Is Communism Dead?

Catholic Candle note:  The article below concerns the consecration of Russia which Heaven commanded to be performed by the pope and all of the bishops of the world.  This command pertains to the bishops in their capacity as wielding jurisdictional power to govern the Church throughout the world.  As such, the consecration can be performed by those Ordinaries who govern the Church, despite the doubtfulness that their conciliar consecrations give them the sacramental power of a bishop.  For an explanation of this, please read chapters 10 and 11 of this book: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf

Catholic Candle holds that a bishop should be presumed to have a valid Episcopal consecration when he is consecrated under normal conditions, by the Church in normal times.  In other words, the fact that he was consecrated under the Church’s normal conditions, in normal times, causes an appropriate presumption that he is a valid bishop.

However, this presumption (of the validity of such a bishop’s consecration) could be rebutted even in normal times, by a positive doubt – even a small positive doubt – concerning the validity of his particular consecration.  Read more about this principle here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-ordination-doubtful.html

We hold that the consecrations performed outside these normal conditions and not during normal times, do not deserve such presumption of validity because the Church does not vouch for those consecrations.  Those consecrations should not be taken as valid unless they are proven valid.

For further information about the doubtfulness of the conciliar “consecration” rite, read this analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGZVF5cmFvMGdZM0U/view

For more about the principle that it is our duty to treat doubtful consecrations and ordinations as invalid, read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-ordination-doubtful.html

 

Is Communism Dead?

The short answer is No.

Webster’s Dictionary states that Communism is a theory advocating the elimination of private property.  That is one of the main goals of Communism and Socialism.  Another pillar is the eradication of our freedom to work and plan for a life on earth and salvation thereafter.

Perhaps because these Communist goals are so horrific to contemplate, most people today choose to simply ignore what this actually means and how the increasing rise of Communism is radically changing their lives and jeopardizing their salvation.  It is easier for them to believe that Marxism/Socialism/Communism were discredited decades ago and that the Blessed Mother’s command in 1917 no longer applies, viz., that the pope and all the bishops of the world must consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

Wrong!  The dangers of Communism are now greater than ever and Our Lady’s command is more important than ever.  Our Blessed Mother gave us explicit instructions on what must be done to avoid wars and persecution of the Church.                                                             

If people will do what I will tell them, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace.  The war is going to end.  But if they do not stop offending God, another and worse war will break out in the reign of Pius XI.  (1922-1939)  [This refers to World War II.] 

When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that it is the great sign that God gives you, that He is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father.”[1]

To forestall this great tragedy, she asked for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart and for Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays.

If they heed my request, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace.  If not, she shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecutions of the Church; the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated…”[2]

Well, what do you think?  Has the world taken her warning to heart?  Have people become more religious, more devout?  Or even more law-abiding?

On the contrary.  Because Rome did not heed Our Lady’s admonition, many of these things have come to pass.  The civilized world is suffering because Russia continues to spread her errors, causing widespread chaos.  We have a bad pope who also is head of the anti-Catholic conciliar church; (thus, we don’t expect him to consecrate Russia,[3] despite the occasional attempts at consecration that various (so-called) bishops have tried.  (Note: Our Lady specified that the consecration must be done universally, by the pope and all the bishops at the same time.) 

Worldwide, there are currently two major wars and many smaller conflicts.  The number of vocations and people attending church are greatly decreased.  Although in most or all places in the world, faithful and informed Catholics have nowhere to attend Mass because they have no access to an uncompromising priest, this is not the reason for greatly decreased church attendance throughout the Western World.  Instead, church attendance is way down because people ignore God, not because they shun compromising priests.

Public immorality is rampant.  Satan worship is on the rise.  Abortion is considered a “right” (by some tortured use of the word).  Birth control is a matter of convenience.  Hundreds of thousands (some say, millions) of vulnerable children have been brainwashed into believing they are not who they thought they were and are in need of ongoing surgeries and unending “treatments.”  (The implication is that “God made a mistake.”) 

We are edging toward complete lawlessness, as demonstrated by the following:

ü  Moves to defund the police;

ü  No cash bail for criminals (i.e., so they are free to commit more crimes until their trials come up – if they’re still around);

 

ü  Smash and grabs thefts from stores are increasingly common, and in many cities (e.g., San Francisco) the police ignore the thefts unless the value of the goods stolen is over $1,000;

ü  Arson and rioting are accepted and tolerated; and

ü  Blatant corruption is in the highest levels of government.

The goal of this Marxist push is to make citizens feel so unsafe that they will demand that the government should implement a police state, as happened in the Communist takeover of Russia during the Bolshevik (Communist) Revolution of 1917. 

The governments throughout the Western World will continue with their insane upside-down policies and attack anyone pushing back against them.  One example of the increasing U.S. police state is the leftists weaponizing the FBI – as happened in Virginia recently when the FBI placed “spies” in more conservative “Latin Mass” churches, until a whistleblower disclosed this fact publicly, after which this spying was supposedly stopped and the FBI policy memo was quietly withdrawn.  

Unfortunately, most people have a very obscured understanding of the difference between right and wrong, between the true and the false, and between good and evil.  Such people (and their parents and their children) have been “educated” in an educational system which, for the past 70 years, has been predominantly left-wing.

The planned convulsions in society, the riots, the attacks on the family, and the full-tilt assaults on every aspect of our culture are all direct results of failure to follow Our Lady’s command at Fatima.

Not a rosy picture, is it?  Were it not for realizing that God knows what is going on here in the world He created, it would be panic-time.  As it is, He expects us to keep up the good fight and trust in His love for us.  Thus, our job is to live the Catholic life and hold the Catholic Faith without any compromise.  Let us do this without fear!



[1]           Mother of Christ Crusade, Fr. John de Marchi, I.M.C., (Published by the Mother of Christ Crusade, 1947,) Chapter V.

[2]           Mother of Christ Crusade, Fr. John de Marchi, I.M.C., (Published by the Mother of Christ Crusade, 1947,) Chapter V.

[3]           For an analysis of why the pope’s 2022 “consecration” did not fulfill Our Lady’s command, read this article:   https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/did-the-popes-consecration-fulfill-heavens-command-no/

 

The Leftist Attack on the Moral Fiber of Society

Let us reflect on the impoverished character we generally see in so many people in society around us, especially members of the last three generations.  This moral decline is getting progressively worse as time goes on – with each passing year and with each new generation.

So many members of these generations display their weakness of character and their wallowing in vice through what they set as their highest values and goals: comfort, convenience, pleasure, entertainment, conformity, and being coddled.[1]

So many such people stand for little-or-nothing that requires personal sacrifice or for which they would willingly give up their lives.

  They “stand for” forcing the government to give free medical care to them and to others. 

  They “stand for” having the federal government waive the repayments of their student loans.

  The “stand for” welfare payments and government subsidies for practically everything.

  They “stand for” forcing employers to pay workers more money through a government-mandated minimum wage.
 

  They “stand for” taxing more money from the rich.

  They “stand for” pressuring the government to bail out foolish risk-taking that turns out badly, such as building or buying a house in a flood zone.
  

  They “stand for” collecting money through being a “political activist” or a “community organizer” without having to get a real and productive job.

  They “stand for” street protests in order to get their way.
 

  They “stand for” commuter transit subsidies.

  They “stand for” the government forcing taxpayers to subsidize foolish and non-cost-effective electric cars, solar and wind power, and other boondoggles.
 

  And so on. 

Many such people slouch through life seeking pleasure and entertainment.  They are unwilling to make personal sacrifices.  Sacrifice is painful – whereas their shallow lives are filled as much as possible with continual self-indulgence.  Even if they are (gullibly) terrified by the emotional alarmism that the Establishment feeds them (e.g., global destruction because of climate change), nonetheless, such a bogeyman does not make their own lives uncomfortable or require of them any significant sacrifice.  They simply demand that the government “do something” to “fix” the problem.

They are unwilling to make personal sacrifices because pain is the opposite of the comfortable life at which they aim.  They do not get married and they frustrate Nature through abortion by refusing the children whom God sends them or naturally would send them.  This should not surprise us because marriage involves taking responsibility.  Likewise, it involves accepting responsibility when a person welcomes into the world and into his family, the children that God would send him.

So many such people do not pursue the truth because that pursuit: 1) takes effort, 2) is unpopular, and 3) might present to them an uncomfortable conflict between the popular “correct” opinions they want to hold and whatever they might discover to really be the truth.  Thus, they find the truth to be “inconvenient” or they deny the existence of truth – instead saying everyone has his “own truth”, which merely means his opinion.

Instead of the truth, they merely latch onto the self-interested, “approved” propaganda that they are fed by the mainstream media, by the entertainment industry, by the universities, and by other leftists.  These people would usually ignore an account of the truth available from a conservative source because such an account takes too much effort to find and because the truth could expose them to being accused by their peer group of “disinformation”.

The disciples of the leftist leaders do not value thinking or the truth but only value having the “correct” opinions.  For this reason, they justly possess a reputation of wanting to silence whatever opposes their own “correct” opinions.[2]  Such people cannot think-through, discuss, and debate ideas with those who have a contrary opinion.  This is the reason why there are leftist fads such as “safe spaces” on college campuses where leftist students do not need to “fear” encountering someone who disagrees with them.[3]

At bottom, these people are stunted both in their intellects and in their wills.  Because of their underdeveloped wills, they have no real love – i.e., no real noble, sacrificial, unshakable love.

When a person loves something, he stands for it.  When he loves something, he fights for it.  When he loves something, he honors and respects it, he sacrifices for it, and he is willing to die for it (if necessary).

Thus, we see that many such people in society do not love the truth and are not devoted to it.  They do not have a real love of any people and do not have real friendships.  Instead, they have convenient, comfortable, transitory liaisons, which are counterfeit “friendships” that Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas call “friendships of pleasure” and “friendships of utility”.[4]

In contrast to these sham “friendships”, here is the character of the real sacrificial love of genuine friendship:

If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he shall despise it as nothing.

Canticle of Canticles, 8:7.

Such real, committed love does not shrink in the face of difficulties.  It lasts “until death do us part”, as Sacred Scripture teaches us:

Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm, for love is strong as death ….

Canticle of Canticles, 8:6.

These people in society have no real love for persons around them and this is a reflection of their lack of any real love of God.  Thus, they are irreligious, do not attend church, and have no spiritual anchor.

We should pray for these confused, pitiable followers of the leftist leaders who guide them down the path of unhappiness in this life, as a foreshadowing of the unspeakable eternal misery to come (unless they convert and repent). 

Our being God’s tool in their conversion is a very worthy purpose for our lives!



[1]           The Coddling of the American Mind, Atlantic Magazine, found here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

[2]           Read, e.g., this September 25, 2023 article in Fortune Magazine (a mainstream media publication) entitled: Gen Z can’t work alongside people with different views because they ‘haven’t got the skills to disagree’ says British TV boss, found here: https://fortune.com/2023/09/25/gen-z-workers-skills-british-broadcasting-boss-alex-mahon/

[3]           The Coddling of the American Mind, Atlantic Magazine, found here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

 

[4]           See, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, especially chapters 3-5, and St. Thomas’s commentary on Book 8 of this work.

 

The “Deadly Heat” Alarmism

In the Northern Hemisphere, we are in summer, so it is warm and … well, summery.  As we saw in past Catholic Candle[1] analyses, the world has been in a normal, cyclical warming trend beginning roughly 40 years ago.  This warming trend is only one of many that have taken place during the centuries.  The current one began at the end of that period (the 1960s and 70s) during which the leftists had been alarming naïve and gullible people with a scare that we were entering a New Ice Age.[2]

Those who read the mainstream media’s reporting know that this media is currently in full-alarmist mode about a crisis of the so-called “deadly” heat.  We do not deny that heat can be deadly but rather, we know that the earth is like that: there are places where the heat is bad (especially during a warming cycle) and there are places where the cold is bad (especially during the cooling cycle). 

None of that is alarming, surprising, or new.  Below, are some of the recent alarmist headlines (with red underlining added). 

Here (below) is the Washington Post:[3]

Here (below) is the New York Times:

 

 

 

 

Here (below) is the leftist The Atlantic Magazine:

Here (below) is the UK’s daily newspaper, called The Guardian:

The leftist mainstream media and leftist governments are so “over-the-top” with this “deadly heat” alarmism that they declare that the earth is “boiling”!  For example, the U.S. Government’s worldwide media, Voice of America, amplifies the United Nations’ propaganda, declaring that the “planet is boiling”![4]  Here is one such alarmist declaration:

The mainstream media follows right along, declaring we are boiling!  Here, e.g., is the U.K.’s The Guardian[5]:

We are now in a media landscape where the leftist climate alarmism is parodying itself!  There is nothing more extreme for anyone to use to caricature this mainstream media burlesque!

To mislead the gullible people that we are “boiling”, the mainstream media has been obsessed lately with some local or regional temperature being hotter than usual or setting a heat record, in order to give the false impression that the heat record pertains broadly to the whole country or the whole world.  This summer, the mainstream media especially tries to alarm people about the temperatures in Phoenix, Arizona.

But the mainstream media does not mention the very many other local and regional places which have been below their usual average temperature this summer.  For example, 2023 has been a cooler than usual summer in the U.S. Midwest.  The national mainstream media would never include that perspective in order to provide some balance in their reporting, because they don’t want balanced reporting or the truth.

There are such a large number of places in the U.S. which are currently experiencing cooler than usual temperatures, that the average temperatures in the entire U.S. are very slightly lower than usual despite higher-than-usual temperatures in some places like Phoenix.  Here is data from a University of Oregon climate lab showing a slightly cooler than normal average temperature for the U.S. as a whole[6]:

Let us look at the comparison of high temperatures this summer compared to prior decades.

The U.S. has temperature records for Yosemite National Park which go back more than 120 years.  Here is a record of every occasion on which a temperature over 100°F was recorded there[7]:


In the above graph, we see that the temperatures at Yosemite were certainly hotter in the past, especially in about 1914.  Does that mean we are in a “scary” global cooling now and heading to a New Ice Age?  No.  It just means that temperatures vary over the years and in different locations, and that it happens that in other decades Yosemite reached temperatures much hotter than are currently occurring.

Let us look more broadly at extreme temperatures in the whole U.S. by looking at three things:

1.    The temperature records for the whole nation;

2.    Which show how many locations there were with temperatures above 100°F in 1936; and

3.    Also, those records which show how many places temperatures reached above 110°F that same year. 

After that, let us see how the number of these locations compare to the number of such locations during our current year[8]:


From these maps, we see that there were so many more places with those high temperatures in 1936 compared to the present year.  This matters because it is one of many ways to show that the leftists’ present alarmism is not justified by reality.  Instead, the “climate emergency” that the leftists have declared merely serves the leftist political agenda of the ongoing globalist power grab (as we saw in past Catholic Candle articles.[9]

 

Even Assuming (Contrary to Fact) that Humans Caused Increased Warming, Would That Extra Warming Be Good?

