The Revolution against the Father

The Revolution against the Father Nov 26, 2019 12:17:27 GMT

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2019 12:17:27 GMT

The Revolution against the Father

November 25, 2019 | Adapted from the Google Chrome translation of a recent article by the Dominicans of Avrille, here.

The favorite diploma of the French Republic

It does not happen a day, even an hour, without us being witnesses of very serious or even unthinkable facts against the father: delusional feminism, procedures and persecutions against the fathers of family by means of revolting wives (even Catholics of tradition!) etc. ... These poor women do not realize that their fatherless children will be the future stops of the republic. It is not a simple moral decadence linked to a usury but the logical product of the "revolution" organized by the lodges. To each of us to take the measure and fight against this evil mechanism.

Fifty years ago, in 1969, Dr. Pierre Simon, a French pioneer in the contraceptive pill, was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of France. Ten years later, in 1979, having succeeded in legalizing abortion, he explained that it was only the beginning of the Masonic plan. The next step was artificial insemination (now known as PMA: medically assisted procreation), which would eliminate the father:

With the pill, one has a normal sexual life without procreation; with artificial insemination, procreation will take place without sexual act [...]. Sexuality will be dissociated from procreation, and the procreation of paternity. It is the whole family concept that is changing over here: the father is no longer the parent, but the one who raises the child. [...] [There will be] on one side the emotional and sexual couple - the procreative woman, the nonproductive man -; on the other, society, mediated by the doctor, which brings the demand for children closer to an availability of anonymous seed, controlled and governed by the "sperm bank." ¹

At the time of writing, this shift is reaching its critical point, as the French Parliament is preparing to legalize the "PMA for all." Some children will not even have an adoptive father. What will the consequences be?

The Janissaries Syndrome

If educators have long observed the shortcomings of children deprived of a father, Bernard Gibello found a striking type in the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire: snatched to their parents to be forcibly conscripted into the Muslim army these unfortunates became fanatical warriors, compensating for their need of a father by unconditional submission to the Turkish tyrant. André Bergevin summarizes and comments on the psychologist's analyzes:

Character traits presented by children without consistent paternal education were collected by Gibello as Janissary Syndrome; indeed, these elite soldiers (often homosexuals) had their peculiarities to have been taken away from their families (Christian) and to have suffered, in a Muslim environment, a religious destabilization and especially a conditioning making them replace the image of their real father, by the abstract image of the sultan in whose service they slavishly put their aggressiveness.

[...] Similar personalities were numerous among the dreadful SA Hitleriens. It can also be recalled that Armand Maloumian, who knew the Gulag from the inside, says that in 1948, the NKVD organized sexual orgies between deportees and deportees hitherto rigorously separated. Pregnant women were then told that they would be released after one year to take care of their offspring. Of course it was not, but their children were confiscated by the Soviet state who raised them in specialized schools, to make, mainly, policemen fully devoted to the cause of their only identifiable father: the communist state. It is instructive to see how various authoritarian regimes, at different times, have perfectly exploited the domesticable and instrumentalizable aggression of children without father and family.

Do those who now demolish paternal authority want the authoritarianism that tomorrow may need "Janissaries" to impose unpopular dictates? Is it a coincidence that (in 1997) a senior officer of the Gendarmerie, in a study meeting, spontaneously and curiously defined his new recruits as: "neither God, nor father!" The first part of the definition is commonplace in this materialistic age, but the second can surprise those who do not know the work of Gibello. [...]

Men need a father so much to honor and follow, that if he is absent or simply evanescent, and if God is ambiguous, they can fall back on the image of a state authority, and be satisfied with this. substitute, with their peers, they will blindly serve weapons in hand. Any decline of paternalism is a chance for centralized authoritarianism, that is to say, a chance for tyranny.²

The Revolutionary Logic

In the Republican values of France, this scenario gives rise to curious resonances. Was it not possible to say that the Declaration of Human Rights was written for a citizen "a born child found and dying unmarried?"³ "By cutting off the head of Louis XVI - chimed Balzac - the Republic has beheaded all family men."⁴In 1792, Rabaut Saint-Étienne, president of the National Assembly, proclaimed that the state must "seize man from the cradle, and even before birth, because the child who is not born belongs already to the Homeland."⁵ While the revolutionary MP Joseph Lequinio, conscious universal brotherhood proclaimed: "He would be happy for the human species, that all children might know their father developed."⁶

A Devilish Relentlessness

After the supernatural authority of the Church, nothing can oppose the Revolution more than the natural authority of the father of a family, precisely because it is natural, that is to say, independent of the State. Like any totalitarian ideology, the Revolution can not support an authority previous to its own. For two hundred years, under the pretext of "liberating", she [the Revolution] has worked tirelessly to isolate individuals, depriving them of all roots, all tradition, all attachment, all human links and all natural protection against the almighty state. As early as 1793, the future editor of the Civil Code proclaimed highly:

The imperious voice of reason was heard. There is no more paternal power. One man can not have direct powers over another, even his son.⁷

The Civil Code of Napoleon

In this methodical destruction of the family, the responsibility of the Napoleonic Civil Code is overwhelming. Bishop Delassus noted:

This code was made to destroy families, abolish heredity, destroy local traditions and isolate individuals, annihilate and gradually destroy all territorial and industrial influences for the benefit of anonymous and cosmopolitan capital [...]. There is more at home, legally at least, than unstable families. The spirit and the text of the Civil Code are opposed to any consolidation, to any perpetuation. He attaches to the family only the idea of a momentary society which dissolves at the death of one of the contracting parties.

