Online users
???: Message???: Message  

Repeal the 19th?
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE

02/04/2020, 15:58:10

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Patriarchy, communism and the women's vote - WND

Scott Lively
7-8 minutes

By a serendipitous quirk of fate (aka divine providence), in 2013 I participated in a World Congress of Families planning committee in Moscow for a major international pro-family conference, which was scheduled to be held at the Kremlin in 2014. That conference was canceled due to the political turmoil surrounding Barack Obama's 2014 coup d'etat in Ukraine and the consequent, fully legitimate Russian annexation of the Crimea.

But for me personally, that trip to Moscow was enormously fruitful. First of all, I befriended Archpriest Dimitry Smirnoff, Orthodox Patriarch Kirill's right-hand man on family policy and was interviewed by him on national Russian television. And, I had the great honor, as a member of this small planning group, of receiving a special guided tour of the Kremlin (since that was expected to be the venue for the conference) and the awe-inspiring Orthodox cathedrals of Red Square.

Most significantly, however, as regards the evolution of my knowledge of geo-political history, I befriended young Russian intellectual Pavel Parentiev, who had just completed an in-depth study of family policy during the existence of the Soviet Union. It was from Pavel that I first learned that the outbreak of Marxist war on the natural family in America in the 1960s was almost a carbon copy of what the Soviet Communists had done in Russia from 1917 to the mid 1920s.

In 1917 the Soviets invented what we call "No Fault Divorce." In the 1918 Family Code, they codified the right of the state to supersede parental rights in "the best interest of the child" as determined by the State. They also established a government-controlled foster-care system, specifically to undermine the authority of families over children. And they became the world's first government to fully legalize abortion on demand.

All of this was driven by the two Marxist imperatives that are today recognized as the heart of Cultural Marxism, as summarized in the 1950s by Herbert Marcuse. His remedy for the "crisis" of "the repressive order of procreative sexuality" was "the elimination of the monogamic and patriarchal family." I had known this for some time, but thanks to Pavel I learned that Marcuse was simply echoing Vladimir Lenin, who wrote in 1919: "True liberation of women, true Communism comes about only when and where the masses rise up against small scale households." [Pavel's article "A Brief History of Family Policy in Russia, 1917-2013" may be found in The Family in America, Vol. 27, No. 3, Summer 2013.]

Let this sink in. For Marxism to succeed it must destroy the natural family, especially wait for it male authority in the family structure: the patriarchal order. And so the Soviets openly admitted that "women's liberation" their term was the No. 1 key to establishing Communism.

So what was happening in family-centered Christian America during this time of radical Communist upheaval in Russia?

What an odd coincidence. America was undergoing it's own social upheaval over the question of "women's suffrage," and on Aug. 18, 1920, women were granted the right to vote through the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution. And what became the No. 1 "women's rights" issue in the 1960s and remains so today? Abortion on demand! Of course, I'm being facetious when I call it a coincidence. It is a direct parallel we should learn from.

In Russia, the disastrous consequence of these policies was almost immediate and worsened until the nation-building Stalin era (1929 to the mid-1950s) when many of the destructive family policies were reversed not from moral repentance but pure pragmatism as the empire needed the social infrastructure that only healthy families can provide. Stalin and his successors had learned the painful lesson that the "sexual revolution" was poisonous to social order. They retained abortion as a tool to prevent women from having an excuse to drop out of the workforce in industries that had become dependent on the larger workforce, but otherwise they heavily pushed sexual conservatism at home.

Indeed, in my tour of Russia in 2006 and 2007 I was stunned that relations between men and women even on university campuses looked so normal and healthy, like what Americans enjoyed in the 1950s. And at every one of my speeches and lectures to college students on the history and tactics of the LGBT movement, the most common comment I heard in response was "that could never happen here." Again, I'm not talking old folks these were young college students, even those of the theatrical arts college in the most Westernized of all the Russian cities: Saint Petersburg.

But the Soviets were no humanitarians. They began to export "sexual revolution" as a weapon to destroy the Western world from within. And, indeed, although there was a long delay from the 19th Amendment (and the first "Red Scare" of the 1920s) until the implementation of the rest of the Soviet family policy agenda during the second Marxist wave of the 1950s (the second "Red Scare), our own moral collapse and social chaos ensued rapidly. Reagan did indeed take down the Soviet Union through a combination of external economic pressure and internal Christian revival but the Soviets got in their licks as well, injecting the West with slow-killing poison that might yet still kill us these many years later.

There's a lesson to be learned from that long period of stability in America's experience with "womens liberation" from the '20s to the '50s compared both to the Russians in the '20s and our own since the 1960s. The lesson is that women having the right to vote is not a problem so long as they don't use their vote to harm the very institution real women have always embraced as their primary (not exclusive) source of strength and place of service their family. The social meltdown only began when Marxist agitators began persuading women that true equality with men meant competing against them both in vocational pursuits and more destructively in embracing sexual promiscuity as a social value.

The corollary crises we've suffered since we lost so many of our women to the Marxists is the wholesale emasculation of two generations of boys under the tyranny of radical feminism and the dangerous rise of feral masculinity among men without the anchor of marriage-based family. What we really need is a restoration of the patriarchy but a more balanced form that acknowledges the equal value and complementary function of men and women, and actively maximizes the mutual benefits of the organic family fabric of society. We need males to be real men and females to be real women again.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Modified by TEEBONE at Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 16:01:34

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page