Above, we saw the alarmist hype about the heat being so extreme that it “tests the limits of survival” (as one mainstream daily newspaper declared).  But we saw that the truth is that dishonest mainstream media “cherry-picks” the places that happened to be hottest at a given time and does not balance its reporting with the essential prospective that there are so many places that are cooler than usual at that same time (as is true every year).  Nor does the mainstream media inform people that the present year is actually a year of (slightly lower than) average temperatures overall (as shown in the Oregon State University Climate Lab data and the other data).

But let us suppose – contrary to fact – that North America or the entire world were really warming beyond the normal cyclical warming which is part of the normal patterns that fluctuate over the course of the centuries, the decades, and the months of a year.  Would such (hypothetical) greater warming be bad?

Catholic Candle readers might already know the answer to that question by remembering from a past article[10] that, in the centuries-long warming cycle called the Medieval Warming Period, the extra warmth was so beneficial that scientists often call this period the Little Climatic Optimum to indicate its advantages. 

The truth is that any increased warming has important advantages.  Among other benefits, this increased warmth saves lives because far more human beings die of cold than of heat.  On every continent cold is more dangerous than heat.

 

Even the data from the prestigious, leftist medical journal, The Lancet, shows that there are far more deaths from cold than from heat.[11]  Look at this graph:[12]

The Lancet is a leftist medical journal which adheres to the leftist claim that human-caused global warming is a “fact”.  But even The Lancet data[13] shows that (the supposed) “global warming” SAVES about 167,000 lives per year (283,000 minus 116,000).  Look at this graph:[14]

If it were not a lie that “global warming” is caused by man and by the burning of fossil fuels, then we see that it would bring about beneficial changes and would save lives for us to burn more fossil fuels in order to warm the planet to reduce the number of deaths from cold.  Yet, because such burning of fossil fuels does not result in any relevant temperature difference to the world, burning more of those fuels does not make any relevant difference to the climate.

However, the leftists are not concerned with the truth or with saving lives.  They are concerned with promoting their agenda to grab global power.[15]  Thus, in its 2023 study, Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold: a health impact assessment study of 854 cities in Europe, The Lancet publishes a deceptive graph which manipulates the X axis to represent five times as many heat deaths with the same length X axis as used for cold deaths.

Here is The Lancet graph (below).[16]  Look at the calibration markings on the left and right sides of the X axis (i.e., the horizontal axis).  The heat side represents five times the number of deaths as the cold side does, for the same length.  We added black ovals to this graph to show the location of this deception:  

Now let us reproduce that (above) The Lancet graph again, side-by-side with the same data with a non-deceptive graph, i.e., with the X axis which is calibrated the same way for both cold deaths and heat deaths.  Here is the graph:

We see that some leftists lie about the data.  See, e.g., “Big Data” – a New Version of an Old Danger of Manipulation and Deception: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/12/11/h/ .  Others distort the true data by deceptive graphs, etc.

So again, we see that warming will help save lives now and will benefit the peoples of the world, as the greater warmth did during the Medieval Warming Period, a/k/a the Little Climactic Optimum.

We hope this information makes the truth clearer that there is no human-caused global warming and further, that global warming is nothing to fear.  We hope this is also a salutary warning to not believe or trust the leftist establishment and media.  They do the devil’s work and spread his lies.  They do not serve Our Lord, Who is the Truth.

Let us watch and pray, as Our Lord told us to do.  Let us serve Christ the King bravely and willingly, which is the reason He placed us in these times.

Let us fight together, side-by-side, in the trenches of the Church Militant, for Christ the King and against His enemies.

 



[1]           See, e.g., this article: Climate Alarmists Abuse Data from Natural Weather Cycles: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/02/24/climate-alarmists-abuse-data-from-natural-weather-cycles/

[2]           Read this article: Recalling a 1970s Climate-Change Hoax: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/10/25/recalling-a-1970s-climate-change-hoax/

[3]           These headlines are collected here:  https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-an-overheated-planet  (Red underlining added.)

[6]           This data can be accessed here: https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-an-overheated-planet


[10]         Read this article: Climate Alarmists Abuse Data from Natural Weather Cycles, found here:  https://catholiccandle.org/2023/02/24/climate-alarmists-abuse-data-from-natural-weather-cycles/

The False Claim that Global Warming Causes Hurricanes to be More Severe – Part 2

Catholic Candle note: Below is the second and final part of an article which debunks the claim of the climate alarmists who assert that hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more severe because of man-made (anthropogenic) “climate change”.  The first part of this article is here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/04/28/the-false-claim-that-global-warming-causes-hurricanes-to-be-more-severe/

In part one of this article, we saw that weather and climate go in cycles and that this applies to hurricanes, too.  We saw that N.O.A.A. (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and various studies conclude that, after adjusting for the pre-1972 hurricane under-count (before the use of weather satellites), there is no upward trend in the number or in the severity of hurricanes.

We saw that there was a deep trough in the hurricane cycle – in approximately 1980 – which would allow a dishonest manipulation of the data by deceptively cutting the data to begin there in order to give a false appearance of an alarming hurricane increase, as the climate alarmists falsely claim. 

Now, in the second and final part of this article, we look at the mainstream media making these false claims based on deceptively cutting the data and answer an objection concerning the increasing cost of hurricane damage.


False media claims of hurricanes increasing in number and intensity because of human-caused climate change.

Before we look at where the mainstream media cut the data, let us look at a few examples of what the mainstream media claims – viz., about major hurricanes supposedly becoming more common:

  The New York Times claimed, “strong storms are becoming more common in the Atlantic Ocean.”[1]

 

  A Washington Post headline warned, “climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes”, adding in the body of the article that “storms rated Category 4 or stronger … have increased in number in recent decades”.[2]

 

  ABC News declared, “Here’s how climate change intensifies hurricanes.”[3]

As we saw in part one of this article, N.O.A.A. and (the science journal) Nature studies conclude the opposite of what these mainstream media are telling people.  Further, we saw that the media “buried” those studies in silence.  But that media makes a show of using (but really abusing) the N.O.A.A. data.  See, for example:

  The New York Times saying that it is relying upon the same NOAA report that we showed in part 1, which concludes the opposite of what the media claims: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/briefing/hurricane-ian-storm-climate-change.html

And similarly:

  ABC News claiming to rely on this NOAA report here: https://abc7.com/heres-how-climate-change-intensifies-hurricanes/12277318/

But before we look at where the media cut the data, let us also look at an example of what the mainstream media says about the frequency of all hurricanes:

  The Financial Times claimed in an alarmist headline: “hurricane frequency is on the rise.”[4]

Again, N.O.A.A. and the (science journal) Nature studies conclude the opposite of these media claims, “burying” those studies in silence and yet making a show of using (but really abusing) N.O.A.A. data.


The Leftists Deceptively Cut the Data at 1980.

Now let us look at where the New York Times[5] article cut the data.

Notice the above graph begins in 1980.  Why didn’t the media use the longer data set that is readily available?  Because it would have shown the falsity of their claims.

Here (below), e.g., is a N.O.A.A. graph[6] showing the larger data set that the New York Times could have used (but did not use), going back 120 years further, to 1860:    

How different the data looks when we see it in context – when it is not cut deceptively, as the New York Times does!  Reviewing the entire data set, we see it would be absurd to worry about the hurricane cycle upswing beginning in 1980.

As shown in the Catholic Candle articles which are linked to the introduction of part 1 of this present article, when the temperature cycle was on a significant cooling trend, the climate alarmists tried to scare the public about the cooling being permanent and that we were entering a permanent “new ice age”.  Then, when the inevitable warming cycle began after that, they switched their scare tactics to “global warming” – all to promote increased government intrusion in people’s lives, a globalist power grab. 

But notice that the current scare about “stronger and more frequent hurricanes” did not have a predecessor scare when the hurricane cycle was going in the opposite direction.  The reason is obvious: people would not be afraid (in the years preceding roughly 1980) that climate change is causing a reduction in hurricanes.  So, the leftists had to wait to use hurricanes as a scare tactic until hurricanes began to rise out of the 1980’s era “deep minimum”.


Conclusion of this Section about Mainstream Media Reporting

The mainstream media ignore the key hurricane data in order to falsely claim that hurricanes are increasing in number and severity because of human-caused climate change.

Climate change alarmism based on the increased number and severity of hurricanes is deceptive and false and is aimed at a globalist power grab because of the supposed need for the government to regulate everything to “save us” from disaster.

This is a further reminder that the mainstream media lie to us.  They are not misguided bumblers who don’t succeed in their attempt to publish the truth.  Rather they are leftist liars who use every opportunity to indoctrinate us to promote the false globalist narrative and ongoing power grab.[7]  

 

The Increasing Cost of Hurricanes

Q.      Is it true that hurricanes are becoming more expensive? 

A.      Yes, but not because of climate change.

There has been a dramatic increase of persons and property in “harm’s way” in hurricane-prone coastal areas because the great increase in property development of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts (as well as because of inflation) – all these circumstances are used by the leftists to make hurricanes appear worse than 100 years ago.

This is one more way for the climate scare-mongers to alarm people and promote their globalist power-grab agenda.  They declare that the increasing cost of hurricanes – both the number and severity – show that climate crisis is a “fact”.

It is true that the cost of hurricanes is increasing, even when adjusted for inflation.  See, e.g., a graph (below) courtesy of Munich Re, a very large global property insurer with a huge loss database used for this graph.

pielke-disaster-v3-1

This graph is available courtesy of Roger Pielke, Jr., in his article entitled: Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change, available here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/disasters-cost-more-than-ever-but-not-because-of-climate-change/

Although in this graph (above) we see the increasing cost of natural disasters, that is only half of the picture.  In fact, the upward trend in the cost of natural disasters is because we are getting richer and have more goods and property which can be destroyed in a disaster.  In other words, even adjusting for inflation, there is an increasing value of the property that is “in harm’s way”.

Look at the graph below, also courtesy of Munich Re.  It shows that natural disasters do destroy a higher value of property now but that value is proportional to our increase in wealth.  Owning more things means people have more things “in harm’s way” and available to be damaged.

pielke-disaster-v3-2

This graph is available courtesy of Roger Pielke, Jr., in his article entitled: Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change, available here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/disasters-cost-more-than-ever-but-not-because-of-climate-change/

Taking greater wealth into account, the same level of storm frequency and severity does more harm.  You can see this is common sense.  If a person 100 years ago owned a dingy (row boat) docked on the Gulf Coast, he would be exposed to much less property damage potential than his grandson who keeps a large yacht in the same location during an equivalent storm.

It is especially striking how more people are moving into places which expose them to adverse natural occurrences (hurricanes, mudslides, etc.).

Consider how much more developed Miami Beach is today compared to a century ago. See below.

For this reason, if equal storms hit Miami Beach, Florida in 1925 and in 2017, the damage from the 2017 storm would be much greater because there are so many more people and so much more property “in harm’s way”.

Similarly, look at the Houston, Texas skyline in 1927 (below) and today (further below).

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/slideshow/Old-Houston-photos-159668.php

Current picture of the Houston skyline:

https://www.skylinescenes.com/products/downtown-houston-texas-v50010

Because people are richer now than 100 years ago and because they (perhaps imprudently) place more valuable property at risk in attractive but hazardous locations, it is no wonder that a storm now would cause much more damage that an equal storm 100 years ago.

Leaving aside the upward trend (“correction”) from the “deep minimum” in the hurricane cycle which occurred in about the 1980s, there is no increase in the number and the severity of hurricanes; yet the same severity and number of hurricanes now often do more damage because there is more property “in harm’s way”.

In fact, the coastal urban areas are actually safer than ever, when computed as the number of persons killed by hurricanes, as a percentage of persons who are located in those hurricane-prone areas.  Here is how one recent study explained this:

Abstract: … Here, [i.e., in this study] we report on impacts of global coastal storm surge events since the year 1900, based on a compilation of events and data on loss of life.  We find that over the past, more than eight thousand people are killed and 1.5 million people are affected annually by storm surges [throughout the world].  The occurrence of very substantial loss of life (>10000 persons) from single events has, however, decreased over time.  Moreover, there is a consistent decrease in event mortality, measured by the fraction of exposed people that are killed, for all global regions, except South East Asia.  Average mortality for storm surges is slightly higher than for river floods, but lower than for flash floods.  We also find that for the same coastal surge water level, mortality has decreased over time.  This indicates that risk reduction efforts have been successful, but need to be continued with projected climate change, increased rates of sea-level rise and urbanisation in coastal zones.[8]

For example, Miami Beach had a population of 28,012 in 1940[9] and has a population of 80,671[10] now.  Because the city of Miami Beach has about three times as many people as it did 60 years ago, there are so many more people “in harm’s way” even though each person who is there is safer than he would have been in earlier decades.

Further, just as hurricane fatalities are not increasing as a percentage of the people who are living “in harm’s way”, likewise, the studies show that the amount of damage that hurricanes cause is not increasing when we take into account that people are bringing greater wealth into hurricane zones.  Here is how one study explained this fact:

In recent years claims have been made in venues including the authoritative reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in testimony before the US Congress that economic losses from weather events have been increasing beyond that which can be explained by societal change, based on loss data from the reinsurance industry and aggregated since 1980 at the global level.  Such claims imply a contradiction with a large set of peer-reviewed studies focused on regional losses, typically over a much longer time period, which concludes that loss trends are explained entirely by societal change.  To address this implied mismatch, we disaggregate global losses from a widely utilized reinsurance dataset into regional components and compare this disaggregation directly to the findings from the literature at the regional scale, most of which reach back much further in time.  We find that global losses increased at a rate of $3.1 billion/year (2008 USD) from 1980–2008 and losses from North American, Asian, European, and Australian storms and floods account for 97% of the increase.  In particular, North American storms, of which U.S. hurricane losses compose the bulk, account for 57% of global economic losses.  Longer-term loss trends in these regions can be explained entirely by socioeconomic factors in each region such as increasing wealth, population growth, and increasing development in vulnerable areas.  The remaining 3% of the global increase 1980 to 2008 is the result of losses for which regionally based studies have not yet been completed.  On climate time scales, societal change is sufficient to explain the increasing costs of disasters at the global level and claims to the contrary are not supported by aggregate loss data from the reinsurance industry.[11]

Here is the summary of a study where the researchers examined 106 years of hurricane data to compare the cost of hurricane losses, after adjusting them for inflation and for the amount of property “in harm’s way”:

Abstract: After more than two decades of relatively little Atlantic hurricane activity, the past decade saw heightened hurricane activity and more than $150 billion in damage in 2004 and 2005.  This paper normalizes mainland U.S. hurricane damage from 1900–2005 to 2005 values using two methodologies.  A normalization provides an estimate of the damage that would occur if storms from the past made landfall under another year’s societal conditions.  Our methods use changes in inflation and wealth at the national level and changes in population and housing units at the coastal county level.  Across both normalization methods, there is no remaining trend of increasing absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lack of trends in landfall frequency or intensity observed over the twentieth century. The 1970s and 1980s were notable because of the extremely low amounts of damage compared to other decades. The decade 1996–2005 has the second most damage among the past 11 decades, with only the decade 1926–1935 surpassing its costs. Over the 106 years of record, the average annual normalized damage in the continental United States is about $10 billion under both methods.  The most damaging single storm is the 1926 Great Miami storm, with $140–157 billion of normalized damage: the most damaging years are 1926 and 2005.  Of the total damage, about 85% is accounted for by the intense hurricanes Saffir-Simpson Categories 3, 4, and 5, yet these have comprised only 24% of the U.S. landfalling tropical cyclones.[12]

This last study predicts that hurricane damage will continue to trend upward because more and more people and property are moving into the hurricane-prone areas.  Here is how the study concludes this:

Unless action is taken to address the growing concentration of people and properties in coastal areas where hurricanes strike, damage will increase, and by a great deal, as more and wealthier people increasingly inhabit these coastal locations.[13]

 

Conclusion of the Entire Article

We see that:

  The climate goes in cycles of various sizes from daily cycles to centuries-long cycles, with other cycles in between.

