With thanks to Non-Possumus and a supporter of the blog for a better than google translation!
The Dominicans of Avrillé just published an excellent
article about the destruction of the paternal role. It agrees much with the
statement made recently by HE Williamson.
A day does not pass, not even an hour, without us witnessing a very
serious and unthinkable facts against the father: delusional feminism,
procedures and persecutions against the fathers of family by means of revolting
wives (even among Catholics of Tradition!) etc .... These poor women do not
realise that their fatherless children will be the future slaves of the
republic. It is not a simple moral decadence linked to usury but the logical
product of the "revolution" organized by the Lodges. To each of us to
take the measure and fight against this evil machination.
The Revolution against the Father
Source: Website of the Dominicans of Avrillé
Fifty years ago, in 1969, Dr. Pierre Simon, a French pioneer
in the contraceptive pill, was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of
France. Ten years later, in 1979, having succeeded in legalising abortion, he
explained that it was only the beginning of the Masonic plan. The next step was
artificial insemination (now known as IVF: medically assisted procreation),
which would eliminate the father:
With the pill, one has
a normal sexual life without procreation; with artificial insemination,
procreation will take place without sexual act [...]. Sexuality will be
dissociated from procreation, and the procreation of paternity. It is the whole
family concept that is changing over here: the father is no longer the parent,
but the one who raises the child. [...] [There will be] on one side the
emotional and sexual couple - the procreative woman, the nonproductive man -;
on the other, the society, mediated by the doctor, which brings the demand for
children closer to an availability of anonymous seed, controlled and governed
by the "sperm bank" [...] [1].
At the time of writing, this shift is reaching its critical
point, as the French Parliament is preparing to legalize the "IVF for
all". Some children will not even have an adoptive father. What will the
consequences be ?
The Janissaries Syndrome
If educators have long observed the shortcomings of children
deprived of a father, Bernard Gibello found a striking type in the Janissaries
of the Ottoman Empire: snatched from their parents to be forcibly conscripted
into the Muslim army these unfortunates became fanatical warriors, compensating
for their need for a father by unconditional submission to the Turkish tyrant.
André Bergevin summarises and comments on the psychologist's analyses:
Character traits
presented by children without consistent paternal education were collected by
Gibello as Janissary Syndrome; indeed, these elite soldiers (often homosexuals)
had their peculiarities to have been taken away from their families (Christian)
and to have suffered, in a Muslim environment, a religious destabilization and
especially a conditioning making them replace the image of their real father,
by the abstract image of the Sultan in whose service they slavishly put their
aggressiveness.
[...] Similar
personalities were numerous among the Hitlerites. We can also remember that
Armand Maloumian who knew the Gulag from the inside, tells that in 1948, the
N.K.V.D. organized sexual orgies between deportees and those deportees hitherto
rigorously separated. Pregnant women were then told that they would be released
after one year to take care of their offspring. Obviously it was not, but their
children were confiscated by the Soviet state who raised them in specialized schools,
to make, mainly, policemen fully dedicated to the cause of their only
identifiable father: the Communist state. It is instructive to see how
authoritarian regimes, very varied, and at different times, have perfectly
exploited the domesticated and instrumentalised aggression of children without
father and without family.
Do those who now
demolish paternal authority want the authoritarianism that tomorrow may need
"Janissaries" to impose unpopular dictates? Is it a coincidence that
(in 1997) a senior officer of the Gendarmerie, in a study meeting,
spontaneously and curiously defined his new recruits as: "neither God, nor
father! ". The first part of the definition is commonplace in this
materialistic age, but the second can surprise those who do not know the work
of Gibello. [...]
Men so need a father to honour and follow, that if he is absent or simply fading away, and if God is ambiguous, they can fall back on the image of a state authority, and to be satisfied with this substitute, that with their peers, they will blindly serve the arms in the hand. Any decline of paternalism is a chance for centralized authoritarianism, that is to say, a chance for tyranny [2].
