

Big media paints a nauseating image of skirt-chasing men, constantly reminding us of their whorish ways. 

The truth about everyday families is far less known. 

It is women who file for at least two-thirds of all divorces in the United States. 

Is this because of their husband’s oppressive, abusive ways? 

A paper in the American Journal of Law and Economics analyzed 1995 divorce statistics. The state with the best records was Virginia. In this state, only six percent of divorces were filed because of domestic violence. 

As far as adultery goes, women were guilty as often as men! 

A law professor commented that severe exploitation of wives is the reason for divorce less than 20 percent of the time.

Analysts believe the biggest reason women are more willing to file for divorce is that they know they will get the kids.

Family law gives all the force and weight of this heart-rending decision to the woman. 

Again, men are legally hamstrung by a system birthed in communism to destroy a civilization built by Christians. 

The concept of caring mothers rescuing their children from domineering men is make-believe. 

Fifty-eight percent of men, compared to only 37 percent of women, will delay divorce out of concern for its effect on their children. (The Divorce Experience, 2004) 

Stephen Baskerville’s powerful book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family says approximately 80 percent of American divorces are unilateral ~ it is not a case of the marriage dissolving but of one party announcing that it’s over. You would think the faithless person who wants the divorce should suffer the most from it but this is not at all the case. 

When the wife divorces her husband, she is virtually guaranteed:

1. Legal rights to their children;

2. Legal power over her husband’s access to the children (with the force of the law and prison behind her);

3. And a substantial ~ even majority ~ portion of her husband’s earnings.

There is very little to deter an unfulfilled housewife from taking this route. 

Many scholars say the Bolsheviks pioneered no-fault divorce in Russia in 1918. 

It makes perfect sense: a society will be effectively crippled when families implode, one by one. 

Adult attention will be consumed by:

1. Repetitively breaking and forming pair bonds;

2. Divorcing and blending family units;

3. Begrudging old partners;

4. And falling in love with new ones.

Children will be raised without hope for marriage, without sufficient maternal attention or paternal constancy. 

Any political system that promises “progress” from the past will appeal to them. 

They will grow up without a conviction of conservatism since, to them, the traditional family is nothing worth conserving. The effects are devastating. 

Fatherlessness makes children five times more likely to live in poverty and two to three times as likely to have behavioral problems. 

Boys run a much higher risk of committing crimes and girls of being sexually active. 

Several studies have found that fatherlessness is a greater predictor of a child’s well-being than race, class or economic status. 

The percentage of children living without their fathers has nearly tripled from 11 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 2010.

And finally I address how feminism has reached its icy fingers into the heart of the American church, undermining its patriarchy and rewriting some of its most important moral laws to suit misandry in the 21st century.

ED: Misandry, hatred of men. Equivalent of Misogyny, hatred of women.

On a spiritual level, it takes little imagination to see the way feminism has reshaped the American church. Many pastors have volunteered for the virtual castration of their leadership, favoring feminine, social values over truth and hard-line holiness. 

Today (as discussed in Rev. Ted Pike’s recent e-alerts), pastors choose to protect people’s feelings and accommodate their desire for feel-good sermons rather than speak the whole truth about how the gospel applies to the great moral issues of our age. 

Evangelicals have also compromised their theology to accommodate the single most important political tool of feminism: no fault divorce. 

.

We rarely hear Him described this way, but Christ is the ultimate alpha male in the old-fashioned sense. He is the penultimate patriarch. During His life on earth, Christ was supremely unaffected by the emotions or responses of those around Him. 

He never tailored his words or actions in order to avoid their silent treatment or their hurt feelings. In an unthinkable affront to the feminine, He denied His own mother when she came to see Him, saying, 

“‘Who is my mother and who is my brother?’ And He stretched out his hand to his disciples and said, ‘Behold, my mother and brothers! Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my mother and brother and sister.” (Matthew 12:48-50) 

With the noblest characteristics of the male, Christ epitomized breadth of vision, heroism, protectiveness, faithfulness and initiative. 

Unfortunately modern pastors resemble Him less and less in this. 

The feminizing of the church means pastors are manipulated by the emotions and responses of their listeners. They are spiritually castrated by loyalty to people’s approval. This prevents them from speaking the whole truth about a host of issues. 

Just 38 percent of American Protestants think it is acceptable for their pastors to preach about politics. My sister Liberty Pike, a speaker for Oregon Right to Life, is denied to speak about abortion in churches by nine out of ten pastors, fearing controversy.

Pressing moral issues about which pastors are often silent include the anti-feminism of Christ. Jesus and the epistles are very clear about the patriarchal way that society should be structured.

Moreover, the New Testament gives specific instruction about the areas feminism has most revolutionized: divorce, reproduction, sexuality and gender. 

