formerly,
Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp
(stop killing
young people)
August, 2013,
Vol. 11
No. 8
PO Box 7424,
Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 244
Editor, John
Dunkle
“Contraception” is Murder, a weak, pathetic
response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you yet for
defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or
go to the website. Emails are free but
snail-mail is free only for PFCs, two grand for others.
I think
we can all agree there is nothing peaceful, nonviolent, or prolife about
letting innocent children be killed. So I believe we should examine every
legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from
being tortured to death. I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful and
from those who defend them. I’d also like to hear from those who oppose the
prolife use of force and call it violence.
Prisoners For Christ:
1. Curell, Benjamin D., (out on bail)
2. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, FCI, PO Box 1500, El Reno, OK 73036
3. Griffin,
Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000
4. Grady,
Francis 11656-089, USP Terre
Haute, PO Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808
5. Holt,
Gregory 129616 Varner Supermax, PO
Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600
6.
Kopp, James 11761-055, USP
Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472
7. Roeder,
Scott 65192 PO Box 2, Lansing,
Kansas 66043
8. Rogers,
Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP
Beaumont, PO Box 26050, Beaumont, TX
77720
9. Rudolph,
Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
10. Shannon,
Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,
P.O. Box 1731, Waseca,
Here’s a slightly different version of
Jimbo’s reaction to his latest persecution:
"It is a
privilege to share in a tiny, limited way, the suffering of children.
Of course life in
prison is nowhere near as painful as having my arms and legs torn off. Still,
I can't help but wonder if it isn't a similar species of suffering since
natural life is just a slow death penalty.
When I realize I
have now been sentenced by the same court which originally decided to tear the
arms and legs off children, it is for me an honor on top of an honor, even if
it is useless to the children and their bullied mothers.
Even child
molesters, God help us, do not tear the arms and legs off children. We
know the molesters are going to hell if they do not repent before they die, but
let's be perfectly clear about the obvious: each and every member of the US
Supreme Court, and all federal judges and politicians and Barack Obama who
support them, are worse than child molesters, who at least leave a child alive
after they have satisfied their perverted sick selfishness. The Supreme
Court Justices can't even say that [but see, Rehnquist Minority Opinion,
in
Casey.]
To the members of
the Supreme Court, and all you who roll with them: J'accuse!: you are perverted, sick, selfish child
molesters and worse.
You have no
heart, no soul, and you are headed to Hell faster than a Dreamliner, no matter
how many times you think you are going to Communion. Don't take my word
for it. Ask Pope Francis. Yeah, I said it. So sue me.And while we're at it, on the subject of your eternal destiny, you can ask some others. How about any Metropolitan in the entire world? Any holy monk or nun, wherever you can find them. Dr. Germaine Grisez in Emmitsville. Dr. Raphael Waters in Niagara Falls. How about Frs. Thomas Carleton and Robert Pearson, Pastors Matt Trewhella, Michael Bray, Daniel Holman? How about any righteous bishop? There are still a few. In addition to the Pope, try Signatura Judge H.E. Raymond Burke in Rome. How about H.E. Joseph Martino or Chaput? Ask them. You live in a dream world where real people like this are carefully excluded and you are surrounded by fake Roman Catholics such as Pelosi and Biden but in the end reality will be brought to you.
I do not fear
your power on earth. But if I do not warn you, you will die in
sin, and the Lord will ask me to account for your life. Repent.
Today. Tomorrow is too late.
This most recent
ruling is yet one more missed opportunity for the court to have redeemed itself
upon reflection, a quotidian task for jurists, to be sure.
I hope and pray,
sinner that I am, that I am not standing nearby when the Supreme Court of the
United States is judged in the final court of Jesus, the only one that matters.
Mayhaps I could be accepted as a witness. But I would need to be
subpoenaed."
____________________________
-----------------------------------------------
Dear John, The
world's greatest conspiracy is bad journalism. Other conspiracies might be
dirtier, but it is bad journalism that keeps them a secret.
The reason why people do not know the true story of child homicide in America is that bad journalism keeps it a secret.
In my last two contributions, I exposed the truth about Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton. Here I am going to briefly review what I covered so far.