The revolutionary logic
In the Republican values of
France, this scenario gives rise to curious resonances. Was it not possible to
say that the Declaration of Human Rights was written for a citizen "a born
child found and dying unmarried" [3]? "By cutting off the head of
Louis XVI - Balzac added - the Republic cut off all fathers' heads." In
1792, Rabaut Saint-Etienne, president of the National Assembly, proclaimed that
the State must "seize man from the cradle, and even before his birth,
because the child who is not born belongs already to the Fatherland,
"while the Revolutionary Deputy Joseph Lequinio, anxious for universal
fraternity, proclaimed:" It would be happy for the human species, that all
the children do not know their father [6]. "
A devilish relentlessness
After the supernatural authority
of the Church, nothing can oppose the Revolution more than the natural
authority of the father of a family, precisely because it is natural, that is
to say, independent of the State. Like any totalitarian ideology, the
Revolution cannot support an authority prior to its own. For two hundred years,
under the pretext of "liberating", it has worked tirelessly to
isolate individuals, depriving them of all roots, all tradition, all
attachment, all human links and all natural protection against the almighty
state. As early as 1793, the future editor of the Civil Code proclaimed:
The imperious voice of reason
was heard. There is no more paternal power. One man cannot have direct powers
over another, even his son [7].
The Civil Code of Napoleon
In this methodical destruction
of the family, the responsibility of the Napoleonic Civil Code is
overwhelming. Bishop Delassus noted:
This code was made to destroy families, abolish heredity, destroy local
traditions and isolate individuals, annihilate and gradually destroy all
territorial and industrial influences for the benefit of anonymous and
cosmopolitan capital [...]. There is no more ‘our home’, legally at least, but
unstable families. The spirit and the text of the Civil Code are opposed to any
consolidation, to any perpetuation. It attaches to the family, the idea of a fleeting society which
dissolves at the death of one of the contracting parties.
To support his claims, the counterrevolutionary prelate quoted Frederic
Le Play lamenting "the lamentable spectacle of the perpetual liquidation forced
by the forced sharing of inheritances" and he stressed that this effect
was planned and explicitly desired. On June 6, 1806, Napoleon wrote to his
brother Joseph, who became King of Naples:
I want to have in Paris one hundred families, all having risen up with
the throne and remaining dependent on it. Those who do not go along with it
will be dispersed through the effect of the Civil Code. Establish this Civil
Code in Naples; all that is not attached to you will be destroyed in a few
years, and what you want to preserve will be consolidated [9].
This cynical plan came from
England. In the eighteenth century, Queen Anne imposed on the Catholic Irish
equal and forced division of the land, reserving to the Protestants the ability to test
according to English laws; the soil of Ireland thus passed inexorably into the
hands of Protestant lords.
From divorce to common law
The cynicism in the legalisation
of divorce. Officially, the Law of Alfred-Isaac Naquet (1881) only covered a
few extreme cases, particularly painful. But little by little, all the
restrictions disappear. While this law of 1881 still prohibited, in the event
of adultery, the marriage between accomplices, the prohibition is abolished in
1904; the delay before a new "marriage" is shortened in 1907 and
progressively everything is done to facilitate the procedure.
Is it a drift? Obviously no,
since Naquet will publish in 1908 a book very clearly entitled: Towards the
free union. But it was necessary to proceed in stages. Naquet confided to his
friend P. Abram:
To legitimise free unions, we need a change in our mentality. Because,
basically, marriage is rather imposed by our morals than by our laws ... But
one does not change the mentality of a nation by a decree or a law, especially
when this mentality is, like ours, also imbued with Catholic prejudices [10].
To "deconstruct" these
"prejudices", one must resort to trickery and lies. Slowly bit by bit,
solemnly assuring at each step that there is no question of going to the next
and marking, if necessary, a break long enough to forget the promise.