 

  Hurricanes go in cycles too – annual cycles and decades-long cycles.  Perhaps hurricanes also follow multi-year cycles and multi-century cycles but we will leave those inquiries aside for now.

  NOAA and its studies conclude that there is no trend toward increasing numbers or severity of hurricanes, although these conclusions are buried and not publicized.

 

  In about the 1980s, there was a “deep minimum” of hurricane activity, which the leftists use as the beginning of their data set to make the hurricane cycle’s returning to normalcy falsely appear (to the gullible) as an alarming upward trend.

 

  The leftist media and climate alarmists in the popular press falsely promote a supposed climate emergency to worry people and attempt to grab power and take the people’s freedom because this is “necessary” in order for mankind to survive.

 

  During the last hundred years, there has been a dramatic increase in people and property being located in hurricane-prone coastal areas.  If we adjust for the large increase in people in “harm’s way”, these coastal areas have become much safer and there has been a dramatic decrease in the percentage of people killed in the areas where hurricanes strike.  Likewise, if we adjust for inflation and for the increase in the value of property that people choose to bring into those areas, hurricanes destroy a decreasing percentage of the property which is exposed to storm hazards.

 

  Don’t be deceived by the claim that man-caused climate change is causing an increase in the number and severity of hurricanes.



[5]           Reproduced from The New York Times article entitled Ian Moves North, found here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/briefing/hurricane-ian-storm-climate-change.html

[6]           This graph beginning in 1860, is taken from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ at figure 4, ratio of Atlantic major hurricanes (Cat 3-5) to all hurricanes (Cat 1-5).  The gray curve is prior to adjustment; blue curves include an adjustment for estimated missing storms.  This graph and data were originally published in ecchi et al. 2021.           

[7]           For a further analysis of how the mainstream media and other leftists deceive us through data manipulation, read this article: “Big Data” – A New Version of an Old Danger of Manipulation and Deception found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/12/11/h/

[8]           Global mortality from storm surges is decreasing, by Laurens M Bouwer and Sebastian N Jonkman, Published 5 January 2018 • © 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. Environmental Research LettersVolume 13Number 1 Citation, Laurens M Bouwer and Sebastiaan N Jonkman, 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 014008 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/aa98a3.  (Emphasis added and bracketed words added to show the context.)  This study is available here:

  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa98a3

&

  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/02/good-news-global-mortality-from-hurricane-storm-surges-is-decreasing/

[9]           Population data found here: Webster’s 6th Collegiate Dictionary, ©1940 in the Pronouncing Gazetteer, page 1118.

[11]         Quoted from: Reconciliation of Trends in Global and Regional Economic Losses from Weather Events: 1980–2008, Shalini Mohleji and Roger Pielke, Jr., available here: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29NH.1527-6996.0000141

[12]         Quoted from: Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005, Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; Joel Gratz; Christopher W. Landsea; Douglas Collins; Mark A. Saunders; and Rade Musulin, DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1527-698820089:129.  This study can be found here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf

[13]         Quoted from: Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005, Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; Joel Gratz; Christopher W. Landsea; Douglas Collins; Mark A. Saunders; and Rade Musulin, DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1527-698820089:129.  This study can be found here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf

The False Claim that Global Warming Causes Hurricanes to be More Severe – Part 1

Catholic Candle note: The globalists are seeking to grab power by frightening gullible people that there is a climate emergency that requires the globalists to save us by wielding totalitarian power for our own good.  https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/22/the-baseless-climate-change/

These globalists falsify and deceptively use climate data as part of their scheme to alarm people with a supposed global-warming emergency.  In roughly the 1970s, the globalists tried (and largely succeeded) in alarming people by the scare of global cooling and the (supposed) coming of a “new ice age”.  https://catholiccandle.org/2022/10/25/recalling-a-1970s-climate-change-hoax/

The globalists use cyclical climate trends to alarm the people, as if the climate cycle was going to continue without end in the same direction.  In an earlier article, we examined the fact that the climate is naturally cyclical.  There are daily cycles, yearly cycles, decades-long cycles and centuries-long cycles.  Read this article: Climate Alarmists Abuse Data from Natural Weather Cycles: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/02/24/climate-alarmists-abuse-data-from-natural-weather-cycles/

The article below treats of a related topic, debunking the claims of the climate alarmists who assert that hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more severe because of man-made (anthropogenic) “climate change”. 

Part 1

The leftists seek to alarm gullible people (especially the young) by claiming that the current warming cycle (which the leftists call “global warming”) is harmful because this warming causes hurricanes to be more numerous and more severe.  This alarmism is false as we will see.

Just as the temperature goes in long and in short-term cycles, it would not surprise any thinking person that hurricanes go in cycles too.  There is an obvious annual hurricane cycle, because of which part of the year is called the “hurricane season”, especially in places such as the Gulf of Mexico.  Here is a NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) graph of the annual hurricane cycle:

In addition to those annual cycles, hurricanes also follow decades-long cycles.  Below are some graphs showing such decades-long cycles.  The first one[1] is averaged to make the graph less “spikey”.  The second one[2] (the one from the U.S. E.P.A. i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency) is the non-averaged, “spikier” version of the first graph.  We see that both of them display a cyclical pattern that takes decades to repeat itself.

A graph showing the calculated number of Atlantic hurricanes

Line graph showing the number of hurricanes that formed in the North Atlantic Ocean and the number that made landfall in the United States each year. 

It would seem plausible that there would also be hurricane cycles that take centuries to repeat, just as there are centuries-long temperature cycles.[3]  But we have no information on that question, one way or the other.

Regarding these hurricane cycle graphs (above), notice that the U.S. E.P.A. graph refers to the pre-1972 data being “adjusted”.  The U.S. government began wide-spread use of weather satellites that year.  The U.S. government and academic researchers all adjust the pre-1972 data and they all agree that an upward adjustment is necessary because the pre-1972 data for hurricanes missed all hurricanes that did not reach landfall unless a ship at sea happened to see the hurricane.  It is reasonable and obvious to everybody that this pre-1972 tracking system missed many hurricanes and so the data is adjusted upward to account for this under-count in both government and academic records. 

Because hurricanes occur in cycles (like the weather more generally), this enables climate alarmists to manipulate the hurricane data to have it “prove” what they want.  So, e.g., “cutting” the data (i.e., starting their graph) at a low point allows the climate alarmists to claim that the upward slope of the normal hurricane cycle “proves” that there is an “alarming” hurricane increase (which they blame on a global warming emergency).

Although the government weather and climate services, as well as academia (university researchers) are controlled by the leftists, they cannot entirely avoid the truth that the climate data does not support climate alarmism.  So, when government or university reports dispel alarmist myths, those reports are “buried” and de-emphasized, all the while the leftist media, academia, and government agencies continue to insist on dire climate danger and the need for drastic reductions in human-caused carbon emissions.

One example of the truth coming out recently – but being “buried” – is a NOAA hurricane study that came out in October 2022.  Immediately below are NOAA’s conclusions regarding no trend in the strengthening of storms which would cause them to become major hurricanes:

After adjusting for changes in observing capabilities (limited ship observations) in the pre-satellite era, there is no significant long-term trend (since the 1880s) in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.  We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major.[4]

NOAA provides the graph (below) of 160 years of data, adjusted to account for inferior sighting and tracking ability before 1972.  This graph, is called “figure 4” in the NOAA report.  The graph not only does not show an increasing proportion of hurricanes becoming major, but rather it shows greater proportions of hurricanes being major in the 1960s hurricane cycle (compared to now) and an even-greater proportion of major storms in the 1910-1930s cycle.  See below.[5]    

NOAA is telling us that the evidence shows cycles but shows no “significant long-term trend (since the 1880s) in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes”.  NOAA adds (in the quote above) that there is no “compelling evidence” that greenhouse gases cause more storms to become major hurricanes – although the climate alarmists insist the opposite. 

NOAA (despite being controlled by leftists) admits that the data does not support the supposition that there is an increase in the severity of hurricanes, once a person adjusts (as all the studies do) for the obvious under-count which occurred when hurricanes were counted by chance ship observations rather than by ever-“watching” satellites, as occurred beginning about 1972.

Let us look again at the graph above.  We see from graphs such as this one that in roughly 1980, there was the bottom (trough) of a down cycle.  In fact, here is a lengthy study, Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, which observes on this issue:

Nevertheless, the recent increase in the proportion of NA HUs [i.e., North American Hurricanes] becoming MHs [i.e., major hurricanes], after adjustment, which is also reflected in the results of ref. 14, [which is a data source on which this report relies] is not a continuation or acceleration of a long-term trend, but rather is a rebound from a deep minimum in the decades surrounding the 1980s ….

We find that recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend. After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s. …

Our results indicate that the recent increase in NA basin-wide MH/HU ratio or MH frequency is not part of a century-scale increase.  Rather it is a rebound from a deep local minimum in the 1960s–1980s.  …

[T]he inactive period in the late 20th century may have been the most inactive period in recent centuries.[6]

Notice in the graph above that a person could cut the graph at roughly 1980 if he wanted to fool gullible people into believing that hurricanes are becoming more intense.  This is because graphs or data sets that begin in roughly 1980 lack the context of the fact that 1980 is the trough of a prior cycle.  Such a graph misleadingly shows an increase in hurricanes and major hurricanes which make the graph or data look as if there is an alarming acceleration in these storms, as the climate extremists falsely claim.  This same hurricane study remarks about this false appearance in these words:

Furthermore, the 1980–2019 increases in basin-wide HU [i.e., hurricanes] and MH [i.e., major hurricanes] frequency are not a continuation of a longer-term trend, but reflect a recovery from a strong minimum in the 1970s and 1980s ….[7]

Now let us look at the leftists’ other alarmist hurricane assertion, viz., that anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases are causing a greater number of hurricanes. 

NOAA’s report concludes that, aside from the usual hurricane cycles, there is no trend toward an increasing number of hurricanes – after adjusting for under-counting in the pre-satellite data.  Here are NOAA’s conclusions:

After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era, there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts.  The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.[8]

NOAA’s report combines and summarizes its findings as follows:

We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.[9]

We see that even the leftist-controlled NOAA is admitting that it is false to say that greenhouse gases are causing a greater number of hurricanes or a larger number of major hurricanes.  But these truths do not change what the leftists are claiming in the mainstream media, academia, and government because the leftists are not seeking the truth (as Karl Marx did not seek the truth).  Instead, the leftists seek to complete their globalist power grab. 

The leftists would be embarrassed by reports such as the NOAA, Vecchi, and Nature reports above, if those reports became well-known to the public.  But the leftist know that few people will ever know the truth because their comrades in the media will “bury” these reports in silence and their comrades in the universities will continue to lie to their students that hurricane frequency and severity “prove” that there is an anthropogenic climate crisis.


Conclusion of Part 1 of this Article

We see that weather and climate go in cycles and that this applies to hurricanes, too.  We see that NOAA (and the studies it relies on) conclude that, after adjusting for the pre-1972 hurricane under-count, there is no upward trend in the number or in the severity of hurricanes. 

We see that there was a deep trough in the hurricane cycle – in approximately 1980 – which would allow a dishonest manipulation of the data by deceptively cutting the data there in order to give a false appearance of an alarming hurricane increase, as the climate alarmists fraudulently claim. 

Remember this trough in 1980 because next month we will look at deceptive alarmist graphs beginning then.

To be continued

 



[4]           Quoted from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ (parenthetical words in the original; emphasis added).

[5]           Quoted from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ at figure 4, ratio of Atlantic major hurricanes (Cat 3-5) to all hurricanes (Cat 1-5).  The gray curve is prior to adjustment; blue curves include an adjustment for estimated missing storms.  This graph and data were originally published in Vecchi et al. 2021.

The reference to “Vecchi et al., 2021” in NOAA’s graph description (quoted immediately above), is merely NOAA’s attributing the source of the graph that it was using.  This study and report, issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, is available here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

[6]           Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5, citing (in the statements above) the following studies:

  Kossin, J. P., Knapp, K. R., Olander, T. L. & Velden, C. S. Global increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four decades, Proc. Natil Acad. Sci. USA 117, 11975–11980 (2020) in “ref. 14”;

  Chenoweth, M. & Divine, D. A document-based 318-year record of tropical cyclones in the Lesser Antilles, 1690 – 2007. Geo- chem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9, Q08013 (2008); and

  Nyberg, J. et al., Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years, Nature, 447, 698–701 (2007).

      Emphasis added and bracketed comments added for clarity.

[7]           Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 Emphasis added.

 

[8]           Quoted from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

[9]           Quoted from the report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

 

More Information to Remind Us to Avoid the Covid “Vaccine”

Catholic Candle note: The so-called Covid “vaccine” is not really a vaccine but is really gene therapy.[1]  This “vaccine” is a mortal sin to accept just like all vaccines developed through abortion.  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

The SSPX used to uphold this Traditional Catholic position that vaccines developed through abortion are always mortally sinful to receive.  But the now-liberal SSPX has completely reversed itself and now accepts the conciliar position.  To read the SSPX’s prior prohibition and its current permissive words, read part 3 of this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/ (citing to the SSPX’s own sources).  The “new” SSPX’s current liberal position includes permitting not only receiving abortion-related vaccines but also the Covid so-called “vaccine”.

Further, this Covid “vaccine” is very harmful in many ways, especially harming the immune system[2] and causing grave cardiac problems.[3]  As explained below, the “vaccine” offers negative protection even for Covid itself nor does it “stop the spread” as the leftists lied that it would.

The short article below is merely a reminder to avoid the Covid “vaccine” for all of these reasons.

We hope and pray that Catholic Candle’s readers had the good judgment and firmness of principles to not get the Covid jab(s).  Our lives should be a principled stance against all of the evils of our time, including this “vaccine”.

However, to help our readers to inform others, we report to you an interesting risk-benefit analysis performed recently which examined the impact of Covid booster mandates for university students.  The test group was people in the age bracket of 18-29.