The child homicide policy handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 is set forth in Roe and Doe. There are three parts to the policy: I. a main plan, II. a backup plan, and III. an implementation scheme. The main plan and its backup plan are set forth in Roe. The implementation scheme is set forth in Doe.
The policy as a whole has to do with one thing only: pregnancy abatement. In view of their sexual exploits at the time, Justice Douglas characterized American women as "imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility." See Doe, p. 215. By 'hereditary' is meant that the Court feared younger females would follow the example of their older counterparts in a generation afflicted with forms of 'insanity' like the hippie craze and the sexual 'imbecility' that went along with it.
So the Court handed down an abatement program to nip these carefree pregnancies in the bud to maintain public appearances.
The main plan was to let the woman control the "basic" decision. See Doe, p. 214, "[A] woman is free to make the basic decision whether to bear an unwanted child." Giving them the basic decision was the path of least resistance to pregnancy abatement: Show women the big white sign that says "Choice" and see if they can be trusted to abate their pregnancies on their own voluntarily.
This is why the child homicide industry uses the motto "Trust Women." It means even though women cannot be trusted to keep from getting pregnant in the first place, nonetheless each time they show up at a clinic to get rid of the evidence it is like saying, "See how trustworthy they are? So 'trust' women."
But as Justice Douglas explains, "Such reasoning is, however, only the beginning of the problem." See Doe, p. 215. In other words, the main plan of Roe has a glitch, in that the Court feared women could not really be trusted with that either. So this is why Roe has a backup plan.
The backup plan has two parts (A & B) because the woman's decision encompasses two alternatives: A. to keep the baby and B. to end the pregnancy. The Court's main concern was that if women went overboard in choosing to keep their babies, then the abatement program would fail. The lesser concern was that if women went overboard in choosing to end their pregnancies, it might lead to unhealthy population declines.
So to create a backup plan the Court recognized that "[t]he State has important interests to protect." See Doe, p. 215. The "A" part of the backup is forced abortion. The "B" part is to prohibit abortion. The backup keeps the main plan working and in check: if women go overboard keeping their babies, they will be forced to abort, and if they go overboard choosing abortions, some restrictions will apply.
According to the very foundation of Roe: "the abortion decision" (whether to keep the baby or abort) cannot be left to "the woman's sole determination" in view of "important state interests," citing the abatement programs of "Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination)" and "Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization)" to emphasize government authority to override her decision to keep the baby (forced abortion). See Roe, pp. 153-154.
As Justice Marshall explains two months later: the Court has never recognized any "right" to procreate, by which in this context he means the right of the woman to carry her pregnancy to term, as evidenced by the fact that in Roe "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell." See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, pp. 100-101. Buck was the original Roe, in which the Court in 1927 extended the abatement authority of Jacobson to control the form of 'insanity' known as the flapper craze using forced sterilization.
A main worry of the Court in Roe was that women in the hippie craze might be too spaced out to get to an abortion clinic on their own without the government pressuring them based on criminal drug use. But Skinner had been handed down in 1942 to limit Buck (sterilization) from being applied on the basis of crime and poverty. So the Court in Roe quietly went back to "its initial decision in Buck v. Bell" by abandoning Skinner, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from … Skinner." See Roe, p. 159. Notably, Skinner's author Justice Douglas joined with the Court in Roe in abandoning Skinner for abortion; he also joined with Justice Marshall in the San Antonio case.
The reason why Roe has a companion case is that Roe is only a plan, and plans do not implement themselves. The Court knew skilled physicians would seldom abandon careers in legitimate medical practice in order to kill babies full time. So in Doe the Court created a safe haven for washed out physicians, by eliminating medical regulations in the first trimester. That way physicians who would normally be weeded out could stay in practice as abortion doctors to implement the abatement program.
As Justice Douglas explains this third part of the policy: "In short, I agree with the Court that endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health are standards too narrow for the right of privacy that is at stake." See Doe, pp. 220-221. This is why washed out physicians like Dr. Gosnell are allowed to stay in practice. The Court accepts "endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health" if that is what it takes to implement the abatement program.
