Tag Archives: catholicism

Malum in se: Do not comply with “secular sharia”

Posted on by

Anthony Esolen writing on the degree to which a Christian must submit to the law or the state.

He calls the law secular sharia.

But really sharia would be much better, because, in sharia law I would at least find a governing authority whose thinking I respected.

Islam is not my religion, but I understand and respect its demands. The pornocracy I hold in utter contempt.

“For Thomas, as opposed to Augustine, the state is not simply a necessary evil, something we have to endure because we are sinners who would otherwise pitch ourselves into bloodshed and riot.  When man uses right reason to order his affairs on earth, he is actually participating in God’s providential governing of the world.  Now that, I think, is a fruitful position to take.  It does render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, granting to the secular powers a legitimate sphere of action, while subordinating that action to the common good.  And, since the common good is a human good, it cannot be conceived apart from what makes man good in himself; so the ultimate object of the lawgiver, says Thomas, is to make his subjects good.  That does not mean blessed; he cannot take one tiny step towards accomplishing that.  But he can encourage them, by law and example and custom, to become more temperate, braver, wiser, and more just.  It is a noble calling, which the lawgiver cannot fulfill unless he acknowledges the limits of his rights.  That is, Caesar receives what is Caesar’s due, when Caesar acknowledges that God must receive God’s due…..

…Them’s fighting words now — or I wish they were.  But what do you do when the state does not know what it is and what it is for, and flattens the legitimate societies beneath it, including the family?  Well, Thomas gives us two ways in which laws may be unjust.  The first way is divided, as is typical of the medieval summa, into three subordinate ways: the law may be unjust because the wrong authority has enacted it (which may be the case in California, though I have heard arguments defending the judge’s interpretation of the foolish law), because it was enacted with no thought for the common good (for instance, as when a tyrant or a tyrannical faction uses public means for private ends), or because it distributes rewards and burdens inequitably (as when the publican takes half of the middle class contractor’s next dollar). 

The second way a law may be unjust is if it commands what is malum in se, evil in itself. For instance, a law that overrides the natural right of parents to educate their children is demanding, of its enforcers, actions that are evil in themselves.  Or a law that would require all citizens to expose their children to pornography — say, the popular bit of pornoganda, Angels in America, now returning to public schools in Illinois; that too would be evil in itself.  Such laws, says Thomas, are not laws at all; they do not have the character of lex — meaning that which justly binds the conscience.  They are violences, he says.”

On Auschwitz Anniversary, Black Mass To Be Held At Harvard

Posted on by

TO BE CONTINUED – LINKS, NOTES, AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH TO BE ADDED

Update 6: At Alabama.com, there is a report that, although the Black Mass at Harvard was canceled, members of the Satanic Temple of New York, the sponsors, did meet at 10 PM at the Hong Kong Restaurant, near the campus, dressed mostly in black.

Update 5: Just this morning I found an email with an adl.org address, which argued that Devyani Khobragade’s lawyer Daniel Arshack had mishandled her case deliberately because he was Jewish.

Of course, since I followed the case closely, I know this isn’t true.

Arshack made the best of a case the DOJ was intent on pursuing and cleverly outwitted Bharara.  Bharara always had the option to reindict, whatever Arshak did or didn’t do.  It could be a genuine email and perhaps I am mistaken about Arshack.

But I think he did what it took.

So why the email? Probably to hint to  me that the post below might be construed as anti-Semitic. Well, I take such warnings seriously and I revised my writing to see if I had jumped to any unwarranted conclusions. I don’t think I did. So the piece stands….. and the email goes.

Update 4

A site devoted to ritual abuse documents Doug Mesner’s long-time involvement in harassing and defaming people involved in ritual abuse research and therapy, which has even led to actions for defamation.

Update 3 The Harvard club was not able to find another location and the Mass has been canceled.

Update 2

The Satanic Temple of New York claims to be a group that is not supernaturally oriented and uses Satan as a literary metaphor of rebellion against superstition and authority and not a genuine Satanic group, like that of Anton LaVey.

In the interview linked above, Doug Mesner  (aka Lucien Greaves, Douglas Misicko) the founder, explains that the purpose of his group is satirical, not religious.