As shown in the study discussed below, this risk-benefit analysis shows that the Covid gene therapy (the so-called “vaccine”) does more harm than good.  Of course, the more important point is that receiving these Covid boosters constitutes mortal sins since they are cooperating in the murders of innocent babies in abortion, and the further evil of the vivisection of those babies without anesthesia to enhance their “cell lines” for research purposes. 

But this summary of the recent interesting study reminds us to avoid this evil “vaccine” and also to not trust the leftists who control the mainstream channels of information.


The recent risk-benefit analysis on young adults

This risk-benefit analysis which was recently conducted examines the impact of booster mandates for North American university students.  It concludes that:

  Between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected adults (aged 18 to 29) must be boosted with an mRNA “vaccine” to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization.

  For each hospitalization prevented, the jab will cause 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3 “booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities”.

  That means mandating a third COVID shot for university students will result in “a net expected harm”.

 

  The study emphasizes that the results are actually worse than that because “Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favorable.”[4] 

The study concludes that university booster mandates are unethical for five reasons:

1.    There has been no formal risk-benefit assessment pertaining to this age group;

 

2.    The vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;

3.    The mandates are not proportionate: the expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits – given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;

 

4.    U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and

 

5.    The mandates create wider social harms. The study’s authors consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.

This interesting risk-benefit analysis was financed by the leftist Wellcome Trust.  The study is currently in “preprint” advanced publication.  The study’s principal author is Dr. Kevin Bardosh, from the School of Public Health, University of Washington, USA, and the Division of Infection Medicine, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, UK.[5]

Dear Readers, if anyone wonders why/how this study “came out of the blue”, then he is not keeping himself informed.  This study is merely one of many.

There is a constant trickle of new studies – mostly ignored by the mainstream media – showing how harmful the Covid “vaccine” is.  Each study comes from a different “angle”.  The studies are not all exactly the same but they all show, in their own way, that the Covid “vaccine” is dangerous and is harmful to the recipients.  (We also know that it is an additional mortal sin since it causes the recipients to share culpability for the murder of those innocent babies). 

Another recent news report concerns a new study from researchers in the Netherlands which shows area-by-area of that country, the close correlation between Covid “vaccine” rates and the all-cause mortality rates in those same areas.[6]  In other words, wherever, in the Netherlands, the Covid “vaccine” rate is higher, the all-cause mortality rate is higher.  Wherever one rate is lower so too is the other rate.  It makes sense to look at the all-cause mortality rates in relation to the Covid jab because it causes so many serious health problems of so many types.

Yet another recent study showed that, in college and professional athletes, there is close correlation between Covid “vaccine” uptake and career-ending heart inflammation, especially in previously-healthy young men.[7] 

A different study showed that the rate of professional athletes who are dropping dead without warning, is many times higher than the annual averages “pre-Covid-vaccine”.  As our readers might know, the professional sports leagues require Covid “vaccination” for all of their players.[8]

A further study showed a higher rate of catching Covid for those who are “vaccinated”.  These studies show a very short protective benefit, followed by “negative protection”.[9]

Another study showed a higher rate of hospitalization and a higher rate of death from Covid for those who are “vaccinated”.[10]

The “experts” are supposedly puzzled by the onset of “sudden adult death syndrome”.[11]  But people who do not gullibly believe the mainstream media lies and spin are able to “put two and two together”.

There are so many other studies.  They show, each in its own way, that the Covid “vaccine” is harmful.

A person might naively wonder why our leaders don’t know about these studies.  The answer is: they DO know!  There are several reasons why they are acting the way they are – and all of those reasons are evil, e.g., to reduce the world’s population to make it easier for the globalist to achieve control.

This is a good reminder, too, that we should not rely on the public health “experts” and mainstream media concerning the harm of accepting that booster.

 



[4]           You can find the entire study here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070

 

[5]           You can find the entire study here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070

 

Climate Alarmists Abuse Data from Natural Weather Cycles

The goal of climate alarmism is not to protect the environment but is a global power grab for a New World Order.  Read the evidence here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/22/the-baseless-climate-change/

Climate alarmists begin their global warming graphs at about 1960-1970 because that is the bottom of a cooling trend after which the climate began the next warming cycle. 

Before that, the leftists promoted a “new ice age” scare involving climate alarmism making deceptive use of a cyclical cooling trend that was occurring until about the early 1970s.  Read about this phony “emergency” here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/10/25/recalling-a-1970s-climate-change-hoax/

Below, is a government climate graph to which Catholic Candle added the blue box (the left box, toward the center) showing the part of the data used to scare gullible people with a “new ice age” as the climate was undergoing one of its cooling cycles. 

We added a red box (on the right side) to show the type of data used subsequently to scare naïve people that a catastrophic global warming will ruin the earth, as the climate began its next warming cycle.

This government graph is found here: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ (red and blue boxes added)

Below, is a different, similar graph of the weather data.  Fraudsters selectively pulled data from this sort of graph to scare people by purportedly showing that a “new ice age” was coming.  These fraudsters used this scare until about 1970 or so, and then shifted to sounding the alarm that a (purported) global warming crisis was coming – because the climate cycle began to head in the other direction during the next warming trend of the cycle.

This 1999 NASA graph on page 37 of 47 of the report found here: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf  The red box (on the right side) and the blue box (toward the center), have been superimposed.

The climate-scare fraudsters cut the data wherever it suits the goal they have at the time.  They cut it at the low point of the cooling cycle when they wanted to scare people by a claim of global warming.  They cut the data at the high point when they wished to scare people by claiming a “new ice age”.  It is all in the service of the globalist power grab, seeking to control people on the pretense of “saving the planet”.[1]


Temperatures go in short and long cycles

It is clear to everybody that temperatures go in cycles.  There are daily cycles, (e.g., from day to night, then back to day), and annual cycles (the seasons).  What might be less clear to some people is that there are longer climate cycles too.  There are cycles that span decades.  For example, look at the cyclical fluctuations in the three graphs below, published by the U.S. government, which cover 120 years of climate data. 

There are also cycles that span hundreds of years, such as the spans of time called The Medieval Warming Period, The Little Ice Age, and The Roman Warming Period.  These centuries-long climate fluctuations are long-recognized and are well-researched. 

The daily climate cycles, the annual cycles, the decades-long cycles, and the centuries-long cycles are all occurring simultaneously


Decades-long temperature cycles

First let us look at the decades-long temperature cycles below, using the government’s data spanning 120 years.

This government graph is found here: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

This government graph is found here: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

 

This government graph is found here: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf

During the “new ice age” hoax of the 1960s-1970s, the leftists sounded the alarm about the cooling trend which they warned could continue forever in that direction.[2]  Gullible people were alarmed with warnings such as a 1970s-era prediction that ice buildup would be permanent and would be so excessive that it would close many of the world’s crucial and busy shipping lanes even in the summer.  (A member of the Catholic Candle Team specifically remembers this 1970s-era prediction.)

When that cooling cycle was over and the next warming cycle then began, those “climate experts” (viz., those leftist alarmists) and their dupes did not admit they were wrong.   They merely re-structured their alarmism to predict global warming instead of cooling.

However, their dire climate predictions (although in opposite directions) share the pattern that the climate alarmists cut the data to fit their claims.  The alarmists also focus people’s attention on pity stories (anecdotes) about harms that people suffered in various places.  It is not necessarily true that such pity stories are false.  But those stories selectively and deceptively illustrated in concrete terms the lie that the effects resulting from the climate cycle are all negative – although the truth is that there are advantages in some places and disadvantages in other places.  Of course, those climate “Chicken Littles” (the alarmists) also falsely assert that the temperature trend (in whichever direction it happened to be at the time) was actually caused by human activities.

What the climate alarmists say is a lie.  Although their lie fools gullible people, the leftist leaders know it is a lie.  They are the ones that cut the data to only use the portion of the climate graphs that supports their lie. 


Centuries-long temperature cycles

In examining the decades-long temperature cycles (above), we use government temperature graphs which often start in about 1880. 

The reason why the 1880s has long been a common beginning point for many longer-term climate graphs of U.S. weather patterns: it is because this is the beginning of widespread exact temperature measurements across the U.S.  In most of the rest of the world the beginning of exact temperature measurements occurs later – often much later.

Because roughly 140 years of these exact temperatures exist in the U.S., this is enough data to enable us to clearly see those decades-long climate cycles. 

But there are longer climate cycles than those decades-long ones: there are centuries-long climate cycles too.  And many researchers have studied them.  But to study those climate cycles which occurred before we had widespread exact temperature measurements, the scientists had to be more resourceful.  They used the best proxies they had in lieu of those widespread exact temperature measurements that we have had for the last 140 years.  They have been using these proxies for many decades when studying the pre-1880 climate.  There are hundreds of studies using such proxy data.

Everyone recognizes that those proxies are not as good as having many exact temperature measurements.  Those proxies are things such as changes in crops grown in various places, over time.  For example, in Medieval England, the climate had warmed enough for grapes to be successfully grown there to sustain a thriving wine industry.[3]  But after hundreds of years of growing grapes, England’s climate then cooled enough so that this indigenous industry waned and essentially disappeared.  As another example, for hundreds of years during this same Medieval period, China cultivated citrus trees much further north than was possible before that or afterwards.[4]  The northward extension of the range of these citrus trees reached its maximum extent in the 13th century.  Id.

These climate researchers used many other proxies to estimate the prevailing temperatures before 1880.  For example, they used data showing: 1) how far north the northern margin of boreal forests in Canada went; 2) how far up the Rocky Mountains the tree lines went.  Further, they used 3) tree-ring measurements; 4) ice core samples (including in Antarctica); 5) ocean bed core samples; 6) glaciers advancing and retreating; 7) Alpine Mountain passes opening for a time but being impassible before and after that; 8) the doubling of the size of the Anasazi Indian’s land under cultivation on the northern Colorado Plateau (in America), compared to what is currently possible; and many other proxies for actual temperature measurements.[5]

The fruit of these studies was the evidence that there are centuries-long climate cycles.  There was a Roman Warm Period (~250 B.C. to A.D. 400), a Medieval Warm Period (~A.D. 950–1250), and a subsequent 400-year cold period called the Little Ice Age.  The proxy data certainly seems to show these centuries-long cycles occurred even though there are no exact temperature measurements.  Further, these cycles were worldwide[6] but (as could be expected) were not to the same extent everywhere in the world.

The Medieval Warm Period had a largely beneficial impact on the earth’s plant and animal life.  In fact, the environmental conditions of this time period were so favorable that it was often referred to as the Little Climatic OptimumBy contrast, the 400 year-long “Little Ice Age” (cooling cycle) brought a wide range of food shortages and famines.[7]


Overview of the temperature cycles

From the above article, we see that the temperatures go in daily cycles, annual cycles, decades-long cycles, and centuries-long cycles.  Temperature cycles, like other cycles, return to their base normal.  So, e.g., any warming cycle arises out of a cooling cycle and ends in one.

When there is a warming cycle, this greater warmth benefits some places and not other places.  So, during a long-term warming trend, places such as Alaska, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland, and Russia benefit far more than tropical countries.  The reverse is true in cooling cycles.

During a warming trend, places farther from the equator enjoy longer growing seasons and increased food production.  This is like the analogous situation where (hypothetically) the entire planet undergoes a rainy cycle in which, e.g,, the planet has a 5% increase in precipitation.  The cycle would tremendously help some places, e.g., the fertile but dry farmland of the Central Valley of California.  But this extra rain would be unhelpful to places such as Lloro, Colombia (in the Pacific lowlands) where the long-term average annual precipitation is already over 43 feet of water![8]

Although our purpose is not to dive deeply into the causes of these temperature cycles, we note that those cycles correspond nicely with different phases of solar activity, such as fluctuating cycles of solar winds, solar storms, etc.[9]

So, in any temperature or precipitation cycles, there are places where a change in either particular direction is welcome and places where that same trend is unwelcome.  But either way, those cycles are natural, inevitable, and last only until the cycle swings back in the other direction. 

When a temperature cycle is favorable, like the current modest warming trend, we should thank God for it.  If the temperature trend is unfavorable, we must offer up this Cross (suffering) given to us and thank God for it.[10]  Either way, we must just continue living our lives knowing that every such cycle will reverse course.  These cycles are not manmade and are not a cause for alarm.  We must have a spiritual outlook and see that they are God’s Will for us.

Let us not be fooled and alarmed by the ongoing climate scare!  Instead, let us fight the global power grab which is the real motive for this climate change lie!



[3]           Le Roy Ladurie E., 1971. Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate since the Year 1000, Doubleday, New York, New York, USA, as cited here: http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/summaries/globalmwp.php

[4]           De’er, Z, 1994, Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China. Climatic Change, ch. 26, pp. 289-297 as cited here: http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/summaries/globalmwp.php.

[5]           For more information and explanation, as well as climate graphs and a compilation of climate studies using these temperature measurement proxies, use this link: http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/summaries/globalmwp.php

[8]           Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, p.113, © 2016.

[10]         Read this article about the importance of valuing Crosses, thanking God for them, and carrying them well: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/04/01/77/

Recalling a 1970s Climate-Change Hoax

Catholic Candle note: The article below looks back upon the global cooling and new ice age scares of the 1970s.

The purpose of this 1970s climate-change hoax and also the one which is now on-going, is a global power-grab.  These climate-change hoaxes aim at destroying what remains of freedom and destroying national sovereignty in the world, to pave the way for a New World Order — i.e., global governance.  Ultimately, this power-grab is anti-Catholic and anti-God.

For more analysis of these “green” frauds to achieve this global power-grab, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/22/the-baseless-climate-change/

 

Several members of the Catholic Candle Team lived through the global cooling scare of the 1970s.  That manufactured “crisis” gives a person additional perspective on the present supposed “climate crisis” – a perspective which the younger generation does not have on its own, at least as fully.

During the 1970s, year after year, the liberals and mainstream media screamed out the alarm of impending environmental disaster because of global cooling.  This crisis was (supposedly) certain to come very soon and was (supposedly) backed by “irrefutable” data.  They constantly declared that global cooling was a “fact”.  The policymakers were told that they must act immediately, before it was too late. 

People were told that the new ice age was an existential crisis and that the fate of mankind would be determined during the next small number of years.  People were told that mankind’s survival depended upon everyone working together to fight the global cooling emergency as their highest priority.

The mainstream media, the politicians, and liberal academics solemnly assured the public that, in the new colder climate which is (supposedly) quickly coming, the crops would fail or the crop yields would plunge and that there would be widespread famine.

The global cooling alarmism was every bit as much of a broad societal scare as is the current global warming/climate change boogeyman.  One member of the Catholic Candle Team distinctly remembers that, when he was in elementary school, he read an article at school about the new ice age which (supposedly) was coming.  The article included a drawing aimed at scaring children, depicting a family wearing their winter coats and hats in their living room, with icicles hanging from their noses, their exhalations of breath visible in the room because it was so cold. 