By this sort of "privacy" is meant not a woman's own privacy in the literal sense per se. Instead, by codeword "privacy" the Court literally means the privacy of our Nation, collectively as a whole, so as to keep the matter of what the Court calls the sexual "imbecility" of our females as a matter in private to ourselves, so that no one need be the wiser once scandalous pregnancies are aborted.
So to wrap up with the review, there are three parts to the Court's child homicide policy encompassing Roe and Doe, and part two has two sub-parts:
The reason why people do not know the true story of child homicide in America is that bad journalism keeps it a secret.
In my last two contributions, I exposed the truth about Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton. Here I am going to briefly review what I covered so far.
The child homicide policy handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 is set forth in Roe and Doe. There are three parts to the policy: I. a main plan, II. a backup plan, and III. an implementation scheme. The main plan and its backup plan are set forth in Roe. The implementation scheme is set forth in Doe.
The policy as a whole has to do with one thing only: pregnancy abatement. In view of their sexual exploits at the time, Justice Douglas characterized American women as "imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility." See Doe, p. 215. By 'hereditary' is meant that the Court feared younger females would follow the example of their older counterparts in a generation afflicted with forms of 'insanity' like the hippie craze and the sexual 'imbecility' that went along with it.
So the Court handed down an abatement program to nip these carefree pregnancies in the bud to maintain public appearances.
The main plan was to let the woman control the "basic" decision. See Doe, p. 214, "[A] woman is free to make the basic decision whether to bear an unwanted child." Giving them the basic decision was the path of least resistance to pregnancy abatement: Show women the big white sign that says "Choice" and see if they can be trusted to abate their pregnancies on their own voluntarily.
This is why the child homicide industry uses the motto "Trust Women." It means even though women cannot be trusted to keep from getting pregnant in the first place, nonetheless each time they show up at a clinic to get rid of the evidence it is like saying, "See how trustworthy they are? So 'trust' women."
But as Justice Douglas explains, "Such reasoning is, however, only the beginning of the problem." See Doe, p. 215. In other words, the main plan of Roe has a glitch, in that the Court feared women could not really be trusted with that either. So this is why Roe has a backup plan.
The backup plan has two parts (A & B) because the woman's decision encompasses two alternatives: A. to keep the baby and B. to end the pregnancy. The Court's main concern was that if women went overboard in choosing to keep their babies, then the abatement program would fail. The lesser concern was that if women went overboard in choosing to end their pregnancies, it might lead to unhealthy population declines.
So to create a backup plan the Court recognized that "[t]he State has important interests to protect." See Doe, p. 215. The "A" part of the backup is forced abortion. The "B" part is to prohibit abortion. The backup keeps the main plan working and in check: if women go overboard keeping their babies, they will be forced to abort, and if they go overboard choosing abortions, some restrictions will apply.
According to the very foundation of Roe: "the abortion decision" (whether to keep the baby or abort) cannot be left to "the woman's sole determination" in view of "important state interests," citing the abatement programs of "Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination)" and "Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization)" to emphasize government authority to override her decision to keep the baby (forced abortion). See Roe, pp. 153-154.
As Justice Marshall explains two months later: the Court has never recognized any "right" to procreate, by which in this context he means the right of the woman to carry her pregnancy to term, as evidenced by the fact that in Roe "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell." See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, pp. 100-101. Buck was the original Roe, in which the Court in 1927 extended the abatement authority of Jacobson to control the form of 'insanity' known as the flapper craze using forced sterilization.
A main worry of the Court in Roe was that women in the hippie craze might be too spaced out to get to an abortion clinic on their own without the government pressuring them based on criminal drug use. But Skinner had been handed down in 1942 to limit Buck (sterilization) from being applied on the basis of crime and poverty. So the Court in Roe quietly went back to "its initial decision in Buck v. Bell" by abandoning Skinner, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from … Skinner." See Roe, p. 159. Notably, Skinner's author Justice Douglas joined with the Court in Roe in abandoning Skinner for abortion; he also joined with Justice Marshall in the San Antonio case.