He founded it to expose hysterical claims in the early 1990s that large numbers of children were being subjected to ritual sex-abuse by Satanists in the public-school system and to debunk the advocates of repressed memory syndrome who testified on their behalf in court.

In “Mobs, Messiahs and Markets,” (2007), following the lead of Counterpunch editor and noted propaganda analyst, Alexander Cockburn, I adopted the same position on the subject, only to find out later that, while it was true that there was mass panic in the 1980s and 1990s, much of it had been fomented to muddy the cases of real ritual child-abuse perpetrated by the intelligence agencies as part of covert mind-control related operations.

Alex Constantine, who researches mind-control and sex-abuse trauma, writes of Cockburn:

“Alex Cockburn’s skepticism toward ritual abuse was summed up in an editorial appearing in the February 8, 1990 Wall Street Journal, “The McMartin Case: Indict the Children, Jail the Parents.” The son of a British spy, and a loquacious defender of the Warren Commission, Cockburn has such strong feelings about the McMartin case that he once publicly maligned an editor of the L.A. Weekly for refusing to print a recommendation that “the tots bearing false witness in the McMartin preschool case be jailed for perjury.”

His primary source on the subject of child abuse, Debbie Nathan, is herself something of a false witness.

In ‘What McMartin Started: The Ritual Abuse Hoax” (Village Voice, June 12, 1990), Ms. Nathan moaned that “children at McMartin told of being molested in tunnels under the school. None were ever found, but until recently parents were still digging.” In fact, 30 days before Nathan’s article appeared, the tunnels were discovered beneath the preschool by scientists hired by the parents, confirming the testimony of the children. The project employed a team of archeologists from local universities, two geologists, a professional excavator, a carbon-dating specialist and a professional photographer to document the dig’s progress and findings. The longest tunnel was six feet beneath the preschool, running eastward 45 feet from the southwest wall, and ten feet along the north wall. The tunnel walls were held in place by support beams and a roof of plywood and tarpaper. A branch of the tunnel led to a nine-foot chamber (the “secret room” described by the children?). Another extended from the preschool to the triplex next door, surfacing beneath a roll-away bathtub. Forensic tests on thousands of objects found at the site – including two hundred animal bones – were conducted.”

In 2007, a senior libertarian activist informed me that Cockburn was himself affiliated with the left-wing of the CIA. I’d by then come to suspect some such thing, given the gate-keeping of Counterpunch on 9/11 research. I stopped writing for them around that time. Later, delving into “conspiracy research,” I came to the conclusion that ritual mind-control sex abuse was real, even if all the evidence for it swirling on the web was densely muddied with disinformation. [Just for balance, here is the conventional skeptical view, promoted by Chip Berlet and SPLC, of so-called satanic ritual abuse.]

In a similar way, the “Temple of Satan” and its staged school-yard affronts might provide cover for genuinely occult ritual practitioners. More later on this.

Update 1: The Black Mass has been moved off campus, under pressure from Catholic groups.

ORIGINAL POST ( incomplete, being written in real time):

Note: I am going to publish this piece as I write it so it is on the net, before the time of the Mass. That means, links and addictions, corrections and revisions, mistakes and rethinks, will all appear in real time. Bear with me and check back for the changes.

Harvard Extension School Cultural Studies Club is planning on holding a Black Satanic Mass, in parody of the Catholic church, this evening in conjunction with the New York-based Satanic Temple.

This is the website of the Satanic Temple.

It was embroiled only earlier this year in another controversy, when it applied for a permit to build a statue of Satan next to the Oklahoma State Capitol, where a monument to the Ten Commandments had been built in 2012..

The parody of communion is a favorite practice of Satanists in the tradition of Aleister Crowley, the notorious English occultist.