Another such recollection about this global cooling scare is that academics, scientists, politicians, and media figures solemnly declared that people can expect that the new ice age “might” include year-round glaciers which descend from the north deep into the U.S. Midwestern States.  They published scientific-looking maps of the U.S. which showed how far south the “data showed” people could expect the glaciers to travel.

Of course, no year’s weather is identical to any other year’s weather, nor is any century’s weather identical to any other century’s weather.  Natural fluctuations have always occurred and always will occur.  There are long-term cycles and short-term cycles.  That is how God created the world. 

So global cooling alarmism, like other frauds, is a half-truth – which, of course, means it is a lie.  The “half-truth” was that, during the 1970s, the climate was going through the cooling phase of one of those natural cycles.

Here is a U.S. government graph showing the cooling phase that the climate was in then:

Get this U.S. government graph on the government’s website: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

Here is another government weather graph showing the same basic point and the same natural temperature cycles which were at a low point in the 1970s, before the subsequent warming part of the cycle:

 

This graph is found on the U.S. government’s website here: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

But in the 1970s, this cooling phase of the weather cycle was used dishonestly to perpetuate a hoax that we were entering a new ice age.  From the government, the media, and academia, people heard an incessant drum beat of an alarming global cooling – just like we hear now about global warming/climatechange.

Here is an example of the global cooling alarmism published in 1971 by the Washington Post.[1]  This article – and the entire climate-scare campaign occurring then – promote the opinions of “experts” and “scientists” who are government climate researchers and academics at a prestigious university, who warn about the (supposed) new ice age:

Notice the dire warning about the flooding of the world’s coastal cities (just like the alarmists predict now) and also notice the warning that “huge areas” of the earth will be covered by new glaciers.  The solution the 1970s leftists promoted to respond to this “crisis” is to stop the global cooling by greatly reducing all burning of fossil fuels and also increase the government’s control over people’s lives – so that the government can force us (for our own supposed good) to live in a way contrary to the way we would choose to live.

Here is another example of the global cooling scaremongering in 1970, this time in Boston’s daily newspaper called the Boston Globe[2]:

Notice that the media (in this case, the Boston Globe), cites an “expert” and “scientist” who was a government researcher, who warns that pollution is causing this crisis, resulting in a new ice age.  The “solutions” they always advocated then are the same ones that they also advocate in the present climate fraud, viz., population reduction and to have the government increasingly control people’s lives.  This control forces them to live in a way that will not (supposedly) destroy the world through a climate emergency and for the government to force people to adopt (unwillingly) a “less wasteful standard of living” (as this article phrases it).  Although we are currently further along on the path to a globalist totalitarian government, we were on that same path then.

Notice this “expert’s” absurd prediction that all rivers and streams in the U.S. will dry up.

Below is a “new ice age coming fast” scare from 1974, published by the well-known London daily newspaper, the Guardian[3]:

 

Here is another 1974 article – this one from Time magazine,[4] promoting the scare of “another ice age” and a “global climatic upheaval” with increasing thickness of arctic ice packs and other (supposedly) frightening signs.

 

Here is the New York Times[5] promoting a book by a government climate researcher who is explaining the “consensus of the climatological community” that the world will soon experience a global cooling crisis.  This “consensus” is the same type of fraud as the current “scientific consensus” saying that we are now heading toward the opposite catastrophe (global warming) which will (supposedly) occur in the near future.

Below is another global cooling scare article from the New York Times, based on the data analyzed by an international group of scientists:[6]

Just like today regarding the global warming/climate-change scam, there were countless news articles and “scholarly” studies which declared that the “science is settled”, the “data proves”, and the “experts have reached a consensus” that global cooling is a fact and a new ice age is coming unless we make fighting it our top priority. 

It is easy to ridicule all of these false and absurd predictions from the 1970s – such as that all rivers and streams in the U.S. will dry up and that we will have year-round glaciers in the U.S. Midwest (and in other “huge areas” of the world).

But for anyone who now thinks that he would have scoffed at that glacier nonsense then, here is a good test: does he scoff at the current global warming/climatechange hoax now?  If a person does not discern that the present climate scare is simple nonsense even though “everyone else” believes in it, there is little chance such a person would have discerned this past global cooling scare was a hoax when “everyone else” believed it back then.

We must be thinkers, not gullible sheep following the globalist climate change alarmists! 

 



[1]              We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160805020812/http:/pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/148085303.html

 

[2]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/435402308/

[3]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/259696938/

[4]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.    This newspaper article can also be found at: magazinehttps://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http:/time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

 or http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0%2C23657%2C944914%2C00.html

[5]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html

 

[6]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1978/01/05/issue.html

 

The Blessed Virgin Mary: Anti-Satan, Anti-Marx, and Anti-Feminist

In August 2022, Catholic Candle concluded an examination of the striking manner in which the feminists follow the same eight-point program as Satan and Marx, and how feminism is a tool of Satan and the Marxists to corrupt society and the family.  Following up this examination, we now consider a related truth, viz., Our Lady is the opposite of those evils.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is Anti-Satan, Anti-Marx, and Anti-Feminist

Reflecting back on these recent articles, we see that the feminists contrast so strongly with the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Of all human persons, she is most of all God’s masterpiece.  Our Lady, more than any other creature, is Anti-Satan, Anti-Marx and Anti-Feminist.

There are many ways to see that Our Lady is Anti-Satan.  Here, e.g., is God’s prophesy to Satan how Our Lady will uniquely be (and now, is) anti-Satan: 

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.[1]

Because feminist leaders, especially, are tools of Satan, they hate the Blessed Virgin Mary.  We would (correctly) expect this before we even knew this to be true, simply based on the fact that there is complete enmity between Our Lady and the leader of the feminists, viz., Satan. 

The Blessed Virgin is the Perfect Virgin and Perfect Mother.  Feminists hate her precisely for both of these perfections.  She is the perfection of what they hate and oppose.  Even when they don’t mention her, the feminist opposition to what she stands for, is clear.  Here, for example, are the writing restrictions imposed on the writing staff at the flag ship feminist magazine, Cosmopolitan:

Sue Ellen Browder … former employee at Cosmopolitan, said that when she worked at the magazine, she regularly fabricated stories about fictional women known as the Cosmo Girl.  “I could make her into anything I wanted her to be – a doctor, a lawyer, judge, even a high-priced call girl – but there were two things she could not be if she was going to be glamorous, sophisticated and cool: a virgin or a mother.”[2]

At Cosmopolitan, the “Cosmo Girl” could not be a virgin or a mother because feminists wage war on both virginity and motherhood.  Feminists hate Our Lady because she is the perfection of both.

Further, we see feminist hatred, scorn, and contempt heaped upon the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Feminist leaders even occasionally praise another feminist leader explicitly because she is the opposite of Mary.  For example, when feminist actress and celebrity Elizabeth Taylor died in 2011, American feminist academic Camille Paglia heaped praise upon her, including praising her as the anti-Mary.  Here are her greatest praises of Elizabeth Taylor:

She is Babylonian pagan woman – the goddess Ishtar, the anti-Mary!  My sensibility as a culture critic and as a feminist was deeply formed by her.  She was truly transcultural … and with an open sexuality in that puritanical period, it was so daring!  She picked up one man after another.  To me she represented the ultimate power of the sexual woman.”[3]

There are a great many other scornful statements by feminist leaders insulting Our Lady.  For example, here is how religious feminist leader, Mary Daly, disparages our dear Blessed Mother:

Mary is a “pale derivative symbol disguising the conquered Goddess”, a “flaunting of the tamed Goddess”.  Her role as servant in the Incarnation of God amounts to nothing other than a “rape”.[4]

Secular feminist leader, Simone de Beauvoir, called the Blessed Virgin Mary the “supreme victory of masculinity”, implying that somehow, Our Lady is some tool of a war against women, rather than the dear and compassionate Mother of mankind.[5]

It is not without reason the feminists hate the Blessed Virgin Mary.  As summarized below, she is the opposite of the feminists and of their satanic, Marxist program outlined in the Catholic Candle series from February through August, 2022.  For example:

1.   The feminists and feminism are anti-God. 

Our Lady is completely the opposite.  More than anyone else, she is united to God.  She is the daughter of the Eternal Father, the mother of God the Son and the spouse of the Holy Ghost.  She is the one to whom the Angel Gabriel brought God’s greeting that “the Lord is with thee”.  St. Luke’s Gospel, 1:28.

 

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we devote ourselves to God and to fighting feminism.


2.   The feminists and feminism are revolutionary and are anti-authority. 

Our Lady is completely the opposite.  More than any other creature, she works for the reign of her Divine Son in all things.  She is the Queen of Heaven.  All revolutions are against her and her Divine Son.  All rejection of true authority is against her universal queenship.

Whereas Satan was the first revolutionary, Our Lady is, more than any other creature, the anti-revolutionary.  In the Garden of Eden, Eve joined Satan’s revolution.  The Blessed Virgin Mary is the New Eve who repaired that evil.

So far was she from revolting against God’s order, she was most perfectly the servant (slave girl) of God, calling herself “the handmaid of the Lord”.  St. Luke’s Gospel, 1:29.

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we are obedient and serve God, including by fighting feminism.


3.   The feminists and feminism seek to divide people

Our Lady is completely the opposite.  Mary seeks to unite all men in the unity of the Catholic Church.  She strives that as many people as possible be members of her Son’s one Mystical Body. 

 

Mary is our mother and seeks to unite all of us, as her children.  Mary leads us to the virtues, such as charity, mildness, longsuffering, generosity, etc.  By promoting these virtues, Mary uses these virtues to unite people, and to oppose Satan, Marx, and the feminists, who seek to divide people.

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives devoted to true charity toward our neighbor, and to fighting feminism.

 

4.   The feminists and feminism promote discontent, envy, and discord. 

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  She is the Comforter of the Afflicted.  (Litany of Loretto).  She is the Mother Most Amiable.  (Litany of Loretto).

She is the Queen of Peace.  (Litany of Loretto).  She is the mother of the Prince of Peace.  Isaiah, 9:6.

In our times, God wills that peace will come upon the world through the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives in the peace of God, completely uniformed to God’s Will in all things, and as implacable opponents of feminism.

5.   The feminists and feminism promote hatred. 

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  She is the Mother of Fair LoveEcclesiasticus, 24:24.

God wills universal devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary because her heart shows the great tenderness of her love.  In our times, God wills that peace will come upon the world through the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (i.e., to her loving heart).

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives as examples of, and ambassadors of, charity as well as implacable opponents of feminism.

 

6.   The feminists and feminism are result-oriented and unprincipled, because Satan and Marx neither act according to immutable principles nor encourage their followers to do so. 

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  She is the greatest example of a creature obedient to God.  She is the “handmaid of the Lord”.  She is our model of how to serve God in all things, in the way that pleases Him most.

Mary teaches us all of the virtues and how to live according to the principles of virtue.

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we direct our lives according to the principles of the Catholic Faith and, including the imperative of being untiring enemies of feminism.

 

 

7.   The feminists and feminism are full of lies

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  Our Lady’s Son is the Eternal Truth. 

In Our Lady, “is all grace of the way and of the truth”.   Ecclesiasticus, 24:24. 

She explains that she has labored “for all that seek out the truth.”  Ecclesiasticus, 24:47.

 

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives thirsting for the truth and abiding always in the Truth, and fighting the lies of feminism.

 

8.   The feminists and feminism are anti-Natural Law. 

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  Our Lady loves and promotes the Natural Law because it was created by her Son and is a necessary help to salvation.

Purity is part of the Natural Law, in which reason tells us that we should live and act so as to shun the moral defilements which are so shamelessly promoted by Satan, Marxists, and the feminists.  Our Lady is the Mother Most Pure and Mother Most Chaste, Mother Inviolate, and the Mother Undefiled.  (Litany of Loretto). 

 

The family is the necessary building block of the Church and society, according to the Natural Law.  Our Lady gave us the perfect example of a wife and mother, in the Holy Family.  She perfectly fulfills the Natural Law.

 

Satan, Marxists, and the feminists hate and seek to destroy marriage.  Our Lady had the perfect marriage and is the model of all wives, fulfilling the Natural Law in every way.

 

These examples are only a beginning.  The list is “endless” of the ways in which Our Lady practiced the Natural Law and gave us the perfect example of adherence to the Natural Law.

 

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives in complete conformity with the Natural Law and defend it against feminism.


Conclusion:

Our life on earth is a warfare.  We are in the Church Militant!  We are not in the service of Satan.  There is no middle ground.  Are we adopted children of Mary or have we adopted feminism?

We must choose sides!  Are we on God’s side or are we on Satan’s side?

In this time in which God’s enemies are all around us, we must cling closely to our dear Mother Mary, the Anti-Satan, the Anti-Marx, and the Anti-Feminist!



[1]           Genesis, 3:15.

[2]           Quote from The Anti-Mary Exposed by Carrie Gress, St. Benedict Press LLC © 2019, ch. 5, https://onepeterfive.com/attack-blessed-virgin/

[4]           Gyn/Ecology, by Mary Daly, (1978), found here: http://ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/mhauke_maryfem_july05.asp

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part VII

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

1.    Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);

2.    Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

6.    Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

8.    Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.

 

Part 4 covers three additional aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Part 4 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/05/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-2/

 

Part 5 covers the fifth and sixth aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   Modern feminism promotes the program of Satan and Marx by promoting hatred; and

 

B.   Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled just like Satan and Marx.

Part 5 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/06/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-v/

Part 6 of this article covers the second-last aspect of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

Ø  Modern feminist leaders are full of lies.

Part 6 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/07/26/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-vi/

 

Part 7:

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover the last aspect of the feminist program, which is also the eighth element of the eight-point program of Satan and the Marxists:

The feminists are anti-Natural Law

 

The feminist leaders seek destruction of the family.

The family is an institution of the Natural Law.  The family is the foundation of the Catholic Church as the chief source of bringing into the Church new Catholics and transmitting the true Faith and true Morality from one generation to the next.  The family is also the foundation of a good civil society, handing down to the next generation learning, discipline, morality, and culture.

For these reasons (as we saw in earlier parts of this article), Satan and Marxists hate the family.  Similarly, the feminists hate the family.

For example, secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, made it a routine part of the opening of her “women’s empowerment” meetings that they mention their goal of destroying the family.  Here is part of the chant she used to open these meetings:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
By destroying the American family!” they answered.[1]

Similarly, here is how secular feminist leader, Linda Gordon, declared war on the family:

The nuclear family[2] must be destroyed ….  Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.[3]

The feminist leaders promise the destruction of the state (which is an institution belonging to the Natural Law), when they succeed in destroying the family.

All authority comes from God.  The state as such, is an institution which is part of the Natural Law.  God intends that there be a state because He created man as a political animal.[4]  The state, like the Catholic Church, is necessary to complete and to aid the work of the family in achieving its own ends.[5]

It is striking how the feminist leaders even use the same expressions as the Marxists (thereby signaling the affinity between them).  The Marxists/communists promise the withering away of the state when their enemy (the bourgeois class) is destroyed.  Similarly, the feminists promise the withering away of the state when the feminists’ enemy (the patriarchal family) is destroyed. 