In 1884, in the Naquet law,
divorce was only an exceptional remedy, sanctioning a serious fault. As early
as 1886, the procedure is simplified. From 3,000 divorces in 1885 to 23,000 in
1938, 35,000 in 1950 and 110,000 in 1981. In the meantime, in 1975, divorce was
legalized by mutual consent.
From contraception to abortion
The same techniques of
manipulation to attack the unborn child.
In 1963, to promote
contraception, the French Movement for Family Planning (MFPF) presented it as
the cure for abortion, and, for the sake of the cause, warned against it:
It destroys a baby's life after it has begun. It is dangerous for your
life and your health. It can make you sterile.
Once contraception is
accepted, family planning "forgets" that it was supposed to block the
road to abortion, and begins to seek the legalization of it. In 1970, Dr. Elton
Kessel confesses to the Congress of the International Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF) in Tokyo:
If until now abortion has not been advocated by those responsible for
family planning, it is because it would have damaged the reputation of the
movement. Now that ideas are evolving, Family Planning can change tactics [11].
In parallel, to move public
opinion, it does not hesitate to rig the figures, multiplying by six the number
of clandestine abortions, and by forty that of women who died from abortion
[12].
Towards the fatherless child
The major manoeuvres for the
artificial manufacture of fatherless children began in the 1990s. As soon as
the IVF was obtained for infertile couples (1994), the campaign for homosexual
"couples" was launched.
On 3rd November 1998,
Élisabeth Guigou, Minister of Justice, defends in these terms the draft Civil
Solidarity Agreement (PACS) in the National Assembly:
The opponents of PACS claim that it would be dangerous for marriage.
[...] Some still add a threat: the agreement would be only a first step towards
the right to filiation for homosexual couples! Those who claim it involves only
themselves. [...] I say with the greatest firmness that this right should not
be confused with a hypothetical right to the child. A heterosexual or
homosexual couple has no right to have a child outside of natural procreation.
The recent laws on medically assisted procreation [...] are not intended to
allow procreation of convenience on the basis of a hypothetical right to the
child.
I am aware of the possible lawsuits on a possible "follow up"
of this bill that would prepare more fundamental changes to our law. This text
would be "a double-edged sword ". I resist with the greatest force
such suggestions.
This dishonest vocabulary, which suggests that this text would hide
something else and that your reporters and the Government would be acting fraudulently in respect to the law, is
unacceptable.
Fourteen years later, the same
Élisabeth Guigou explains that it was a ruse:
At the time, the important thing was to pass the PACS. There was fierce
resistance to PACS in the Assembly, but also in society with demonstrations, verbal
outbursts [...] So, the important thing
was to dissociate PACS from marriage, legally and symbolically. In 1998, it was
not possible to put the issue of same-sex marriage on the table, even within
the government, I had to insist. At the time it was something that was much
less accepted in society, you will not find anyone opposed to PACS nowadays.
Today, I have evolved on marriage. I
considered, while speaking with the associations that, since it was about
mutual consent between two adults, it was not possible to refuse an equality of
rights. Society has evolved a lot, I
keep my questions about adoption to myself; it is necessary to find out how to
write in the civil code how to organise the filiation of a child who is adopted
by a homo- couple.
In reality, the goal had been
clearly made known, as early as 1900, by the great pundits of the League (Masonic)
of Human Rights, who declared, at the World Fair in Paris:
Our group is a strong supporter of the integral education of the child
by the community, it does not recognize the usefulness of the protection of the
parents [...] our group is revolutionary socialist, consequently
internationalist anti-patriotic. In the family, we see the very beginning of
the clan, the province, the nation; in the paterfamilias, the beginning of the
chief, the lord, the king. [...] We want the autonomous personality in the
harmonic society. There is no need for the succession of intermediaries:
family, province, nation, between the individual and the community. The natural
family of the individual is humanity [13].
Behind this cry of hatred
against the human family, we easily recognise the revolt of the Prince of
selfishness: the demon, Lucifer. Locked in the sterility of his pride, which
can only bring forth lies, Satan cannot bear the thought of the God-Father, who
not only, from all eternity, gives His Divine Life to the eternal Word but who,
in addition, wanted to create men to raise them to this divine filiation, by
incorporating them into His only Son.