Crowley, like so many Western “occultists” simply studied yoga and Tantric Saivism from traditional practitioners in South India, (specifically in the Madurai Meenakshi temple, close to where my grandmother lived), then misused and perverted the texts to boost his own ego and suit his own ends. The general belief is that Crowley exaggerated his practices. This version of the story can be found at wiki:

Following a mountaintop sex magic ritual, Crowley also performed an invocation to the demon Choronzon involving blood sacrifice, considering the results to be a watershed in his magical career.[91] Returning to London in January 1910, Crowley found that Mathers was suing him for publishing Golden Dawn secrets in The Equinox; the court found in favour of Crowley. The case was widely reported on in the press, with Crowley gaining wider fame.[92] Crowley enjoyed this, and played up to the sensationalist stereotype of being a Satanist and advocate of human sacrifice, despite being neither.[93]

But I’m inclined to believe that this just a sanitizing of his history for public consumption. Whatever the truth, Crowley’s writings on magic dwelt a great deal on the need for blood sacrifice in Magic/

From Magic in Theory and Practice (Chapter 12):

“It is necessary for us to consider carefully the problems connected with the bloody sacrifice, for this question is indeed traditionally important in Magick. Nigh all ancient Magick revolves around this matter. In particular all the Osirian religions — the rites of the Dying God — refer to this. The slaying of Osiris and Adonis; the mutilation of Attis; the cults of Mexico and Peru; the story of Hercules or Melcarth; the legends of Dionysus and of Mithra, are all connected with this one idea. In the Hebrew religion we find the same thing inculcated. The first ethical lesson in the Bible is that the only sacrifice pleasing to the Lord is the sacrifice of blood; Abel, who made this, finding favour with the Lord, while Cain, who offered cabbages, was rather naturally considered a cheap sport. The idea recurs again and again. We have the sacrifice of the Passover, following on the story of Abraham’s being commanded to sacrifice his firstborn son, with the idea of the substitution of animal for human life. The annual ceremony of the two goats carries out this in perpetuity. And we see again the domination of this idea in the romance of Esther, where Haman and Mordecai are the two goats or gods; and ultimately in the presentation of the rite of Purim in Palestine, where Jesus and Barabbas happened to be the Goats in that particular year of which we hear so much, without agreement on the date.”

Another significant connection, for my purpose, is that between Crowley and pedophile practitioner and advocate, dean of the sexual revolution in America, Alfred Kinsey.

In “Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences,” Judith Reisman  has extensively documented Kinsey’s crimes, showing a link between pederasty (and pedophilia) and infanticide, as well as the consumption (cannibalism) of children.

This link is apparent to anyone who has studied the history of serial-killers. A disproportionate number of them were homosexuals who not only assaulted their victims, but ate their body parts.

I want to make it very clear that the statistical study of these ties is inadequate. Correlation is not causation, and many would even dispute correlation, given that the numbers of serial killers is not large enough to adequately study the proportion of homosexuals among them.

Nonetheless, the findings are significant:

“One hundred and three news stories involved the rape and/or murder of children: 90 involved the molestation and murder of a child or children, 11 stories involved only the abduction and rape of children, and two the rape and mutilation, but not the murder, of the children involved. Of the 90 news stories where the child was raped and murdered (0.47% of the unique child molestation stories), 40% involved homosexual molestation.”

What is ever more fascinating is that, other research shows that lack of children and abandonment by family members are significant enough to figure as predictors of serial-killing. Military service is also a factor in prediction for serial killers in the US. (This is in contrast to such widely-accepted predictors as childhood abuse, which turn out to be irrelevant).

 

Here is Reisman talking to the Catholic magazine, The Wanderer:

“Kinsey, Reisman further explained, was an adoring disciple of Britain’s “great beast,” Alastair Crowley, considered the “prophet of pedophilia” and a known satanist.

The Wanderer asked her if there was a link between satanism and pederasty, and she responded:

“Yes, certainly….

“There is a direct link between Kinsey and Crowley, as I showed in my book, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences.

“Kinsey visited Crowley’s lair or ‘abbey’ in Sicily, as a pilgrim who goes to a religious place of holy worship. Crowley, we know was involved in ritualistic sacrifices of various kinds, including the ritualistic sexual abuse, and deaths, of children. Kinsey went to Crowley’s lair to adore Crowley’s images of people in copulatory positions.