For example, here is one way Vladimir Lenin phrased this claim:

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since there still remains the safeguarding of “bourgeois law”, which sanctifies [sic!] actual inequality.  For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.[6]

Using this same Marxist phrasing, secular feminist leader, Germaine Greer, asserted that, after they destroy the enemy (the “patriarchal family”), the state will wither away into a Marxist paradise.  Here are her words:

Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.[7]

Again, notice that both the feminists and the Marxists (falsely) promise the end of the state (which is part of the Natural Law) after they destroy their enemy.


The feminist leaders seek destruction of marriage.

Marriage is part of the Natural Law[8] and faithful marriages are necessary for good and stable families.  Thus, the feminist leaders hate marriage.

For example, here is how secular feminist, Sheila Cronin, declared war on marriage:

Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution.  Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.[9]


The feminist leaders seek destruction of women’s God-given maternal instincts and seek to foster in women a hostility (or at least indifference) to babies and children.

God put in women a maternal instinct to love and cherish babies and children.  This instinct is in women to help them fulfill well the great work of their lives, which is the raising of children to become well-adjusted and virtuous adults.[10]

Because feminism seeks to destroy families and marriage, obviously feminists want to entirely root out a woman’s natural inclination to love and cherish babies and children.  Here is how one secular feminist leader declared her own anti-maternal instincts:

I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness ….  Nothing will make me want a baby ….[11]


To effectively root out a woman’s natural maternal instincts and to make her a career woman, the feminist leaders strongly promote a woman murdering her unborn babies.

The extreme opposite of a woman’s natural maternal instinct is for her to murder her own babies.  This further makes a woman more like Satan, who “was a murderer from the beginning.”[12]  When a woman murders her innocent baby at the beginning of his life, she is like Satan and is, in her own way, “a murderer from the beginning”.

Marxists so strongly promote abortion that, in 1920, Communist Russia was the first country in the world to legalize abortion.[13]   Communist Russia offered abortion for free.  Id.

Communist China is the abortion capital of the of the world, with more than 400 million abortions in the forty years beginning in 1971.[14]   China’s murderous assault on innocent babies continues unabated.  Communist China’s murder of its babies is currently at a rate of more than nine million per year.[15]

As horrific as it is for a man to murder a baby, it is even more unnatural for a mother to murder her own baby.  Feminists strongly promote killing not only male babies but also female babies – showing that feminists are lying when they say that they are concerned about protecting women and girls.  In fact, feminists do not object to sex-selection abortions, which disproportionately murder baby girls.[16]


Feminists seek to destroy virtue, especially purity – and especially in women.

Vice – especially impurity – weakens a person’s will and opens wide the door of the soul to a life of further sins of all types.  As we saw earlier, Satan and Marx focused many efforts on corrupting people, especially women.  This is plainly because women are truly guardians of society through their selfless vigilance for the good of their families.  Here is one way Pope Pius XI explained this truth:

Neither this emancipation of the woman is real, nor is it the reasonable and worthy liberty convenient to the Christian and noble mission of the woman and wife.  It is the corruption of the feminine nature and maternal dignity, as well as the perversion of all the family, since the husband lacks his wife, the children their mother, and the entire family her vigilant guard.

 

Pope Pius XI, Casti connubii, #75 (emphasis added).

Following Satan’s and Marx’s program, feminists urge everyone, but especially women, to promiscuously follow any urges of their basest appetites.[17]

Secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, included this focus on promoting impurity, in the chants opening their feminist meetings:

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?” …
By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.[18]

Because feminists are tools of Satan and of the Marxists and because they are not really advocates for women, the feminists also promote and support deluded men who insist they are women (i.e., so-called “transgenderism”).[19]

There are so many other ways in which feminists follow Satan and Marx by being against Nature and the Natural Law.  But these examples suffice to show that truth.


Conclusion of this Entire Article

All feminists are against Nature and are anti-Natural Law.  As shown in earlier parts of this article, the feminists follow Satan’s and the Marxists’ entire evil program.  Thus, all faithful and informed Catholics (and all others who use their intellects as they should) are compelled to conclude that there is no version of feminism that can be reconciled with the Truth and the Good. 

There is no good feminism; there is no Biblical feminism; there is no Catholic feminism; there is no “good feminism.  Feminism is inherently evil because it deliberately contradicts Divine revelation and the Natural Law. 

There can be naïve feminists who are so confused that, perhaps, they are not culpable for the evil in which they participate.  This is like, perhaps, there are naïve and confused Marxists or freemasons.  God will judge their interior, subjective culpability.  However, on the objective level – the level on which we Catholics and all people using their reason – must judge, their work is evil, is anti-God, and promotes Satan.  Let us fight feminism in all of its manifestations!




[1]           https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).

[2]           A “nuclear family” is a married father and mother and their children living family life together.

[4]           A political animal is one who by Nature comes together with his fellows to organize themselves using reason, to perform joint tasks, such as self-defense, building roads, etc.

[5]           Here is how Pope Pius XI explains the necessity of the state as one of the three necessary societies:

[T]here are three necessary societies, distinct from one another and yet harmoniously combined by God, into which man is born: two [viz., of the necessary societies], namely the family and civil society, belong to the natural order; the third, the Church, to the supernatural order.

Divini Illius Magistri (On Christian Education) by Pope Pius XI, 1929, ¶¶11-13, (emphasis added; bracketed words added for clarity).

[6]           Vladimir Lenin’s The State and Revolution, section three, which can be found here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm (emphasis and bracketed word added).

[7]           https://www.thoughtco.com/germaine-greer-quotes-3530088 (emphasis added).

[8]           Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Suppl., Q.67, a.1.

[9]           The words of Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW (National Organization for Women), https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1sbvhs/Since-marriage-constitutes-slavery-for-women-it-is-clear-that-the-womens/

[11]          Words of secular feminist leader, Amanda Marcotte, March 2014, found here: https://theothermccain.com/2016/11/15/feminists-hate-donald-trump-the-joys-of-happy-fun-victory-week-maga/

[12]         Here are Our Lord’s words about Satan the murderer (speaking to the pharisees):

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him.  When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:  for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 

St. John ‘s Gospel, 8:44 (emphasis added).

[16]         India Has Killed 46 Million Girls in Sex-Selection Abortions, Where are the Feminists?  https://www.lifenews.com/2021/12/28/india-has-killed-46-million-girls-in-sex-selection-abortions-where-are-the-feminists/

[17]         Here, e.g., is one way in which the National Organization for Women promotes vile impurity: https://now.org/blog/issue-advisory-asexuality-sexual-empowerment-isnt-for-everyone-and-thats-okay/

[18]         Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives, found here: https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).

   
[19]         Here, e.g., is the National Organization for Women promoting gender delusion: 
https://now.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part VI

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

1.    Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);

2.    Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

6.    Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

8.    Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.

 

Part 4 covers three additional aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Part 4 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/05/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-2/

 

Part 5 covers two additional aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   Modern feminism promotes the program of Satan and Marx by promoting hatred; and

 

B.   Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled just like Satan and Marx.

Part 5 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/06/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-v/

 

Part 6:

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover the second-last aspect of the feminist program, which is also the seventh element of the eight-point program of Satan and the Marxists:

 

Modern feminist leaders are full of lies.

A thinking person would expect ahead of time, that modern feminist leaders would be liars because they follow the program of Satan, who is the father of lies.

One testimony of this is from the sister of secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, who described Kate and her fellow feminist leaders as “so full of lies” and deception.  Here are the words of Kate’s sister:

Without a doubt, over time, once she [viz., Kate] became enmeshed in the larger group of leftist activists around the world, her madness, buoyed by their lunacy, became even greater and more impossible to penetrate. Their groupthink is so dense, so full of lies, the vocabulary is so deceptive and intricately designed to brainwash, that just to witness it and their interactions from a distance is beyond alarming.  After we buried our mother, I never spoke with Kate again, as I’d finally come to accept that there is no honest communication with this mental illness that is today’s liberalism.[1]

Another example is the lying of Betty Friedan, who is a career-long, well-known liar, as well as “America’s premier feminist” (as she is called).  Here is how David Horowitz expressed it:

Betty Friedan … always presented herself as a typical suburban housewife; until she began work on her groundbreaking book [“The Feminist Mystique”]; she was in fact nothing of the kind.  In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for a quarter of a century before the publication of “The Feminist Mystique” launched the modern women’s movement.

Professor Horowitz[2] documents that Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley’s radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer. …

It is fascinating that Friedan not only felt the need to lie about her real views and life experience then, but still feels the need to lie about them now.  …

So why the continuing lies?  The reason is this: The truth is too embarrassing.  Imagine what it would be like for Betty Friedan (the name actually is Friedman) to admit that as a Jew she opposed America’s entry into the war against Hitler because Stalin told her that it was just an inter-imperialist fracas?  Imagine what it would be like for America’s premier feminist to acknowledge that well into her 30s she thought Stalin was the Father of the Peoples, and that the United States was an evil empire, and that her interest in women’s liberation was just a subtext of her real desire to create a Soviet America.[3]

Like Satan and Marx, we see feminist leaders are prone to be liars.  They:

  Are liars, saying that goddesses should be acknowledged as existing because it is necessary to say this to achieve feminist goals.[4]

 

  Are liars, saying that the life of a harlot is good and “empowering” for women if they choose that life.

 

  Are liars, saying that they don’t know what a woman is, as did feminist/leftist Ketanji Brown on March 23, 2022, during her senate confirmation hearing as a Supreme Court nominee.

 

  Are liars, saying that a woman needs to avoid being sensitive and should “toughen up” to compete in the world.

  Are liars, saying that women should wear whatever they want to wear (i.e., no matter how immodest or impure) and they are not responsible for any bad thoughts of men and are not inviting any bad conduct of men who see them.

  Are liars, saying that separating the marital act from its chief purpose, having children, will help women.

  Are liars, saying that the feminist movement is in the best interests of women.

  Are liars, saying that the aim of feminism is to give women more choices.[5]

  Are liars, saying that a woman should try to suppress her womanly, tender, and loving heart because having such a heart is a weakness.

  Are liars, saying that the feminist revolution will result in a better society.

  Are liars, saying that women are unhappy because feminism has not fully triumphed in society.

  Are liars, saying that divorce empowers women.

  Are liars, saying that obesity is just another kind of beauty.  Feminists decry ‘body shaming” and say that men oppress women and pressure them into being slim.  (The truth is that temperance is a virtue and overindulgence is a vice in both men and women.)

  Are liars, saying that men treat women unfairly by not treating women as if they were “just as good as men” at men’s work.

  Are liars, saying that motherhood should be a secondary concern for women and should not be allowed to get in the way of a woman’s career in the workplace.

  Are liars, saying that men and women are equally good at fulfilling men’s roles and men’s jobs.  Sometimes the feminists claim that women are better at those roles and jobs.  (One example is the feminist lie that if all nations were ruled by women things would be much better and there would be great international harmony and no wars.)

  Are liars, saying that women have no complementary role in society and in the human race but should simply compete with men in the male sphere.

  Are liars, saying that woman’s natural traits, e.g., sympathy, softness, nurturing, comforting, conciliation, dependence on and leaning on their husbands, are silly, unworthy, and should be squelched.

  Are liars, saying that women should fight against the feminine piety to which nature disposes them.

  Are liars, saying that women have no duty to obey and to be submissive to their husbands.[6]

  Are liars, saying that the family is not a natural institution but is a construct invented by men to oppress women.[7]

  Are liars, saying that fatherhood, i.e., patriarchy, is evil.

  Are liars, saying that women need emancipation because they are slaves.[8]

  Are liars, saying that women are victims of men.

 

  Are liars, saying that men are terrorists.[9]

  Are liars, saying that feminism makes a woman powerful.

  Are liars, saying that a woman can “have it all”, i.e., both excelling in a man’s role and job as well as having a family life if they want it.

  Are liars, saying that with sufficient efforts, a woman can compete with men in the career world just as well as a man.

  Are liars, saying that men hate women.

  Are liars, saying that women should be aggressive.

  Are liars, saying that woman should harbor violent thoughts, especially toward men.[10]

  Are liars, saying that children are an obstacle to women’s happiness.

  Are liars, saying that an unborn baby is merely a “clump of cells”.

  Are liars, saying that an unborn baby is part of a woman’s body.

  Are liars, saying that a mother murdering her unborn child is “health care” for her.

  Are liars, saying that a mother murdering her unborn child is safe.

  Are liars, saying that justice requires that everyone should always “believe women” if they allege improper conduct committed against them by a man.

  Are liars, saying that daycare is as good or better for children than for those children being home with their mother.

  Are liars, saying that women should hate men.

  Are liars, saying that it can be good for a woman to be promiscuous.[11]

  Are liars, saying that men oppress women.

  Are liars, saying that a woman should be career-focused and this will give her a fulfilling life.

  Are liars, saying that feminism makes women into goddesses.[12]

  Are liars, saying that men, as a group, are worthy of hatred.

  Are liars, saying that feminism will bring women peace, contentment, and security.

  Are liars, saying that femininity is weak and shameful.

  Are liars, saying that it is shameful for a woman to be dependent on her husband.

  Are liars, saying that women should compete with men, not be complementary to them.

  Are liars, saying that if men were softer, more emotional, more sensitive, and more like women, then women would respect and admire them more.  The truth is that when men take on feminine characteristics, they’re just wimpy and unmasculine.  God made men to be leaders, courageous, strong, and protective.

  Are liars, saying that Traditional Catholicism (and also those false “Christian” sects which bear some similarity to Catholicism) is a big obstacle to fair treatment and happiness for women.

  Are liars, saying that gender should be eliminated or ignored.[13]

  Are liars, saying that men and women should not have any different roles in life.[14]

  Are liars, saying that women should not allow a family to get in the way of having a “meaningful” and “fulfilling” life.

  Are liars, saying that women should focus on themselves and their own career advancement.

  Are liars, saying that women should be self-sufficient and independent.

  Are liars, saying that the many differences between men and women are all due to society forcing them into different “gender roles” when they were young.  The truth is that men tend to be more goal-oriented and competitive.  By contrast, women are more relational and cooperative.  God placed those characteristics into the sexes to assist them in the roles and work God planned for them.

  Are liars, saying that the more a woman achieves in a career, the more attractive and desirable she becomes to men.  The truth is that career accomplishments are not what a good and manly man looks for in a wife.  He seeks a woman’s unique feminine attributes: love, sensitivity, giving, attention to detail, her abilities to relate to him, etc.

  Are liars, saying that women should postpone marriage and children to focus on their careers.  The truth is that a woman “shall be saved through childbearing; if she continues in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.”  1 Timothy, 2:15.

  Are liars, saying that femininity, sweetness, kindness, and softness are weaknesses and that women need to be firm, aggressive, and competitive.

  Are liars, saying that women don’t need men.  This is the message in the feminist slogan, promoted by secular feminist Gloria Steinem, “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”  The truth is that God made men and women complementary and both sexes need the other.  But feminists lie, saying that women are self-sufficient. 