"The enemies against whom we have to fight are not beings of
flesh; it is the Principalities and the Powers of Hell, the leaders of the
world of darkness, the evil spirits scattered throughout the universe. Take the
weapons of God, to be able to withstand the hour of battle [...]. Above all,
have faith; it is the shield where the incendiary arrows of the Evil one will
be extinguished. [Eph 6]
[1] - Pierre Simon (1925-2008), Life before all things, Paris,
Mazarine, 1979, p. 221-222. Quoted by Christian Lagrave in Salt of the Earth
94, p. 103.
[2] - André Bergevin, Permissive Revolution and Sexuality, From
Tolerance as an Argument to Transgression as a Process, Pars, F. X. de Gibert,
2003, p. 366-367.
[3] - The formula is Ernest Renan, in the preface to his Contemporary
Questions (Paris, Lévy, 1868, III).
[4] - Do you know, my child, what are the most destructive effects of
the Revolution? You would never doubt it. In cutting off Louis XVI's head, the
Revolution cut off all fathers' heads. There is no family today, there are only
individuals (...). By proclaiming equal rights to paternal succession, they
killed the family spirit, they created the taxman! But they have prepared the
weakness of superiority and the blind force of the mass, the extinction of the
arts, the reign of personal interest (...). We are between two systems: to
constitute the State by the Family, or to constitute it by personal interest:
democracy or aristocracy, discussion or obedience, Catholicism or religious
indifference, that is the question in few words. Honoré de Balzac, The Human
Comedy, Scenes from Private Life, Memoirs of Two Young Brides (1840) (Complete
Works of H. de Balzac, Volume 2, A. Haussiaud, 1855, 45). - Same interpretation
of the Revolution by the feminist Élisabeth Badinter (One is the other, Paris,
Odile Jacob, 1986, pp. 192-198).
[5] - Jean-Paul Rabaut Saint-Étienne (1743-1793), member of the
Committee of public instruction of the Convention, speech to the Convention,
December 21, 1792.
[6] - Joseph Lequinio (1755-1812), Prejudices destroyed, chapter XV,
Bastards, Paris, Desenne, 1793, p. 160.
[7] - Jean-Jacques-Régis of Cambaceres (1753-1824), speech to the
Convention, August 9, 1793.
[8] - Bishop Henri Delassus, The Family Spirit in the House, in the
City and in the State, Desclée, Lille, 1910, p. 133-135. - See on this subject:
Jean Gasselin, "Mgr Delassus and the family spirit" in Salt of the
Earth 81, p. 23-28.
[9] - Quoted by Bishop Henri Delassus, ibid., P. 133.
[10] - Quoted by Paul Abram, The Evolution of Marriage (Paris, E.
Sansot, 1908, with preface by Léon Blum), p. 117. See also the other quotations
given by Christian Lagrave in Salt of the Earth 94, p. 96-97.
[11] - Quoted by Marie-Andrée Lagroua Weill-Hallé, Dad's Abortion,
Paris Fayard, 1971, ch. 1.
[12] - On the rigging of statistics by INED, in France, see Bel and
Lagrange, Plot against Life (SPF, 1979), and Jean Legrand's article in Routes
322 (April 1988), with INED response in Routes No. 327. - On the rigging of statistics
in the United States, see Dr. Nathanson's confession ("We falsified the
number of illegal abortions"), in Present of Saturday, November 23, 1985.
[13] - Lucien Brunswick (member of the Central Committee of the League
of Human Rights), speech at the feminist congress organized in Paris during the
World Expo of 1900 (5-8 September) with Ferdinand Buisson and René Viviani.
(International Congress of the Status and Rights of Women, Paris, 1901, pp.
388-389, quoted by Christian Lagrave in "Feminism versus the Family,"
Salt of the Earth 94, 94.)