“Kinsey’s promotion of children as sexual objects for adults to consume is of a piece with Crowley and the whole concept of satanic human sacrifice. Clearly, we sacrifice our children when we engage in sex with them. Those who do it, know it.

“Pedophilia, or more commonly, pederasty, is a form of human sacrifice. Anyone who assaults a child sexually knows they are not only killing that child’s soul, but some would say, from a psychotherapeutic perspective, they are turning that child into a dysfunctional, self-destructive individual, and they know the child-victim will also act out on other children, perhaps hundreds, the rest of his life, and so the human destruction is perpetuated.”

In this respect, recall that the self-styled Duke Porn star, Belle Knox (who, in my opinion, is a mind-control victim), said that she was being “consumed” by porn watchers who then hypocritically condemned her.  This was taken as an astute comment on the commodification of sex as a consumer item. But it was a double-entendre. She was hinting at and approving her consumption as a near-underage girl by a pedophilic culture

In case you think this is a wild reading of her words, consider that Mike Kulich, who made the porn contract offer to the Duke student, Thomas Bagley, runs a porn distribution company called Monarchy Distribution.

Monarch is the name given to an alleged mind-control program spun out of the better-known and better documented CIA program called MK Ultra.

So-called “conspiracy sites” claim that Satanism or some version thereof, is the religion practiced surreptitiously by the elites of what is called the New World Order, but I believe there is an alternative case to be made that events like the spurious Black Mass performance are orchestrated provocations directed at conservative Christians. They are intended to polarize debate in the country, demonize and misrepresent non-Christian traditions  (and make them the victims of the inevitable backlash), as well as distract from important foreign policy issues. They might also be intended to provoke anti-Semitism and religious conflict.

Be that as it may, the debate is inadequate without noticing the date of the controversy.

Today is May 12, which is the day in 1942 when the first train-load of Jews, some 1500 of them, arrived at Auschwitz, the worst of the Nazi camps where Jews (and many others) were exterminated during World War II.

Auschwitz, for the ruling elites, was the Holocaust (sacrifice) that enabled the Jews to acquire the Promised Land.

The number of Jews who died – still controversial  in some circles- is reckoned as 6 million, which has a sacred significance in Talmudic lore.

It was the number mentioned as the number of those “lost,” apparently long before the actual Nazi extermination.

The reason given by students of number symbolism is that the number six in the Talmudic prophecies pertains to Man (since man was created on the sixth day in the Book of Genesis), while the number ten represent the Kingdom of God realized on earth (Malkuth in the Sephiroth).

The 600,000 number multiplied by 10 became 6 million, according to this number symbolism.

Thus, one of the keys to contemporary secular eschatology, wherein the Jews and Israel become the salvation of the world,  lies in number symbolism and ancient Hebrew prophecy of the necessity of “losing six” (six million Jews) if the Jews are to return to Israel.

[I will research this angle some more, to make sure I have not been mislead by anti-Semitic propaganda or government-created disinformation.]

I believe that the Harvard Black Mass, as well as some other events in the last few days, are connected to this May 12 anniversary of Auschwitz.

First, very relevant to the Black Mass story is the abortion video published by abortion activist Emily Letts on Youtube last week, which I called out as a snuff movie as soon as I saw it.

The video was was replete with black-magic symbolism.

Let me point out some of it:

First. Moral inversion (Vampirism is good).

The perverse equation here is between giving birth to a child and murdering it. This is a typical moral inversion of the kind used in Satanism.

Notice that Ms. Letts was not equating birth and death, as religious texts often do when they teach that death to the physical world is birth in the spiritual world.

That  belief gives value to asceticism and self-restraint.

Instead,  Letts equated murder (the taking of another person’s life) with the increase of her own life, which is a form of vampirism.

Her words marked the abortion as ritual infanticide, intended to appease spirits or demonic powers.

Infanticide of this kind was typical of the worship of Molech or Baal in the Old Testament and it was forbidden to the Israelites.

Vampirism is exactly the opposite of the communion bread that Jesus offered to his disciples to give them eternal life.

Jesus’s sacrifice of his life – the definition of perfect love for others in Christianity  – is inverted into the Satanic ritual of taking life to increase one’s own.