The modern American church holds firm to a few of these areas, generally disapproving of abortion, gender reversals and sexual immorality. Yet it has capitulated on the one thing that has most transformed the modern American family and, with it, society: divorce. 

Prior to the sixties, it wasn’t enough to simply fall out love with your spouse. To obtain a legal divorce, you had to prove that someone had substantively broken the marriage vows. The law was similar in Canada. Prior to 1968, you couldn’t divorce without proving infidelity or cruelty. 

But by late 1983, all but two states had enacted no-fault divorce laws. Couples could divorce without any proof of wrong-doing. Perhaps more significantly, divorce could be accomplished unilaterally ~ one spouse could simply divorce the other, with or without their consent. 

As of October 2010, unilateral no-fault divorce is legal in every single state. As I stated previously, women initiate at least two-thirds of all American divorces. And most of the time, it is against the husband’s will!

Divorce attorney David Chambers says, “91 percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands.” (Making Fathers Pay, 1979) 

There is very little weight to a legal contract which one person can break, at any time, without consequence, without the other person’s consent. Such a legal contract is virtually meaningless. 

Alas, the religious contract of marriage has become equally meaningless. Since pastors are willing to remarry divorced people who divorced without just cause, the church has accepted the debased standards of the state, making its blessings, too, meaningless.

There is no more weight to the words,

“What God has joined, let no man separate.”

The marriage contract means little more than an agreement to have lunch at a steakhouse; one person can break the date without just cause, without the other person’s consent, without any consequence. This is acceptable, though impolite, when we’re talking about lunches. 

But when the topic is marriage ~ the one thing most central to the well-being of innocent children ~ the consequences are far more dire to any civil society. 

Jesus is firmly against no fault divorce ~ both because of its damage to innocent children and also because marriage is meant to represent our spiritual union with Him. 

Some Pharisees came to Him to test Him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 

“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 

 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19)

It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5) 

According to Jesus, not even cruelty, abuse or neglect can free a Christian to remarry (although they absolutely free a Christian to separate geographically or even divorce before the state). Only death or adultery gives license for remarriage. 

Because this is taught and believed in my church, my husband and I have powerful incentive to make our marriage agreeable, kind and affectionate. Every disagreement is tempered by the knowledge that we are “stuck” for life, truly for better or worse. Christ’s strict requirement of lifelong marriage for the believer has enriched our marriage in ways an adherent to no fault divorce will never experience. 

Yet our church is unusual in this respect. Most pastors ~ both Protestant and Catholic ~ routinely perform marriage ceremonies for divorced individuals, regardless of whether they meet Christ’s narrow criterion for remarriage. 

This is just one of the many areas where church leaders have accepted feminism (and made room for sin) and thus further enabled the disintegration of Christian culture, endangered the futures of the next generation, and allowed wreckage of the very fabric of our society: the family. 

A return to authentic Christian patriarchy will in no way resemble the iron fist rule of many Mideast societies ~ just as America one-hundred and fifty years ago didn’t resemble Saudi Arabia. Christ commands men to “love their wives” and to not “provoke their children” just as He commands women to reverence their husband’s authority, the unmarried to remain celibate and spouses to remain faithful for life. 

Christ knows that human beings, male or female, will naturally use others for selfish gain, unless His Spirit enables us to be transformed into spiritual beings that live in self-sacrificing love. Spiritual love is the only true solution to conflict between the genders, the races, economic classes or any segments of society. 

I began this article by doubting whether women should have the right to vote. This is now a moot point, and women must vote. But we should vote at last for what is truly in our interests and those of our loved ones: for laws that support families, marriages and Christian freedom ~ for repeal of abortion on demand, no fault unilateral divorce and misandry-ridden family law. 

Joint physical custody should be the default result of divorces, which would cause a drastic decline in divorce rates. (Divorce rates drop four times faster in joint-custody states than in states where joint custody is rare.) 

I also pray for a growing awareness of the Jewish Marxist cultural roots of the second-wave feminist movement. 

Above all I pray for Christian patriarchs ~ fathers, pastors, brothers and husbands ~ who will help restore authentic Christianity in their families and churches by boldly speaking against immoral divorce, abortion, non-marital sex and the great social evils of our day, without regard to anyone’s hurt feelings.

Surveying the present state of our nation, our feelings deserve to be hurt. I’m sure God’s are. 

AMERICAN COMMUNISM AND THE RISE OF FEMINISM

MIND CONTROL ~ OPTIMISM ~ INVISIBLE ENTRAPMENT

WTF??? ~ "OPPOSITE SEX" MARRIAGE??!!

SNIPPITS AND SNAPPITS: THE WEAPONIZATION OF CULTURE ...

THE SOURING OF COMMUNIST FEMINAZISM