The reason why Roe has a companion case is that Roe is only a plan, and plans do not implement themselves. The Court knew skilled physicians would seldom abandon careers in legitimate medical practice in order to kill babies full time. So in Doe the Court created a safe haven for washed out physicians, by eliminating medical regulations in the first trimester. That way physicians who would normally be weeded out could stay in practice as abortion doctors to implement the abatement program.
As Justice Douglas explains this third part of the policy: "In short, I agree with the Court that endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health are standards too narrow for the right of privacy that is at stake." See Doe, pp. 220-221. This is why washed out physicians like Dr. Gosnell are allowed to stay in practice. The Court accepts "endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health" if that is what it takes to implement the abatement program.
By this sort of "privacy" is meant not a woman's own privacy in the literal sense per se. Instead, by codeword "privacy" the Court literally means the privacy of our Nation, collectively as a whole, so as to keep the matter of what the Court calls the sexual "imbecility" of our females as a matter in private to ourselves, so that no one need be the wiser once scandalous pregnancies are aborted.
So to wrap up with the review, there are three parts to the Court's child homicide policy encompassing Roe and Doe, and part two has two sub-parts:
Roe, Part I: Main
plan = "Choice"
Roe, Part II: Backup Plan = Override
"Choice"
IIA = Forced Abortion
IIB = Abortion Restrictions
IIA = Forced Abortion
IIB = Abortion Restrictions
Doe, Part III: Implementation Scheme = Hire
Gosnell Types
The Press mainly covers I, gives a little coverage
to IIB, gives almost no coverage to III (which is why the Gosnell trial could
not be covered), and, even though it forms the legal foundation of Roe, the
Press cannot give any coverage at all to IIA.
It is bad journalism such as this that keeps the world's dirtiest conspiracy a secret in our midst. But now your readers know the true story. Sincerely, Cal
It is bad journalism such as this that keeps the world's dirtiest conspiracy a secret in our midst. But now your readers know the true story. Sincerely, Cal
__________________
------------------------------
Like ….. No!
Worse than-a Chicago mobster of the 1930'sand 40's, Bart Slepian oversaw the
killing of innocent Unborn people every day of his adult professional life.
Then he drove away to his comfortable home in the suburbs and told himself that
what he did for a living was noble and necessary for his family.
If one has seen the fruit of just a single day of Bart Slepian's "work," one has a sudden visceral confusion to contend with. After all, "all in a day's work" means that the work product stacks up to two-ten-maybe a dozen bloody, dead, dismembered babies each shift. Some of them are dead by having their small, soft bodies literally wrenched apart and pulled through suction tubing; others are neatly cut here and there by a knife-like instrument; an arm brought out first or maybe a leg with other appendages and organs to follow.
In each case Bart Slepian slowly, carefully carved away bone and flesh until all of the child was extracted from the womb.
Among the pieces is a heart that was warm and beating only moments before. Tiny fingers and a thumb that once sought the comfort of this baby's mouth lay gently curled and discarded next to what remains of a liver and a foot.
If one has seen the fruit of just a single day of Bart Slepian's "work," one has a sudden visceral confusion to contend with. After all, "all in a day's work" means that the work product stacks up to two-ten-maybe a dozen bloody, dead, dismembered babies each shift. Some of them are dead by having their small, soft bodies literally wrenched apart and pulled through suction tubing; others are neatly cut here and there by a knife-like instrument; an arm brought out first or maybe a leg with other appendages and organs to follow.
In each case Bart Slepian slowly, carefully carved away bone and flesh until all of the child was extracted from the womb.
Among the pieces is a heart that was warm and beating only moments before. Tiny fingers and a thumb that once sought the comfort of this baby's mouth lay gently curled and discarded next to what remains of a liver and a foot.
The face of this Unborn infant has been
nearly shorn from the rest of his head, the eyes open and dark with sudden
terror. The safety the Unborn child was feeling has been shattered; his view of
a loving protected existence—no matter how simply developed—proven to be
utterly false.
The dissonance or emotional confusion can be overwhelming, so overwhelming that most men and women simply do not want to see what Barnett Slepian and hundreds of other such practitioners do for a living. It is easier to focus on the outrage one feels at seeing the man on the floor without muddying the waters with images associated with his occupation.