The vampirism is especially evil because it is the perversion of the relationship between mother and child, the strongest of  human loves and one intended to reflect God’s love for each soul.

Second. Arrogation to herself of divinity. Letts portrays herself as a goddess.

The Letts video shows her humming and singing while contemplating her own ability to dispose of life and create it:

The non-graphic video focuses on her face and shows her breathing and humming through the procedure.”

(“Why I Filmed My Abortion,” Cosmopolitan, May 5, 2014)

Again, this is typical of Satanism. The capacity to give life is with God, not with Letts, who is only the vehicle.  In the Bible, Satan’s primary fault is wanting to usurp the position of God. Letts might well consider herself a goddess, but the reality is she is only a human being, pretending to be more, which is quite a different thing.

That this arrogation of the role of divinity was intentional is shown by the indifference displayed by the actress, which, if her purpose was to make her decision sympathetic, defeated her purpose. It back-fired by displaying the callousness and moral vacuity of the radical abortion position.

Now, if the sole intention of the video had been to remove the stigma of abortion, the video would surely have shown a more sympathetic figure, perhaps a woman who was sick, or had been raped.

Thus, I believe the motivation for the video was not what the sponsors of the video competition claimed.

I suggest that the idea all along was to promote a view of abortion as intentional, calculated killing, for the mother’s convenience. The objective was to efface the mother’s “sentimental” attachment to the child. That thesis is substantiated in an article in Salon, written earlier in the year by another abortion zealot.

Now, many people, including me, have felt something amiss in the whole narrative of the video. Some have suggested it was a hoax and Letts was not pregnant. I think the truth might be worse. I suggest that Letts deliberately got herself pregnant in order to kill the child to create the video.

I will explain why I think that in another post so as not to distract from the analysis of the symbolism here.

Third.  Preserving souvenirs of a killing.

Explaining why she made the video, Letts wrote a long piece at Cosmopolitan (Why I Filmed My Abortion), claiming that she was just as attached to her sonogram, as most people are to a child.  She made a rather bizarre claim that if her house were on fire, the first thing she would grab would be the sonogram. When I read this, I was immediately struck by the awkwardness of the story. It felt as if she had deliberately inserted this paragraph to follow some script. The “house on fire” symbolism is familiar to me from Buddhist texts, where the lusts of the body are said to feel like fire. Buddha asks us to flee the body, as a house on fire.  I first thought this was some kind of perverse reference to that. Perhaps it is.

But there is a more ready explanation. . In the worship of Molech, the children were thrown into the mouth of the idol so that they fell into the furnace below. The burnt bodies were the only souvenirs of what happened.

Could the “burning house” of the Cosmopolitan piece be a veiled reference to the charnel house of  Molech? And the sonogram, with its hieroglyphs, a veiled reference to the skeletal remains of the children.

 

Fourth. The invocation of sacrifice.

This interpretation gains weight when you notice another bizarre part of the Cosmopolitan piece – Letts’ insistence that women who kill their children, in spite of all the negative stories they hear about the ill-effects on their health or future fertility, as “sacrificing” these things, for the sake of killing the child:

“Yet women come into the clinic all the time terrified that they are going to be cut open, convinced that they won’t be able to have kids after the abortion. The misinformation is amazing, but think about it: They are still willing to sacrifice these things because they know that they can’t carry the child at this moment.”

Who talks about “sacrificing” when they are killing something, if not the practitioners of ritual sacrifice?

Of burnt offering? Burnt offering is exactly what the burning of children (House on fire) was in the worship of Moloch/Baal.

But “burnt offering” is exactly what the Holocaust means (It was at first called  Shoah (Catastrophe) by the Jews).

The genocide of 6 million Jews was the burned offering that enabled the Jews as a people to regain the land of Israel.

Father knew best: “The Silent Holocaust” (1981)

Posted on by

The author of “Abortion: The Silent Holocaust” (1981) was a man, and a celibate Catholic priest at that, yet his understanding of the moral import of abortion far exceeds that of feminist pro-abortion women who deny the nature of what they are doing, or, worse yet, understand it fully, but nonetheless elevate their own convenience above it at all times (Salon):

“I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.”