To support his claims, the counter-revolutionary prelate quoted Frederic Le Play deploring "the lamentable spectacle of the perpetual liquidation that the forced sharing of legacies" makes and stressed that this effect was planned and explicitly wanted. On June 6, 1806, Napoleon wrote to his brother Joseph, who became King of Naples:

I want to have in Paris one hundred families, all having risen with the throne and remaining alone considerable. What will not be they will spread through the effect of the Civil Code. Establish the Civil Code in Naples; all that is not attached to you will be destroyed in a few years, and what you want to preserve will consolidate.⁹

This cynical plan came from England. In the eighteenth century, Queen Anne imposed on the Catholic Irish equal and forced sharing, preserving the Protestants the ability to test according to English laws; the soil of Ireland thus passed inexorably into the hands of Protestant lords.

From Divorce to Common Law

Even cynicism in the legalization of divorce. Officially, the law of Alfred-Isaac Naquet (1881) only covered a few extreme cases, particularly painful. But little by little, all the restrictions disappear. While this law of 1881 still prohibited, in the event of adultery, the marriage between accomplices, the prohibition is abolished in 1904; the delay before a new "marriage" is shortened in 1907 and progressively everything is done to facilitate the procedure.

Is it a drift? Obviously no, since Naquet will publish in 1908 a book very clearly entitled: Towards the Free Union. But it was necessary to proceed in stages. Naquet confided to his friend P. Abram:

To legitimize the free union, we need a change in our mentality. Because, basically, the marriage is rather imposed by our morals than by our laws ... But one does not change the mentality of a nation by a decree or a law, especially when this mentality is, like ours, also imbued with Catholic prejudices.¹⁰

To "deconstruct" these "prejudices", one must resort to trickery and lies. Slowly down the stairs, solemnly assuring each step that there is no question of going down the next and marking, if necessary, a break long enough to forget the promise.

In 1884, in the Naquet law, divorce was only an exceptional remedy, sanctioning a serious fault. As early as 1886, the procedure is simplified. From 3,000 divorces in 1885 to 23,000 in 1938, 35,000 in 1950 and 110,000 in 1981. Meanwhile, in 1975, divorce was legalized by mutual consent.

From Contraception to Abortion

Same handling techniques [are used] to attack the unborn child.

In 1963, to promote contraception, the French Movement for Family Planning (MFPF) presented it as the cure for abortion, and, for the sake of the cause, warned against it:

It destroys a baby's life after it has started. It is dangerous for your life and your health. He can make you sterile.

Once contraception is accepted, the family planning "forgets" that it was supposed to block the road to abortion, and begins to seek the legalization of it. In 1970, Dr. Elton Kessel confesses to the Congress of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in Tokyo:

If until now abortion has not been advocated by those responsible for family planning, it is because it would have damaged the reputation of the movement. Now that spirits are evolving, Family Planning can change tactics.¹¹

In parallel, to move public opinion, it does not hesitate to rig the figures, multiplying by six the number of clandestine abortions, and by forty that of women died from abortion.¹²

Towards the Fatherless Child

The major maneuvers for the artificial manufacture of fatherless children began in the 1990s. As soon as the PMA was obtained for couples suffering from infertility (1994), the campaign for homosexual "couples" was launched.

On November 3, 1998, Élisabeth Guigou, Minister of Justice, defends in these terms the draft Civil Solidarity Pact (PACS) in the National Assembly:

The opponents of PACS claim that it would be dangerous for the marriage. [...] Some still add a threat: the pact would be only a first step towards the right to filiation for homosexual couples! Those who claim it engage only themselves. [...] I say with the greatest firmness that this right should not be confused with a hypothetical right to the child. A heterosexual or homosexual couple has no right to have a child outside of natural procreation. The recent laws on medically assisted procreation [...] are not intended to allow procreation of convenience on the basis of a hypothetical right to the child.

I am aware of the lawsuits of intent on a possible "after" of this bill that would prepare more fundamental changes to our law. This text would be "a double-bottomed suitcase". I rise with the greatest energy against such insinuations.

This contraband vocabulary, which suggests that this text would hide something else and that your rapporteurs and the Government would be acting as a fraud to the law, is unacceptable.

