THE SS: SEX AND SOCIALISM

By Ted Shoebat


Flavored cough syrup for kids is not intended for dessert. The sweetness was intended to lure children to ingest a spoonful of this remedy for congestion. Neither is sex meant for dessert. Out of control sex can also be disastrous. You might think that I do not know what I am talking about, especially after I share a confession that I never have had sex. No. Never.

But why should this be a confession? Confessions are for the guilty.

Sex, like marriage, is between a husband and wife. You can make fun of me for choosing abstinence but I have seen some teens gone wild and miserable during my high school days. I have had no regrets about watching the condom go by during the so-called safe sex class. School teachers had no business trying to persuade me via hands-on training with condoms while they told girls about birth control abortion pills. If such teachers were so caring - the premise they use - why don't they encourage the invention of a pill to solve the problem with the soaring divorce rate?

Republican strategist, Mary Matalin, said that "When The Pill arrived, we second-wave feminists heralded it as a miracle. The Pill had way less to do with reproductive control than just control. Period. Health concerns were dismissed; progressive mothers [...] sent their girls off to college with The Pill." And "girls with their packages of portable liberation ushered in a generation of women determined to break free from their inferior patriarchal oppressors. And how did they manifest their superiority? Their freedom? Thanks to The Pill, by casual, drive-by sex."

Birth control is popular in America. A recent CBS poll shows that 59% of Americans believe the pill is better for women. The Center for Disease Control reported that 1 in 4 women choose permanent birth control. Feminist Letty Cottin Pogrebin says the pill "was an equalizer, a liberator".

Nancy Pelosi, acting as an expert on the economy, tells us that birth control is good for the economy. Real experts like Gary S. Becker give us an absolute that "Depressions are associated with decreasing population." He was referring to the effects of birth control by paraphrasing Adam Smith, a pioneer of political economy.

Philip Longman confirms that birth rate decline is "the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st. century." Robert J. Samuelson wrote in The Washington Post: "It's hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling." In America, our baby boomers are already crossing the threshold into retirement. As the old increase in number relative to the young, fewer workers will exist to drive the economy and fund Social Security and Medicare.

The latter may be taxed more heavily and in turn, work less and have even fewer children, causing a vicious circle. We will soon find out that the problem with our economic crises is ignoring another absolute necessity, that is, to "be fruitful and multiply." Birth control is simply another way of trying to alter the sacred concept of the family.

The main dilemma is still how can family be sustained when women want to become totally equal to men Especially since it was the woman that had to endure child labor? But still yet, how did we get to the position that we must control our population?

In history, we shall see the future. By studying the history of this whole issue we will fully understand everything.

Progressive women wanted to become totally equal to men, and began to conclude that if they could prevent child-birth, they could enter the work force as men do. In 1960, the pill, met their need.

Theresa Notare laments the use of the pill: "How are women (and men) healthier or happier because of The Pill? A thoughtful person should connect the dots. Young people routinely have multiple sexual partners before marriage, no doubt facilitated by The Pill, and the divorce rate still soars. The Pill does not prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, accordingly, the STD rate is epidemic."

But the whole thing behind population control is more "control" than it is population, freedom or liberty. If the left can change the minds of people on absolute gender roles, they can deconstruct the entire nation and rebuild it to their liking, for a nation is built upon the family.

It was socialists and feminists William Thompson and Anna Wheeler who advocated socialistic communities, challenged patriarchy, advocated contraception, collectivization of domestic labor, and influenced the trade union and cooperative movements. Communists like Friedrich Engels, who co-authored the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, wished to destroy marriage and the family. Engels saw women in patriarchal families as slaves. This "slavery" came from private property. Gender inequality's purpose was for capital gain. For women's liberation to be established, women must become wage laborers. Women becoming workers would make them class conscious and capable of forging a revolution to destroy capitalism.

Feminism even goes back to the Saint-Simonians who fought the "tyranny of marriage" by communal living and free love. The Saint-Simonian women refused to submit to their husbands. They taught that traditional wives were "slaves" and described their husbands as slave masters. One called for the decriminalization of adultery, another the establishment of no-fault divorce.

But to every explosion of socialist control agenda, there are methods for silencing dissidents not by scientific nuanced study of the issues but by making louder thunder. The subject of Feminism gets men scolded by the "I am woman, hear me roar!" crowd, and sticky labels are flung on foreheads with the dreaded "male chauvinist sexist pig".