(Lila: my emphasis)

The author of these chilling lines, which could have come out of the mouth of some KGB chief or Nazi commandant, does get one thing right: Motherhood, devoid of elementary moral development, does not in itself confer humanitarian feeling or ethics. One can be childless and/or a male and have a far truer ethical compass than many of the malign mothers of modernity or the industry experts who brainwashed them.

For instance, contrast Father Powell, who quit his career for a year to write “Abortion: The Silent Holocaust,” with Dr. Nathanson, the godfather of the abortion industry who admitted that the pro-abort movement manufactured statistics to brainwash the population to accept the new laws.

Nathanson stated unequivocally that abortion was kept in place not by the needs of “women’s emancipation” – as feminism’s dupes believed and still believe – but by the self-interest of the abortion providers and the state.

National Right To Life News reviews Father Powell’s important book:

“(Father) Powell rhetorically asks himself why a heavily trained academic [Powell says he had so many degrees he felt like “Father Fahrenheit”] would be so burdened by Roe. He concludes it was because of two formative experiences that had left Powell with an “acute sensitivity to the value of every human life.”

One came about as a result of his short stint as a hospital chaplain in Akron, Ohio. He quickly realized that “scenes of suffering and raw grief had been quarantined out of my academic experience.” It dawns on him that he had never even seen someone die or be born.

[Lila: What changed me from pro-choice to pro-life was not a change in understanding of the nature of the act. I always understood abortion to be the taking of human life, but I was mesmerized by the propaganda that the child was somehow “more” the moral responsibility of the woman’s because of its residence in her womb.

This, of course, denies the man’s genetic contribution as well as the genetic contributions of the grand-parents of the child on both sides.

Previously, I’d also not seen pictures of the fetus or the evidence from new technology of  its complete humanity very early on in development.  As soon as I saw that evidence, thanks to the activism of Lila Rose (yes, I realize she’s Opus Dei but that’s another blog post), I changed my mind.]

“…..each of us has an absolutely essential part to play, that none of us are accidents, that God could have created the world without a place for us but didn’t want to.

“No one else can speak my message,” Powell writes, “or sing my song, or bestow my act of love. These have been entrusted only to me.”

The other formative experience for Powell, also before Roe, came when he went to Europe for further studies. While there, Powell visited the remains of the Nazi death camp at Dachau.

There he learned firsthand of the utilitarian ethic of the Nazi regime, its utter disregard for those who were frail or “unproductive,” and the silence of many Germans to the unspeakable monstrosities that were taking place.

He notes that the words “Never again” are printed on the gate in five languages. It’s a memory that haunts Powell when the U.S. Supreme Court unleashed the abortion holocaust.

Both experiences left him numb. One was too beautiful, too sacred. The other too violent, too shattering.

Yet troubled as he was by these experiences, it was something else that persuaded Powell to take a year’s sabbatical to serve as a pro-life speaker: his counseling experience with three young women.

The first had aborted and was deeply sorry. The life had seemed to have gone out of her eyes and as she left her visage seemed to say, “How can I ever forget?”

The second–a bubble gum-smacking teenager–represented the polar opposite extreme. She was as casual about her impending abortion as the first woman was devastated by the abortion she now bitterly regretted. But it was the third woman whose attitude nearly struck him dumb.

Laboratory tests had confirmed her pregnancy. In response, she told Powell that she had even stopped smoking and drinking; those “can affect the baby,” she remarked. Then in the next breath, she offhandedly remarks, “But I have an appointment to kill this baby next Thursday morning.”

While rocked back on his heels, Powell didn’t blame her for her wildly inconsistent statements. This new ethic of “utility and convenience” was in the very air she breathed, air remarkably like that which permeated Nazi-era Germany.”

Powell also grasps the fact that abortion is intimately connected with neglect of the weak and elderly. He describes what the last 24 hours of his mother’s life meant, absent any measure of “productivity”:

“During those many hours of conversation, characterized by “complete openness,” Powell was “introduced to parts of myself that I didn’t know existed.” He adds, “If I had to pick out the most humanizing, maturing, and life-transforming days of my life,” they would include his mother’s last 24 hours.