Fourteen years later, the same Élisabeth Guigou explains that it was a ruse:

At the time, the important thing was to pass the PACS. There was fierce resistance to PACS in the Assembly, but also in society with demonstrations, verbal excesses inadmissible [...] So, the important thing was to dissociate PACS from marriage, legally and symbolically. In 1998, it was not possible to put the issue of same-sex marriage on the table, even within the government, I had to insist. At the time it was something that was much less accepted in society, you will not find anyone opposed to the PACS today. Today, I evolved on marriage I considered, in speaking with the associations, that since it was mutual consent between two adults, it was not possible to refuse equal rights. Society has evolved a lot, I myself keep my questions about adoption; it is necessary to find how to write in the civil code how is organized the filiation of a child who is adopted by a homo couple.

In reality, the goal had been clearly announced, as early as 1900, by the great pundits of the League (Masonic) of human rights, who declared, during the World Fair in Paris:

Strong supporter of the integral education of the child by the community, our group does not recognize the usefulness of the protection of the parents [...] our group is revolutionary socialist, consequently internationalist antipatriot. In the family we see the embryo of the tribe, the province, the nation; in the paterfamilias, the embryo of the chief, the lord, the king. [...] We want the autonomous personality in the harmonic society. There is no need for the succession of intermediaries: family, province, nation, between the individual and the community. Family point, leaving point of tyranny of the head of the family. The natural family of the individual is humanity.¹³

Behind this cry of hatred against the human family, we easily recognize the revolt of the prince of selfishness: the demon Lucifer. Locked in the sterility of his pride, which can only bring forth lies, Satan can not bear the thought of the God-Father, who not only, from all eternity, gives his divine life to the eternal Word but who, in addition, wanted to create men to raise them to this divine filiation, by incorporating them into his only Son.

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. [Ephesians 6:12-13]

[1] - Pierre Simon (1925-2008), Life before all things, Paris, Mazarine, 1979, p. 221-222. Quoted by Christian Lagrave in Salt of the Earth 94, p. 103.

[2] - André Bergevin, Permissive Revolution and Sexuality, From Tolerance as an Argument to Transgression as a Process, Pars, FX de Gibert, 2003, p. 366-367.

[3] - The formula is Ernest Renan, in the preface to his Contemporary Questions (Paris, Lévy, 1868, III).

[4] "Do you know, my child, what are the most destructive effects of the Revolution? You would never doubt it. In cutting off Louis XVI's head, the Revolution cut off all fathers' heads. There is no family today, there are only individuals (...). By proclaiming equal rights to paternal succession, they killed the family spirit, they created the taxman! But they have prepared the weakness of superiority and the blind force of the mass, the extinction of the arts, the reign of personal interest (...). We are between two systems: to constitute the State by the Family, or to constitute it by personal interest: democracy or aristocracy, discussion or obedience, Catholicism or religious indifference, that is the question in few words. Honoré de Balzac, The Human Comedy, Scenes from Private Life, Memoirs of Two Young Brides (1840) (Complete Works of H. de Balzac, Volume 2, A. Haussiaud, 1855, 45). - Same interpretation of the Revolution by the feminist Élisabeth Badinter (One is the other, Paris, Odile Jacob, 1986, pp. 192-198).

[5] - Jean-Paul Rabaut Saint-Étienne (1743-1793), member of the Committee of public instruction of the Convention, speech to the Convention, December 21, 1792.

[6] - Joseph Lequinio (1755-1812), Prejudices destroyed, chapter XV, Bastards, Paris, Desenne, 1793, p. 160.

[7] - Jean-Jacques-Régis of Cambaceres (1753-1824), speech to the Convention, August 9, 1793.

[8] - Bishop Henri Delassus, The Family Spirit in the House, in the City and in the State, Desclée, Lille, 1910, p. 133-135. - See on this subject: Jean Gasselin, "Mgr Delassus and the family spirit" in Salt of the Earth 81 , p. 23-28.

[9] - Quoted by Bishop Henri Delassus, ibid., P. 133.

[10] - Quoted by Paul Abram, The Evolution of Marriage (Paris, E. Sansot, 1908, with preface by Léon Blum), p. 117. See also the other quotations given by Christian Lagrave in Salt of the Earth 94 , p. 96-97.

[11] - Quoted by Marie-Andrée Lagroua Weill-Hallé, Dad's Abortion, Paris Fayard, 1971, ch. 1.

[12] - On the rigging of statistics by INED, in France, see Bel and Lagrange, Plot against life (SPF, 1979), as well as the article by Jean Legrand in Routes 322 (April 1988), with the INED response in Routes No. 327. - On the rigging of statistics in the United States, see Dr. Nathanson's confession ("We falsified the number of illegal abortions"), in Present of Saturday, November 23, 1985.

[13] - Lucien Brunswick (member of the Central Committee of the League of Human Rights), speech at the feminist congress organized in Paris during the World Expo of 1900 (5-8 September) with Ferdinand Buisson and René Viviani. (International Congress of the Status and Rights of Women, Paris, 1901, pp. 388-389, quoted by Christian Lagrave in "Feminism versus the Family," Salt of the Earth 94 , 94.)

[Emphasis mine]