But in reality, forming an opinion as to the guilt of Bart Slepian's killer has suddenly become something far more complex than seeing the dead as victim and the fleeing as murderer. As with every homicide, one needs to know what motivated such an aggressive act on the part of one who has killed. Here it seems that motive may not be so easily settled as mere "corruption," "evil," "political ideology," or reduced down to simple hatred of the man.
Almost immediately in the case in point it was assumed that moral concerns—a decision to protect other Unborn babies from Bart Slepian and his occupation—might have played a part in the shooting. [tbc]
The dissonance or emotional confusion can be overwhelming, so overwhelming that most men and women simply do not want to see what Barnett Slepian and hundreds of other such practitioners do for a living. It is easier to focus on the outrage one feels at seeing the man on the floor without muddying the waters with images associated with his occupation.
But in reality, forming an opinion as to the guilt of Bart Slepian's killer has suddenly become something far more complex than seeing the dead as victim and the fleeing as murderer. As with every homicide, one needs to know what motivated such an aggressive act on the part of one who has killed. Here it seems that motive may not be so easily settled as mere "corruption," "evil," "political ideology," or reduced down to simple hatred of the man.
Almost immediately in the case in point it was assumed that moral concerns—a decision to protect other Unborn babies from Bart Slepian and his occupation—might have played a part in the shooting. [tbc]
This is the first part of a prescient piece Cathy
Ramey wrote in 1997, soon after Slepian was stopped cold.
______________________________
--------------------------------------------------
Eric’s Melvin and Maud continues:
Mr. Veracitino: Dr. Canard, this case involves the
plaintiffs’ desire to be married. Just
so we’re on the same page, can you please give us a definition of marriage?
Dr. Canard: As
currently defined, marriage is a civil right; it’s a “personal relationship
usually arising out of an emotional state of being in love.”
MV: I noticed that
you used the words “current definition.”
Obviously there used to be a different definition of marriage. Can you take us back in time and describe
marriage as it was traditionally defined in our culture?
DC: I’d be glad
to. Before the sexual revolution,
marriage was an institution of oppression designed to hold women and children
in subjection to men; it was the cornerstone of a class system called
patriarchy.
MV: “Patriarchy” is a male-dominated culture, right?
DC: Basically,
with the necessary emphasis on the unjust treatment of women and children. First and foremost, marriage was a commitment
between a man and a woman to form a household for the primary purpose of
raising children. Sex resulted in
children, and children, it was thought, did best when raised by their
biologically parents. Boys were expected
to model themselves after their fathers, girls after their mothers. Once grown, they were expected to find mates
of their own and marry – the class system perpetuating itself.
The family’s basic division of labor assigned the husband
the duties of provider and the wife the duties of child care. He was the “head” of the household; she was
his “helpmate.” Under the marital
bargain called “coverture,” the wife “agreed” to merge her legal and economic
identity with that of her husband, in effect selling herself into slavery. She “consented” to obey him on all
important matters affecting the family, and in exchange he was obliged to
support her and the children, providing them with the basic material goods of
life. With protection goes obedience was the old saying. A truly barbaric formula.
Marriage wasn’t
just a personal relationship between husband and wife; it was also a commitment
made to God and country. The union
couldn’t be dissolved unless one of the spouses proved in open court that the
other had somehow broken the vow, by,
for example, committing adultery or failing to provide basic material
support. For centuries the criminal
statutes of Western governments punished such familial offenses. This public aspect of marriage formed the
core of the institution for a thousand years.
Marriage was, in effect, a socially approved sexual relationship, the only socially approved sexual
relationship. Non-conformists were
ostracized or persecuted. Sexual
relationships outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage – fornication,
adultery, and homosexuality – were “sinful” and “criminal.”
MV: What about
love? In today’s world love forms the
entire criterion of marriage.
DC: Like the
definition of marriage itself, the pre-enlightenment era had a very different
notion of love. Love, they believed, is
to will the good of another, to place another’s interest before one’s own
especially when it’s not in one’s interest to do so. People thought that true love grew out of
marriage rather than preceded it.