“What a terrible and personal loss I would have suffered,” he writes, “if she had been ‘put out of her misery’ because the supposedly meaningful and productive days of her life were over.”

Godfather of Abortion Inc. Converted to Pro-Life

Posted on by

At Catholic Education.org, the godfather of American abortion, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, confesses he’s had a change of heart:

“I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimizes my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws in the U.S. in 1968.

A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth.

How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law

The First Key Tactic was to capture the media

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.

The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.

[Lila: Again, concealed from the public is the fact that the US has an abortion policy far more radical than many socialist countries, like India, where late-term abortions would be considered murder. Here, they are perfectly legal, and, as the Kermit Gosnell story shows, they are far more prevalent than the media admits.

Moreover, the Emily Letts  abortion snuff video shows that abortion is used instead of contraception or responsible prevention.

Indeed, the video was most likely disseminated to normalize and promote the practice of abortion as contraception. There is no doubt in my mind that the intention is not to sever and destroy the “stigma of abortion,” as the media claimed, but to sear and cauterize the mother’s conscience, to cut the umbilical cord of maternal affection, to pervert the energetic bond between mother and child.

In that sense, and in many others, the video was filled with “occult” religious clues, but it was the religion of black witchcraft, not Christianity or Judaism.]

The Second Key Tactic was to Play the Catholic Card

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.”

And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.

[Lila: A key element in this strategy was to infiltrate and subvert the Catholic church from within. Thus, the church was first demonized for excluding gays; then when the gays in the church contributed to the pedophilic abuse, the blame was shifted onto celibacy and Catholic teaching on celibacy, rather than onto the proclivities of the priests.

Celibacy was thus associated with a so-called pedophilic hierarchy of conservative males, thus discrediting it.]

The Third Key Tactic was the Denigration and Suppression of all Scientific Evidence that Life Begins at Conception

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a perinatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the fetus in the womb. A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.

Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions?

Simple arithmetic: at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion.

[Lila: Actually, because of the trade in organs and fetal tissue, abortion is probably far more lucrative than that.  Kermit Gosnell apparently made something like $1500, not $300, from each abortion performed. That means roughly five times the figure above, or over $2 billion. This is just an extrapolation from media figures, of course.

The largest advocate of family planning services and the biggest provider of them, Planned Parenthood, relies largely on providing abortion to the public, not “other family services”:

“According to Planned Parenthood’s own apologist, Media Matters, its “total revenue from abortion services was approximately $164,154,000,” a year. Accordingly, over 51 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clinic income comes from abortion.

In addition to its $320.1 million in clinic income and $223.8 million in private donations, Planned Parenthood receives $487.4 million dollars a year from taxpayers.

Lila (continued): The liberal-left darling, Planned Parenthood, dispenses abortion pills in addition to abortion procedures, making the outfit the killer of over 300,000 children every year.

It is not coincidental that those children are mostly black, brown, and from the underclass, given that the mother of family-planning, Margaret Sanger, was a devoted eugenicist who wanted to control the birth-rate of the population and weed out “undesirables.”

Bernard Nathanson (cont):

It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma. But to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.”

As a scientist I know, not believe,  that human life begins at conception. Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.”

John Paul II On The Moral Basis Of Capitalism

Posted on by

Tom Woods cites Pope John Paul II on the moral basis of material prosperity:

“According to John Paul II, “The moral causes of prosperity . . . reside in a constellation of virtues: industriousness, competence, order, honesty, initiative, frugality, thrift, spirit of service, keeping one’s word, daring — in short, love for work well done. No system or social structure can resolve, as if by magic, the problem of poverty outside of these virtues.” These are precisely the virtues that the market economy fosters.

These ideas are not foreign to Catholic tradition: The Late Scholastics of the 16th and 17th centuries favored an economy very largely free of government controls, and John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus (1991) reflected an increasing appreciation for the moral and material benefits of non-coerced economic exchange.

The less heed we pay to slogans and propaganda, and the more we study the question on its merits, the more attractive does the market become.”