August 25, 2019

Gender Ideology Dictatorship

Its objective is to carry out social reengineering by means of Marxist deconstruction of culture and the destruction of the family. It uses the coercive power of governments to impose a subversive ethic that is contrary to the interests of the citizens. It is sponsored by the political power of international organizations and by the financial interests of the global environmental anti-natalist elite.

The propagators of the gender ideology are correct in affirming that it doesn’t exist. They are totally correct, since there is not as such, a systematization of this ideology. Rather, this current of thought is made up of a mixture of philosophies and power interests.

The jigsaw is made up of such disparate tendencies as illuminism, postmodernism, Freudian psychology, the evolutionism of Tylor, Morgan and Darwin (with all the derivations of that theory: indefinite progress, anti-creational naturalism, natural selection...), the existentialism of Sartre, the exponents of the Frankfurt school (Adorno, Habermas, From, Heilderberg), but especially Jacques Derrida- the father of deconstructionism-, Antonio Gramsci- father of cultural Marxism- and Friedrich Nietzsche- the father of nihilism-.

Gender ideology is powerful because it is promoted by large supranational organizations like the World Bank, the U.N. with all its specialised agencies, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization; by powerful world organizations like the Bilderberg Club, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, Skull and Bones, the Group of 333, Greenpeace; it is sponsored by the powerful anti-natal, ecological population control lobby and by powerful financiers like George Soros (Open Society Foundations), Rockefeller (Rockefeller Foundation), Jay Coleman (Deutsche Bank), Ted Turner (Turner Foundation) Jeffrey Siminoff (Morgan Stanley), Bill Gates (Gates Foundation), among others, besides an endless number of important transnationals.

The implementation of gender ideology is not the end but the means to facilitate the ultimate objective which is to carry out “social reengineering” which can open the way for the “new world order”, an order which is centralised, socialist and atheistic.

The “new ethic” must be universal, relativist, immanent and neo-pagan. To achieve this, society must become homogenised, where all creeds, principals and values are uprooted. This will be done by diluting consciences and standardising them with a unique materialist way of thinking. Therefore, the bases of the “new order”, devised towards the end of the 19th century, are ideologically subversive. The new order must be atheistic and antichristian, what is more, specifically anti-Catholic.

The powerful order of the Illuminati was inspired by this objective. The mason, John Robinson, quoting Adam Weishaupt writes: “The specific goal of the order of the enlightened ones is to abolish Christianity and overthrow civil governments”.

Friedrich Nietzsche declared that “God is dead”. And if God has died so has nature that was created by Him. There is nothing objective outside of us and therefore everything is formed by the will of each individual. It is no longer even the will to live of Schopenhauer, but the will to be able, of auto-affirming oneself, of prevailing. Nothing determines me, not God-who does not exist-, or nature, which is evolving; I decide who I am and nothing nor anybody can say what I am.

Simone de Beauvoir declared: “a woman is not born, she is made”, from where the role of the woman as a mother and wife (and her very nature) are nothing more than a social construction. And if the woman is made, man also makes himself. This is Marxism applied to a process of sexual deconstruction: biological sexes do not exist, only roles attributed by society, for this reason it is necessary to declare war on the family.

From Antonio Gramsci, the philosopher founder of the Italian communist party, they took the idea that the world Marxist revolution would never be realised until culture was subjected to a dialectical process, the principal element in “deconstructing” and substituting, and applying it at the same time.

Gramsci, Bernstein and Engels are no longer interested in bolshevism: one has to change the nature of man in order to “deconstruct” society and achieve an anthropological revolution without having to socialise the means of production. This will be done more easily later.

Deconstructing the social order is achieved, according to Gramsci’s thesis, by firstly injecting public opinion with the concept of “gender” which claims to establish that people are not identified by their masculine or feminine sex but by the free “option” to self-actualise sexually by means of a “preference” which may also be against their own sex. This is so because for Gramsci everything is an historic creation “cultural construction” and not nature. Therefore homosexuals and gender feminists promote the idea that the human being is born sexually neutral and later is socially constructed as man or woman. Following this idea, the experts at the UN proposed that such an idea be adapted in education and in the mass media so that children and young people could grow up without having cultural “sex-specific stereotypes” imposed on them.

The new paradigm consists of freeing oneself from all conditioning. Truth has died and the task is to recreate a new society after breaking up the old one. It is, without any doubt, the greatest cultural upheaval that has happened in history.

Deconstructing comes after constructing the archetype, affirming that the concept of “gender” implies class, and that class presupposes inequality. The goal is to arrive at a classless society (in this case of sexes), an objective which coincides with the ends of a Marxist revolution. And besides it has the same obstacle to fight: language, i.e. universally accepted concepts which presuppose biological and natural concepts. People must be convinced that their perceptions are merely social and cultural constructions.

Therefore it’s important to keep the following conclusions in mind:

1- Marriage is sexually differentiated and complementary by nature. Man and woman give a sense of union to the sexual libido and to all their individual faculties. The emotional, spiritual and psychological closeness of the spouses occurs when the extraordinary biological union between a man and woman takes place, who are united in matrimony. Man and woman are made to complement each other, with the goal of finding unity in complementarity, and complementarity in sexual difference. Conjugal love finds its greatest realisation and expression in procreation, and it is continued in the education and psychological and emotional stability offered to the children. The children find in their father and mother the security and support they need to develop their full potential.