  Are liars, saying that they want “diversity” but when feminists (and other leftists) are in charge, they are rigidly exclusionary – of men, of homemakers, of traditionalists, of conservatives, etc.

 

Conclusion

Any thinking person sees that feminist leaders and feminism are tools of the father of lies, Satan.  Not only the feminists, but also the Marxists, the mainstream media and almost all public sources of information promote lies.  We seem to be in that time predicted by St. Paul:

There shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy, 4:3-4 (emphasis added).

This is a reminder that we must not only fight feminism (and the other evils) but also must be entirely devoted to the truth!  The truth is such a great blessing and it will be taken from us if we do not appreciate it enough and devote our life to it!  We must be on our guard because we too will be deceived if we are not selfless in our devotion to the truth.

Let us value nothing as much as the truth!



[2]           This professor, named “Horowitz”, is a liberal author who wrote a book about Betty Friedan.  The magazine article quoted here is a review of that book.  That magazine article is (by coincidence) written by an author also named Horowitz.

[3]           Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past by David Horowitz, published in the liberal Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, available here: https://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html (bracketed words added to show context).

[4]           Feminist leader, Carol P. Christ, in her essay “Why Women Need the Goddess,” argued that women need a substitute for the traditional religion that they seek to overthrow.  Here are her words:

Symbol systems cannot simply be rejected; they must be replaced.  Where there is not any replacement, the mind will revert to familiar structures at times of crisis, bafflement or defeat.  …  A question immediately arises, Is the Goddess simply female power writ large, and if so, why bother with the symbol of Goddess at all?  Or does the symbol refer to a Goddess “out there” who is not reducible to a human potential?

 

Carol P. Christ, quoted from her essay “Why Women Need the Goddess”, as quoted here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163

[5]           Here, for example, are the candid words of one secular feminist writer, Simone de Beauvoir, in an interview with another secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, in which Beauvoir declared that their aim is a totalitarian system which inflicts compulsion on women (as well as men):

No, we do not believe that any woman should have this choice.  No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.

 

Manfred Hauke, God or Goddess? Feminist Theology: What Is It? Where Does It Lead? (Ignatius Press, 1995), p.57 (emphasis added).

[6]           Sacred Scripture and the Natural Law both show that the husband is the head of the family and his wife must obey him.  Here is one of the ways that St. Paul states this truth:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.  He is the Savior of His Body.  Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be, to their husbands in all things.

Ephesians, 5:22-24.

[7]              See, e.g., The Second Sex, by secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89.  Here is the longer declaration by De Beauvoir:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery she is bound to; her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

 

Note: a semicolon added ten words from the end of the quote for clarity.

[8]           Here is how secular feminist leader, Kate Millett put it:

A sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women, who are the chief victims of patriarchy ….

Words of Kate Millett, found here: Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/patriarchy-quotes

[9]           Here is how the secular feminist, Bell Hooks, stringed together a risible series of adjectives to characterize men, including that they are terrorists:

 

Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “an imperialist, white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh.  No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny.  The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism.

Quote from bell hooks, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/qd1b9809d204b3a0926962163ecf22929 (emphasis added).

Note: Bell Hooks is a woman who employed the gimmick of spelling her name without initial capital letters.

 

[10]         For example, secular feminist leader, Andrea Dworkin, announced this violent day-dream:

 

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.

 

Quoted from: https://thoughtcatalog.com/jake-fillis/2014/05/23-quotes-from-feminists-that-will-make-you-rethink-feminism/


[11]         Here is one way that s
ecular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, emphasized the “downtrodden state of women”:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery she is bound to; her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

 

The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89 (Note: a semicolon added ten words from the end of the quote for clarity).


[12]         Starhawk, who is a feminist leader and a practicing witch, teaches in one of her books:

The symbolism of the Goddess is not a parallel structure to the symbolism of God the Father.  The Goddess does not rule the world; She is the world ….  The importance of the Goddess symbol for women cannot be over-stressed.  The image of the Goddess inspires women to see ourselves as divine, our bodies as sacred, the changing phases of our lives as holy, our aggression as healthy, and our anger as purifying.  Through the Goddess, we can discover our strength, enlighten our minds, own our bodies, and celebrate our emotions.

 

Starhawk, The Spiral Dance, (Harper & Row, 1989), pp. 23-24, as quoted here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163

 

[13]         Here is how secular feminist, Sheila Jeffreys, phrased this feminist goal:

[G]ender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create.

― Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, found here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/radical-feminism

[14]         Here is how secular feminist, Sheila Jeffreys, phrased this feminist goal:

Feminist social constructionists understand the task of feminism to be the destruction and elimination of what have been called “sex roles” and are now more usually called “gender”.

― Sheila Jeffreys, Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West, found here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/radical-feminism

The Biggest Mistake Politicians Make is Separation of Church and State

 

Separating the Catholic Church from the civil government does not bring happiness.  The opposite is true.  Rather, it is important to have all laws of a country based on God’s laws in order for the nation to have peace and prosperity and its citizens to have happiness.

 

This relationship is covered by the following points:

 

The Church and the State are both perfect societies, that is to say, each essentially must aim to achieve the common good in its own sphere.  Each has in itself the means for achieving its particular end, which is the happiness of its people.[1]  To consider these relations in brief from an ethical perspective, it will be necessary to state:

 

  The basis of their respective rights.  All rights and duties on earth come ultimately from God through the Divine Law, either natural or positive.

  The range of their respective jurisdictions.  As there are many distinct States of equal natural right, the subjects of each are restricted in number, and its government of them is practically confined within the limits of its own territory. 

 

  Their mutual corporate relationship.  Every perfect society must      acknowledge the rights of every other perfect society, must render to it all duties consequent upon such rights, must respect its autonomy, and may demand the recognition of its own rights and the fulfillment of obligations arising therefrom.

 

  The union of Church and State.  There is some confusion in the public mind about the meaning of the union of Church and State.  The essential idea of such union is a condition of affairs where a State recognizes its natural and supernatural relation to the Church, professes the true Catholic Faith, and practices the worship prescribed by the Church, protects it, enacts no laws to its harm, while, in case of necessity and at its instance, taking all just and requisite civil measures to promote the Divinely-appointed purpose of the Church. 

 

There are counter-theories regarding the “separation of Church and State”.  These may be considered thusly:

A.   Absolute Liberalism;

B.   Qualified Liberalism; and

C.   The Theory of the Regalists.

 

A.  Absolute Liberalism is the most extreme, having its source in the principles of the French Revolution and beginning with those who denied the existence of God.  They hold that all rights come from the state.

 

B.  Qualified Liberalism does not go so far.  It contends that Church and State are different entities and can act independently, neither being subordinate to the other.  However, at the same time it claims that the State must be detached from every religious society.  The axiom of this newer Liberalism – “A free Church in a free State”– actually means an emasculated Church with no more freedom than the shifting politics, internal and external, choose to give it.

 

C.  The Theory of the Regalists conceded a certain amount of social right from its Divine Founder, but conditioned the exercise of all social powers upon the consent of the civil government.[2]

 

None of these counter theories have any validity when they come up against the hard fact that man has no right to make his own laws without regard for the law of God.

 

Since both Church and State were established for the good of men, they cannot be totally separated without evil consequences.

 

One might ask what was the contribution of the Catholic Church to American democracy?  In general, we may say that the fundamentals of American democracy were derived from traditional thought and philosophy, and since these, being of Western Europe, were essentially Catholic, therefore, our democracy had its roots in the Catholic Church.

 

If this is true, what should be the attitude of the Catholic citizen towards the State?  The Catholic citizen is bound in conscience to obey the State, provided faith and morals are not endangered thereby.

 

The State is not the slave-master of its citizens but has the duty to attempt to bring about their good and their happiness, like a father of his family.  The inherent rights of individuals, and particularly of parents, cannot be usurped by the State.  For instance, parents, not the State, have the natural right to educate their children.  The State should merely supervise and facilitate education, but should not enact laws contrary to the obligations of parents to give their children a religious education.[3]

 

Most governments worldwide separate Church and State, such as in Socialism, Communism, and even Capitalism.  In this way the citizens look for necessities from the State, rather than praying to God.

 

The State has been trying to eliminate the Church from the affairs of government for decades.  It has moved on many fronts to accomplish this, such as proclaiming that there be no religion in public schools, in the town square, on Main Street, in civil and family law, resulting in sinful and evil laws such as same-sex “marriage”, feminism, defunding the police, sex education in schools, abortion, and transitioning the holy day of Christmas into a secular holiday, all tending to result in greater social and cultural breakdown.  Most problems in the world are due to the separation of true Catholic Church and State. 

 

Citizens must do what they can to get involved in local and national governments, and with the help of God bring His Church back into her role of ensuring that the civil government’s dictates conform with the rule and the desires of Christ the King. 



[1]              Here is how St. Thomas teaches this truth:

It belongs to … the function of the ruler of the state to provide the good life for the many, in terms of what will obtain for them the beatitude of heaven”. 

On Kingship, Bk. 1, c. 15.

[2]           The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. XIV, The Gilmary Society, Publishers, pp. 250-253.  (Bracketed words added for clarity.)


[3]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis LaRavoire Morrow, 1941, pp. 128-129.

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part V

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

1.    Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);

2.    Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

6.    Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

8.    Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.

 

Part 4 covers three additional aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Part 4 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/05/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-2/

 


Part 5:


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover two aspects of the feminist program:

1.    Modern feminism promotes the program of Satan and Marx by promoting hatred; and

 

2.    Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled just like Satan and Marx.

 

1.   Modern feminism and feminist leaders promote hatred.

Since Satan is full of extreme hatred and Marx called himself “the greatest hater of the so-called positive”[1], we know that all of Satan’s and Marx’s works are imbued with their hatred, too.  This is one reason why it is immediately plain to persons with greater discernment that feminism is a work of Satan – because it is imbued with a share of Satan’s hatred. 

When Catholic journalist, Mrs. Donna Steichen, attended many so-called “women’s empowerment” conferences, the satanic hatred at those feminist gatherings struck her so strongly that she called her book-length report, Ungodly Rage.[2] 

Whereas God made women to be the hearts of their homes, by contrast, the feminism on display at these conferences showed how completely Satan has twisted those women so that Mrs. Steichen said those women showed “feminism’s anti-feminine heart”.[3]  Satan and feminism turned these women and their movement into vehicles of rage and hatred.

Most feminist leaders do not declare that they hate men.  This would tend to be bad “public relations” for the feminist movement.  However, some feminist leaders are very candid about their hatred of men.  For example, secular feminist leader, Robin Morgan, Editor of Ms. Magazine, counted hating men as a virtue.  Here are her words:

I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.[4]

Similarly secular feminist leader, Marilyn French said:

You think I hate men.  I guess I do ….   I think that men are rotten and women are great.[5]

Hatred is wanting evil for another person, especially his ultimate evil.  We see that Satan’s hatred causes him to especially want the greatest evil for people, viz., their eternal damnation. 

Among feminist leaders who don’t use the word “hate” with regard to men, you see their hatred in the evil they wish for men.  For example, secular feminist leader, Andrea Dworkin, showed her hatred for men in these words:

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.[6]

Other feminist leaders express their hatred for men more generally, wishing evil for men as a group.  Here is how secular feminist leader, Sally Miller Gearhart, expressed her hatred for men, in her essay entitled, The Future – If There Is One – Is Female:

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.[7]

Similarly, secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, routinely opened her “women’s empowerment” meetings by declaring that their goal is to destroy men, i.e., to destroy “the American patriarch”.[8]

Here is how feminist leader, Robin Morgan, urged women to commit patricide:

Sexism is not the fault of women – kill your fathers, not your mothers.[9]

The hatred which is inseparable from feminist principles is not reserved for men alone.  Feminist leaders also sometimes attack conservative women viciously.  For example, one feminist called conservative women “white nationalist racist gender traitors.”[10]  Like Satan’s hatred, feminist hatred can target women as well as men.

Feminist leaders also incite women to hate men by promoting the idea that men hate them.  For example, secular feminist leader, Germaine Greer, declared:

Women fail to understand how much men hate them.  …  All men hate some women some of the time and some men hate all women all of the time.[11]

Greer also told women that no man exists who is free from hating women.  Here are her words:

The man is not born who will not hate some woman on some occasion.  Odds on, it will be the woman with the greatest claim on his love.[12]

Feminist principles also try to root out the maternal love God put into women by trying to convince them that, however their sons might appear good and loving, there is male treachery in all of them which they should fear and hate.  Here is how feminist Andrea Dworkin stated it:

Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.[13]

What we are showing in this section, is that feminism and feminist leaders follow their founders, Satan and Marx, in promoting hatred.  Of course, just as there are naïve Masons who simply view Freemasonry as an aid to career advancement or as a way to be accepted in a particular social circle, without understanding the deep evil of Freemasonry, likewise, there are naïve feminists that don’t look deep enough to understand the magnitude of the evil that is integral to feminism. 

But this does not take away from the fact that feminism is fundamentally the devil’s work.  We must fight feminism!  One element of this fight is to love God with all our hearts and to honor, love, and treat women as God wants us to do – not with Satan’s false “luv” for them and an unnatural pretense of equality (as opposed to the true, natural complementariness of the sexes).

 

2.   Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled (just like Satan and Marx are) because they neither act according to immutable principles nor encourage their followers to do so.

Feminist leaders are unprincipled, like Marx and Satan.  They are committed to their (evil) goals and so, to accomplish these goals, they say and do whatever they can to achieve them.  They are devoid of firm, overarching principles that regulate the choice of which means they can and should use to achieve their goals.  Instead, feminist leaders use any means which they think will be effective.

For example, feminists follow Marx in his goal of pushing all women out of their homes and into the workforce.  Thus, feminist leaders see the “need” to prevent children from coming into existence because children would be an obstacle to a woman’s career.  This is because caring for children would make her unable to be a fully-independent worker – which is a feminist and Marxist goal.  Thus, pursuing this goal, feminists tirelessly promote methods to frustrate fecundity and the Natural and Divine Laws in order to prevent children from being such “obstacles”. 

Thus, feminists promote contraception as safe and good because it furthers this feminist-Marxist goal (viz., moving all women into the workforce), as well as some of their other evil goals, too.  Of course, contraception is always evil, and sometimes kills a baby who has already been conceived.  Further, contraception is always harmful to the mother physically, spiritually, and socially – harming her relationship with her husband as well as harming society more generally.

For the same reason, feminists also promote the cold-blooded, deliberate murder of innocent babies in abortion.  Thus, they also promote the lie that a mother murdering her baby is “health care” for the mother and that such murder is “safe”, although it is fatal for the baby, is sometimes fatal to the mother and is always harmful – physically, spiritually, and socially – harming her relationship with her husband as well as harming society more generally.