Romance and passion were different from love. Although passion might bring two lovers
together, the thing that will keep them together is love, and love takes time
to form. There was an element of
compulsion involved in their idea of love, as, for example, when a mother is
compelled to care for her helpless child.
They felt that unless society compelled spouses to fulfill their
marriage vows, most unions would quickly fall apart. Today, we rightly consider this kind of
co-dependency to be toxic.
MV: Yes, we do
have a much more evolved definition of
love, don’t we? Love is the emotion we
feel when something pleases our senses.
We “fall in love” with a boy or a girl or a donkey or vanilla ice
cream. We may choose to express our love
by marrying the object of our affection, but when this emotion wears off, we
“fall out of love,” and it's time to move on to find a new object of
affection. On the case of marriage we get
a divorce; in the case of ice cream we switch to chocolate. Is that about right?
DC: Yah, that’s
it.
MV: Doctor, you
mentioned the so-called division of labor.
Can you tell us a little about its origins?
DC: Back in the
old days, folks believed that nature had created a division of labor between
the4 sexes. Nature, they thought, had
designed females to care for children and graces them with a “feminine”
temperament. A woman was supposed to be
passive, gentle, nurturing, and natural subordinate. Conversely they believed that nature had
designed males to be breadwinners and fitted them with a “masculine”
temperament. The ideal man was
aggressive, strong, a natural leader.
Today we call these assumptions sexism.
We now realize
that sex and gender are two different things.
Sex is objective and de rived from nature, gender is subjective and
derived from culture.
MV: In other words
there are no differences between the sexes other than anatomical? I, for example, was born with male sexual
anatomy, but post-natal cultural influences fitted me out with a “masculine”
temperament and assigned me a masculine gender role?
DC: Correct.
MV: I could just
as well have grown up in a culture that assigns its males the role of child
care and its females the role of breadwinner, where the gender roles re
essentially reversed?
DC: That’s right.
MV: What about the
influence of behavior of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen?
DC: Negligible.
MV: But Doctor,
levels of testosterone in males increase dramatically at puberty and reach a
peak in their early twenties. Under the
influence of testosterone boys become physically stronger than girls, naturally
equipping them for heavy labor and fighting.
the history of warfare is almost exclusively a male phenomenon. The female body, on the other hand, is almost devoted to reproduction. This suggests to me that nature has equipped
men and women differently and cultures have merely divided up the labor assignments accordingly: women for
mostly child care and men for mostly fighting and heavy labor. The physical and emotional investment it
takes for human females to bear and raise children requires that they have
extra protection and support. In every
culture I’[m aware of that sup0port has
traditionally been provided by ales.
Isn’t it possible that “gender roles,” as you call them, have their
origins in natural differences?
DC: No.
MV: Does the sex
hormone testosterone make males naturally stronger?
DC: The influence
of sex hormones is negligible.
MV: So the reason
there are no female linebackers in the NFL is solely because of sex
discrimination?
DC: Yes, the gender roles traditionally
associated with being a “man” or a “woman” have no biological basis
whatsoever. They are entirely derived
from culture.
MV: If you’ll indulge me for a minute, I’d like
to read a quote from anthropologist Margaret Mead, who was certainly no
right-winger: We know of no culture that has said, articulately, that there is
no difference between men and women except in the way that they contribute to
the next generation; that otherwise in all respects they are simply human
beings with varying gifts, no one of which can be exclusively assigned to
either sex.” In other words gender roles
appear to be derived from nature.
DC: I disagree with Ms. Mead. Gender roles originated in class oppression,
not biology. In his landmark book,
The Origins of Family, Private Property, and the State, Frederick Engels assures us that the earliest societies were actually matriarchal, “that woman as mother, being the only well known parent of younger generations, received a high tribute of respect and deference, amounting to a complete woman’s rule.” Women were “physically strong and adept at self-defense,” while men performed mostly domestic tasks or were “excluded from those societies.” The principle of fertility was considered sacred; therefore, female deities were worshiped.