2- Homosexuality is an acquired illness, a pathology that can be cured by means of adequate therapy, while accepting that some cases are hormonal in origin. Homosexual people need help, understanding, respect and Christian charity, not promotion, and those who deserve the total rejection of the population are the homosexualists, who want to impose homosexuality on our society as a life style choice. Homosexuals have the total right to live as they wish, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

3- Academics, writers, scientists, artists, leaders of public opinion and all those who are guided by reason, must not allow themselves to be controlled by intimidatory and subversive prejudices at the service of foreign economic interests, which lead to political slavery under the pretext of “liberation”. On the contrary, they should tirelessly expose the scientific evidence that they derive from the precious good of marriage and the family.

4- Citizens, in virtue of which marriage is publically and closely related with the common good, with a healthy and prosperous society, with a just and upright State, that doesn’t have to additionally tax its people because of the damage done to marriage and the family, should withdraw their vote, without any misgivings, from all those politicians who do not defend marriage and the family, and give it to those that do. Our present wellbeing is at stake, as is also the future of our children. The challenge is to stay outside this radical programme and its language, internalising and spreading the findings of science, of Christian ethics and its language. A very subtle but vital line separates the new world pagan and immanent ethics from Christian humanism driven by salvation in Christ.

In practise, this dividing line is no longer clearly seen, which is why it is necessary to:

1- Recover the Christian Faith and,

2- Disassociate it from the ambivalent programmes and concepts of the new world order.

To confuse what is specifically Christian with the new world ethics implies a double danger. In the first place, the new concepts tend to occupy the space that evangelisation should occupy. It is painful to state that many Christians advocate human rights, sustainable development, freedom to choose and the Millennium development goals, instead of preaching the concepts and values of the Gospel. Little by little they allow themselves to be seduced by secular values and finally lose their Christian identity.

Secondly, if Christian leaders use the concepts of the new ethics without making it explicitly clear what distinguishes them from the doctrine of the Gospel, believers will remain disoriented and not be able to tell the difference. The resulting confusion could lead imperceptibly to a progressive abandonment of the faith and apostasy.

This is one of the greatest challenges of Christianity, but one of which we must consciously become aware of with a lot of dedicated study. In the early centuries, opposition to Christianity came from the outside; martyrs shed their blood for Christ with tortures and torments.

Nowadays, the persecution is ideological, subtle, and silent, and for that reason, it is easier to succumb without realising it. Blood is not spilled physically, but there is a daily interior martyrdom in an effort not to assimilate the “modern” and “gender” language and not allow ourselves to be contaminated by the criteria, principals and anti-values of the new world ethics.

There is only one model of ethics that has withstood the test of centuries and cultures, and that is the integral Christian ethics. This will subsist when the ideological deconstruction of the false new age disappears and is lost in history. “Heaven and Earth will disappear, but my words will not disappear” Jesus promised.

The internal contradictions of the new world ethics are an alarm call to act quickly, with decision and without hesitation. It is necessary to deconstruct the new world ethics with decision and determination. This is the challenge which we are presented with today, a challenge which we must accept with firmness and conviction. From this seed will spring the new and unmistakeable civilisation of love.

In his discourse to the Roman curia in December 2012 Pope Benedict XVI had this to say: “According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a starting point of nature, which man must accept and personally fill with meaning, but a social role which is decided autonomously while up to now it was society that used to decide. The deep fallacy of this theory and the anthropological revolution underlying it is evident. Man denies having a pre-constituted nature through his corporeality, which characterises the human being. He denies his own nature and decides this has not been given to him as a pre-established fact, but rather it is he himself who must create it. According to the Biblical story of creation, being created by God as man and woman belongs to the essence of the human creature. This duality is essential for the human being, just as God has given it. It is precisely this duality as a starting point which is being challenged. What we read in the story of creation is no longer valid: «man and woman He created them » (Gen. 1, 27). No, they now say that it was not He who created them man and woman, but that it was society that has determined it up to now, and now it is we ourselves who must decide on this. Man and woman as a reality of creation, as the nature of the human person no longer exist. Man denies his own nature. Now he is only spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which today we deplore as regards the environment, becomes the background option of man regarding himself. At present, man only exists in abstract, and later chooses for himself autonomously, this thing or that to be his own nature. Men and women are denied their creational requirement of being forms of the human person that mutually fit together. Now, if the duality of man and woman doesn’t exist as a fact of creation, then neither does the family as a reality pre-established by creation. But, in this case, the children also lose the position that they occupied until now and the particular dignity that is proper to them. Bernheim shows that this, from a juridical subject in itself, now necessarily becomes the object, to which one has the right and as an object of a right, one can acquire. There where the freedom of doing becomes freedom to become oneself by oneself, one gets necessarily to deny the Creator Himself, and with that, to deny man as a creature of God, as the image of God, who is finally degraded in the essence of his being. In the fight for the family, man himself is at stake. And it becomes evident that when God is denied, the dignity of God is dissolved. He who defends God, defends man”.

Rate this item
(1 Vote)
Last modified on Friday, 02 November 2018 19:11
José Alberto Villasana Munguía

José Alberto Villasana Munguía is a Writer and analyst of political, economic and religious international affairs.

He studied Theology in the Gregorian University in Rome, Philosophy in the Angelicum University in Rome, Classical Humanities in the Centre for Higher Studies in Salamanca, Spain and International Communications in the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM), specialising in Eschatology since 1995.

He is Academic Adviser to the International Institute of Human Rights.

He is a director member of the Journalist’s Club of Mexico.

He is President of the pro life civil association “Life to be Born” (Vida para Nacer).

He has received the National Award for Journalism on three occasions in the categories of in-depth investigation.