Feminism is not American. It is foreign and has infiltrated us. "In Goddess We Trust" is not American apple pie. Feminism was in France before it was in America, thus why Jefferson was shocked: "(Few Americans) can possibly understand the desperate state which things are reduced in this country [France] from the omnipotence of an influence which, fortunately for the happiness of the sex itself, does not endeavor to extend itself in our country beyond the domestic line." (1) Darwinist Herbert Spencer wrote that as we evolve, "race-maintenance is achieved ... with a decreasing sacrifice of parental lives to the lives of offspring". (2)

After looking through this history, the left's mission is apparent; they wish to rewrite absolutes that are impossible to destroy, absolutes that were etched by the "In God We Trust" crowd. But I guess a 19 year old should be ridiculed for thinking like Jefferson, who would have never married a Feminist. People can contract Herpes from a kiss and it sticks around like luggage until death do they part. As for me, a church going girl is awaiting for me someday to tie the knot, and will not mind having a large family until death do us part. Until then, God Bless the family.

1 A history of English utilitarianism By Ernest Albee, Page 323, See ch. xiv, 96.*
2 As cited in Ellis, 1997, pp. 90-91*

CLICK HERE

Australia rejects family with Down son

By Staff / Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (BP)--An Australian government agency has denied a German doctor's request for permanent residency because his 13-year-old son has Down syndrome.

Bernhard Moeller and his family moved to Australia two years ago for him to practice in a rural area of Victoria state that has a shortage of physicians.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship rejected Moeller's application for permanent residency because his son, Lukas, "did not meet the health requirement," according to the department. An immigration department spokesman said Oct. 30 the rejection came because a medical official had determined Lukas' condition "was likely to result in a significant and ongoing cost to the Australian community," the Associated Press reported.

"This is not discrimination," the spokesman said, according to AP. "A disability in itself is not grounds for failing the health requirement -- it is a question of the cost implications to the community."

American bioethics specialist Wesley Smith refused to accept the department's claim.

"Of course it is discrimination.... If you think not, let's try a mind experiment: Would Australia ever deny permanent residence to a family whose child had HIV? The outcry would be heard in the States," Smith wrote on his weblog.

"This is shameful eugenics, morally akin in my view to laws in the USA that barred disfavored nationalities and Jews in the years running up to World War II.

"This eugenic tide is flowing, not ebbing, and people with Down are prime targets; of eugenic abortion, of medical neglect after birth, of infanticide, of health care rationing, of futile care theory, and now of refused immigration," Smith said. "Such are the consequences of rejecting human exceptionalism and embracing the bigotry intrinsic to the 'quality of life' ethic."

Click here to read the rest of the story

Australian Committee Proposal to Pay Mothers Late Abortion Cost for Disabled Babies Compared to Nazis

By Hilary White

CANBERRA, November 13, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development has been slammed by Queensland Senator Ron Boswell for holding to Nazi-style eugenic ideology on the abortion of disabled children.

“This revisiting of eugenics principles is repugnant to a society that prides itself on the contribution of all,” Boswell said.

The pro-abortion group had made a submission, signed by 41 Australian MPs, to the parliamentary committee that is examining the issue of abortion in Australia. The group said paying women a Medicare rebate for second-trimester abortions would save the government about $180,000 a year, due to the high costs of caring for handicapped babies who are allowed to be born.

Removing the abortion rebate, the group said, would place “emotional, physical, mental, and financial stress on families, denying women and couples the right to decide if they are equipped to raise a child with disabilities.”

According to Christian Today, so far 7 of the MPs whose names were affixed to the submission have disowned its statements about abortion and handicapped children.

Boswell heavily criticised the submission, saying that its “underlying premise” is based on eugenic principles that governments should prefer to kill the disabled rather than support them. He said it holds that “some lives are worth less than others because they will cost too much to support.”

“This is the kind of thinking that was typical of the Hitler regime. They set themselves up as judge of who deserved to live and who deserves to die.”

In the period leading up to the Second World War, the Nazi government of Germany began to implement its eugenics policies, meant to “cleanse” the German people of undesirable “racial traits.” This meant in practice the killing of those children, and later, adults, considered by the state to be genetically defective. Thousands of children and adults who suffered from mental and physical disabilities were starved and gassed to death and killed by lethal injection.

More recently, the utilitarian eugenics movement has gained popularity in scientific circles that propose to eliminate undesirable traits by killing those unborn babies, and, increasingly, newborns, who are found to be genetically deficient. Utilitarian philosophers and bioethicists like Princeton University’s Peter Singer, openly advocate for the killing of disabled children in the womb and as newborns.

Currently the abortion rate for babies with Down syndrome is estimated to be as high as 95% in many Western countries, indicating that modern utilitarian eugenics is already being implemented on a widespread scale.

Click Here