The Origins of Family, Private Property, and the State, Frederick Engels assures us that the earliest societies were actually matriarchal, “that woman as mother, being the only well known parent of younger generations, received a high tribute of respect and deference, amounting to a complete woman’s rule.” Women were “physically strong and adept at self-defense,” while men performed mostly domestic tasks or were “excluded from those societies.” The principle of fertility was considered sacred; therefore, female deities were worshiped.
MV: That’s fascinating. I thought all societies
were essentially patriarchal. Can you
give us an example of a matriarchal culture?
DC: Well . . . no . . . As Engels readily
admitted, matriarchal societies “belong entirely to prehistoric times.” So I really can’t give you a specific
example.
MV: Didn‘t Engels base his assertions on ancient
myths and the American Indian kinship system, which he interpreted as “proof”
of a primeval matriarchate?
DC: Frederick Engels was an honest scholar.
MV: This is the same Frederick Engels who was the
friend and comrade of Karl Marx, the father of communism?
DC: Yes, it is.
MV: If I’m not mistaken, Engels and Marx are the intellectual
founding fathers of the sexual revolution, and the radical feminist movement,
and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender movement. Origins
was the key influence on the work of such prominent lesbian feminists as Kate
Millet, Shulamith Firestone, and Andrea Dworkin. The founder of the gay rights
movement, Harry Hay, was himself a loyal member of the Communist Party and a
great fan of Origins.
DC: Congratulations Mr. Veracitino, I see you’ve
done your homework.
MV: I’ve read all your books, Dr. Canard, and
it’s obvious to me that you’re a great fan of the sexual revolution. Would you say that the sexual revolution is
really just one front in the larger socialist revolution?
DC: I would.
MV: Do you also support the goals of the large
socialist revolution?
DC: Any supporter of the sexual revolution is a
supporter of the socialist revolution because the two are coterminous.
MV: What about the Gulags and mass murders in the
Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and a dozen other communist countries?
DC: Engels and Marx can’t be held responsible for
the actions a few misguided followers.
Both men were dedicated scholars who pointed the way to a “radiant
tomorrow.” As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Karl Marx had a great passion for
social justice.” We must separate
socialist theory from what happened in a few socialist countries.
MV: Sort of
like separating Nazi theory from what happened to Nazi Germany?
DC: I won’t even dignify that question with a
response.
MV: Okay back to our discussion of “socialist
theory,” specifically, gender roles.
given the fact that every known culture in recorded history is
patriarchal, how did we lose our matriarchal “origins”?
DC: A vast right-wing conspiracy that stretches
all the way back to the very dawn of history.
the first societies were socialists collectives, as well as being
matriarchal. There was no private
property; everything was held in common, including sex partners, there being no
exclusive relationships. “Not only
brothers and sisters were originally man and wife, but also the sexual
intercourse between parents and children was permitted,” said Engels. Children were raised by the collective. Having no private property, there was no
cause for conflict, no crime or war.
The reason early societies were matriarchal
was because women were thought to generate life spontaneously. People had yet to make the connection between
sex and procreation. As the sole
life-givers, women were revered, and even worshipped.
The snake that entered this socialist
paradise was paternity. When man
discovered that his seed was necessary to generate life, he decided to
overthrow the benevolent matriarchate
First, he enslaved his biological children. Second, he turned their mother into a
personal slave. Third, he invented monogamous marriage, which gave him sole
title over his “wife” and children – property.
To symbolize the triumph
of patriarchy,
warlike male deities with
large aggressive phalli replaced the gentle mother goddesses. Thus was born marriage. Engels said, “Monogamy was the first form of the family
not founded on natural but economic conditions, vis the victory of private property over primitive and natural
collectivism. It has been all downhill
ever since.” [tbc]
The remaining
two thirds of Melvin and Maud continues
this interchange between Mr. Veracitino and Dr. Canard, with just a brief
interruption by Judge Stamp and one by Heiman Sheister.
_____________________________
------------------------------------------------
To send money
to the federal Prisoners, those with eight digits after their names, make out a
postal money order to the Prisoner’s name and number. Then send it to PO Box
474701, Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001.
Ask the non-feds how they may receive money –
check, money order, etc. It varies by state.
_________________
-----------------------------
Receipt of this excellent missive
notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future,
simply advise me.