But because such evils promote feminist goals, feminists vociferously insist that an unborn baby is not a human being but only a “clump of cells”.  This feminist assertion is so obviously false that no one really believes it – not even the feminists.  To take two reasons, among many others:

1.    The baby has a different genetic code than the mother so obviously is not part of the mother’s body. 

 

2.    Further, the baby has his own head, hands, feet, and the rest of the body.  When the feminists lie by saying that this baby is simply the mother’s tissue, this absurdly means that she has two heads, four hands, and four feet. 

Although everyone, including the feminists, know the baby is a separate human being, they insist otherwise because they are unprincipled and take whatever position serves their goals.

Although the feminists want to promote the Marxist goal of getting (and keeping) all women in the workforce, nonetheless, these feminist leaders know that the strong maternal instinct which God put into women will cause many of them to have some children.  Therefore, the feminists devise strategies to get the women back in the workforce as quickly as possible after the children’s births.  For example, the feminists (and Marxists) ensure that women can foist-off the responsibilities of motherhood onto other independent workers whose job it is to feed and babysit those children, i.e., daycare. 

Although common sense and the maternal instinct make it clear that daycare is greatly inferior to a loving mother’s care of her own children, the feminists disregard this principle and say and do whatever is expedient to accomplish their goal of removing mothers from their homes.  They declare that daycare is better for children (or at least not worse) than a woman fulfilling her God-given role as a nurturing, loving mother.[14]

A further example is that the feminists profess (falsely) that they are seeking the best-interests of (and the advantages of) women.  But the feminist leaders are really promoting Marxist principles which are ruthlessly anti-woman.  That is why the feminists viciously attack conservative women whenever it is expedient because feminist leaders attack whoever and whatever stands in the way of their (Marxist) agenda.

Another example of unprincipled feminist leaders is their promotion of the idea that if women allege that they were mistreated by men, then everyone should “believe women”.  This is such a stupid position that no one really believes it.  It is merely unprincipled feminist expediency.  When conservative Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh was accused by a woman (Christine Blasey Ford), President Joe Biden declared to the media that we must “believe women”.  But when Biden himself was accused by a different woman (Tara Reade), he told the media she was lying and not to believe her.  Biden (who continually promotes Marxism and feminism) never really thought we should always “believe women” over men.  Nor, does anyone else really believe that.  This “believe women” nonsense is merely leftist politics using any method whatever to achieve Marxist and feminist goals.  Biden merely said we should always “believe women” because this was expedient while trying to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. 

Michelle Malkin summed up this truth well, in these sensible words:

Let me repeat the themes of my work in this area for the past two years to counter the “Believe Women” baloney:

The role of the press should be verification, not validation.

Rape is a devastating crime.  So is lying about it.

It’s not victim-blaming to get to the bottom of the truth.  It’s liar-shaming.

Don’t believe a gender.  Believe evidence.[15]


Summary

Satan, Marx and the feminist leaders are devoted to their goals and are unprincipled enough that they are willing to employ any means – however perverse – to achieve those goals.  In this, Satan, Marx, and the modern feminists are completely different from Catholics and from anyone living the life of reason and virtue. 

A good man knows that he cannot simply use any expedient means to achieve his end.  A Catholic and anyone trying to lead a virtuous life knows that both his means and his end must be good, otherwise his action is evil.[16] 

So, we see that feminist leaders are unprincipled and follow Marx (and Satan) by taking whatever means they think will accomplish the (evil) goal they seek to achieve.



[1]           https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/56204 (emphasis added).

[2]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991.

 

[3]           Ungodly Rage, page 165.

 


[8]           Here is part of the chant Kate Millett used to open these meetings:

 

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,”

https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).


[12]         Secular feminist Germaine Greer, from her book, The Whole Woman, quoted here: https://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2015/11/05/germaine-greer-and-the-hatred-of-men/

[13]         Andrea Dworkin quote, found here: https://quotefancy.com/andrea-dworkin-quotes

[14]         For a fuller treatment of motherhood as the God-given great work of a woman’s life, read these articles:

 

Ø  https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

Ø  https://catholiccandle.org/2020/10/01/the-importance-and-need-for-stay-at-home-moms/

 

[15]         The Dangers of ‘Believe Women’, by Michelle Malkin, found here: https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/09/19/the-dangers-of-believe-women/

[16]         For a fuller treatment of the moral principle that the end never justifies the means, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/01/05/does-the-end-ever-justify-the-means/

 

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part IV

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx.  

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/.  

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

  1. Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);
  2. Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;
  3. Seeks to divide people;

  1. Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

  1. Promotes hatred;

  1. Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

  1. Is full of lies; and

  1. Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Last month, Catholic Candle published Part 3 of this series.  Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.


Part 4


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover three of the aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

  1. They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;
  2. They seek to divide people; and
  3. They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Below we examine each of these parts of the satanic, Marxist, feminist program.

  1. The feminist leaders and feminist principles are revolutionary and are against the authority ordained by God.

Modern feminist leaders are the “spiritual daughters” of Karl Marx (as well as Satan).  Here is how one secular feminist leader described the feminist program at the 1852 Woman’s Rights Convention:

My friends, do we realize for what purpose we are convened?  Do we fully understand that we aim at nothing less than an entire subversion of the present order of society, a dissolution of the whole existing social compact?[1]

This feminist leader echoes Marx when he declares that communism aims at “overthrow of all existing social conditions”.[2] 

This feminist aim of “subversion” (i.e., “dissolution”) of present society is shown by feminists when they describe their movement as “the feminist revolution.”[3]

It would be false and naïve to think that by promoting feminism, the Marxists (or Satan) really care about women, any more than they really care about other groups who are pawns in their game.  Instead, the Marxists are focused on achieving their evil goals.  They are not looking to give women “choices”, if those choices include seeking that which is traditional or according to the Natural Law.  

Here, for example, are the candid words of one secular feminist writer, Simone de Beauvoir, in an interview with another secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, in which Beauvoir declared that their aim is a totalitarian system which inflicts compulsion on women (as well as men):

No, we do not believe that any woman should have this choice.  No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.[4]

Instead of “advocating” for women and giving them “choices”, feminists are rebelling against patriarchy, i.e., against authority.  Here is how one feminist leader, Mary Daly, framed feminism’s total opposition to, and rebellion against, patriarchy:  

Almost everything has been stolen from us by the patriarchy.  Our creativity has been stolen, our creative energies, our religion [viz., the goddess religion]. I want it back.[5]

Feminist leader, Kate Millett, and other feminist leaders would sometimes open their “women’s empowerment” meetings by focusing those in attendance on the principle that the enemy was “patriarchy” and their goal was revolution.  Here is one eyewitness account of the ritual exchange at the opening of one of these meetings:

“Why are we here today?” she [i.e., Kate Millett] asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” …
[6]

This war on patriarchy includes rebelling against God Himself, since He is a Father and the model of all fathers.  He is also the Power Itself and the Authority Itself behind all authority and all fatherhood.

Further, feminism’s war against patriarchy includes warring against the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture, since they uphold the Natural Law principle that the husband is the head of the family and his wife must obey him.  Here is one of the ways that St. Paul states this truth:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.  He is the Savior of His Body.  Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be, to their husbands in all things.

Ephesians, 5:22-24.


Conclusion of this Part

It is clear that feminism and feminist leaders seek revolution and rebel against God’s authority and against the authority of God’s representatives on earth, especially fathers (i.e., patriarchs).  

Thus, we see that the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the second point of Satan’s and Marx’s program: viz., promoting disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God.
        

  1. The feminist leaders and feminist principles seek to divide people.

Feminist leaders and their principles seek to divide people.  They set one group against another.  This is a classic Marxist (as well as a satanic) tactic, as we saw earlier in this multipart article.

One way feminists seek to divide groups of people is by name-calling.  They call men “sexists”, “male chauvinists”[7], and “misogynists”[8].  They describe the traditional family as “domestic slavery” for the wife and mother, in which she (supposedly) suffers “social oppression” and “economic oppression”.[9] 

One secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, showed that such characterizations are merely a tactical attempt to win sympathy for the feminist movement from the gullible and naïve.  Although De Beauvoir does indeed call the family “domestic slavery”, she candidly expressed her concern that so many women want to live the life of a wife and mother in a traditional family.  (This is not surprising, since this is the natural role God created them to have.)  Here are De Beauvoir’s words:

No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.[10]

Although the feminist movement can sway many fuzzy-thinking people, nature is a strong force and the feminists must constantly remind women that they are “victims”, in order to try to prevent them from choosing this traditional, God-given vocation.  Thus, these feminists must work hard to remind women they are “oppressed” by men, i.e., by patriarchy.  Here is how secular feminist, Kate Millett put it:

A sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women, who are the chief victims of patriarchy ….[11]

As we saw earlier in this multipart article, Marx and Satan have always promoted their goals in terms of “liberating” and “freedom”.  As we see, the feminist movement is no exception.

Phyllis Schlafly, the astute anti-feminist founder of Eagle Forum, remarked that:

The feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy.  …  Self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.[12]

Indeed, as Mrs. Schlafly observes, Marxist “victimhood” never brings happiness.  But notice that neither Satan, nor Marx, nor the modern feminists state that happiness is one of their goals.  Instead, their goals are power and “liberation” (which, in one way or another, means rebelling against the authority established by God) so that they can be “powerful” and can “be as gods”.  Genesis, 3:5.

Patriarchy, properly understood, means men meeting their vocational responsibilities selflessly, as Christ gave Himself for His Body, the Church.[13]  This is beautiful and sublime.  Plainly, this is nothing Satan, Marx, or the modern feminist leaders would ever want.  

In feminism, this war against authority is framed as a war of women against the other group, viz., men.  It is framed as women fighting for “liberation” against patriarchy, i.e., against men meeting their vocational responsibilities to lead their families and/or to lead various aspects of religious and civil society for the good of the group they lead.  So modern feminists declare their fight is to destroy patriarchs[14] and patriarchy.[15] 

  1. Like Satan and Marx, feminism promotes discontent, envy, and discord.

Feminists spurn femininity as well as all of the particular qualities and characteristics of a woman.  Although feminists oppose real men, feminists imitate the masculine aspects of creation.  They seek complete egalitarianism[16] between men and women based on the natural characteristics of men.  In this way, they take masculinity as their aspiration and model.

One illustration of this is located on LinkedIn.com (the business “social” media website).  While browsing through this website, one can observe the adjectives used to describe women who are managers and executives.  A great many of these descriptions assert that the woman is “strong” or “powerful”.  Why is this?  It is in order to claim that those women have just as much of this masculine trait as the men do.  Do the men’s profiles say this too?  No.  Few or none of them do.  The men’s profiles don’t need to say “I am like a man”.  But these members of the “weaker sex” want the world to believe that they are as strong as the “stronger sex”.

In 1917, Pope Benedict XV deplored the evil practice in modern society that women:

take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men; others abandoned the duties of the house-wife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into the current of life.[17]

One of the ways that feminism inherently promotes discontentment and envy is by causing women to desire that which for them is impossible, i.e., to be just like a male.  However hard they try, theirs will be a poor, failed-attempt to be male.  Theirs is the same unhappy path of discontentment trodden by a man who is “transgender” and is trying to convince himself that he is female – a change which is impossible and delusional.

In a section of this article above, we saw how modern feminists divide women from men by constantly emphasizing that men are opposed to them.  This feminist “gospel” of division also effectively makes women discontented because they continually hear that they are “oppressed”, “enslaved”, and that they are victims of men.[18]  Feminists tell women that they need emancipation from patriarchy[19] and even that patriarchy is a form of terrorism waged against them![20]

The women’s discontent and envy are an important goal for Satan, Marx, and the feminist leaders.  For if women are content and happy, they will not be “apostles” of rage, protesting, fighting for feminism and other satanic causes.  Instead, they will be suitable for God to mold into the members of the Catholic Church and into His friends and citizens of heaven.  But this is exactly the opposite of what Satan wishes.

Next month, we will examine how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the fifth point of Satan’s and Marx’s program by promoting hatred.

To be continued next month …


[1]          From Manfred Hauke, God or Goddess? Feminist Theology: What Is It? Where Does It Lead? (Ignatius Press, 1995), p.79, quoting convention speaker, Elizabeth Oakes Smith.

[2]          The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848 (emphasis added).

[3]          One of countless examples of feminist leaders referring to their “revolution”, is when Mary Daly declared: “Courage to be is the key to revelatory power of the feminist revolution.”  https://www.quotes.pub/q/courage-to-be-is-the-key-to-revelatory-power-of-the-feminist-205124 (italic emphasis added).

[4]          Manfred Hauke, God or Goddess? Feminist Theology: What Is It? Where Does It Lead? (Ignatius Press, 1995), p.57 (emphasis added).

[5]          Words of Mary Daly, found here: https://quotesguru.org/mary-daly-quotes/  (bracketed comment added to show context).

[6]         https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (bracketed words added to show context).

[7]          “Chauvinism” is the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior.

[8]          A misogynist is “one who hates or mistrusts women.

[9]          See, e.g., The Second Sex, by secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89 (bracketed word and a semicolon added for improved clarity).  Here is the longer quote:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery; [that] she is bound to her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

[10]          Simone de Beauvoir, interviewed by secular feminist, Betty Freidan, published in the Saturday Review, June 14, 1974, p. 18 (emphasis added).

[11]         Words of Kate Millett, found here: Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/patriarchy-quotes

[12]          Quote from Eagle Forum Founder, Phyllis Schlafly, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/q76bfbcd7f12c5e2bf6d9a15f7f8c1494

[13]          “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it”.  Ephesians, 5:25.

[14]
         As shown earlier in this multipart article, secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, sought to destroy the family by destroying the patriarch,
i.e., the man protecting his family.  Here is part of the chant she used to open their “women’s empowerment” meetings:

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By
destroying the American Patriarch,”

https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).

[15]         Here is one way religious feminist, Mary Daly, framed women’s fight against men and their patriarchy:

I urge you to sin.  But not against these itty-bitty religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism – or their secular derivatives, Marxism, Maoism, Freudianism and Jungianism – which are all derivatives of the big religion of patriarchy.  Sin against the infrastructure itself!

Quote from former nun and apostate Catholic, Mary Daly, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/q553ec7a243f69bb2f969cbd6bd5e3d1b

In Mary Daly’s call to sin, can anyone fail to notice the stench of Satan?

[16]          Egalitarianism is defined as “a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs.”

[17]         Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Natalis trecentesimi, (Woman in the Modern World), December, 27 1917 (bracketed word added to show the context).

 

[18]          Here is one way that secular feminist leader Simone De Beauvoir emphasized the downtrodden state of women:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery; [that] she is bound to her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89.

[19]         Here is how secular feminist leader, Kate Millett put it:

A sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women, who are the chief victims of patriarchy ….

Words of Kate Millett, found here: Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/patriarchy-quotes

[20]          Here is how the secular feminist bell hooks (who is a woman who employed the gimmick of spelling her name without initial capital letters) strung together a laughable series of adjectives to characterize men, including that they are terrorists:

Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “an imperialist, white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh.  No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny.  The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism.

Quote from bell hooks, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/qd1b9809d204b3a0926962163ecf22929 (emphasis added).