fox files

Sorry, but many people and sources have been telling you for over 30 years that the globalists want to reduce the population by over 90%. I can understand why, for a while, some thought we were crazy. Population reduction was being done quietly through abortion, vaccines to sterilize people in Third World countries, promoting the gay lifestyle that can only bear children through surrogates, and convincing people that bringing a child into this world is a sin.

For years, the Left have bemoaned the burden of overpopulation.

“It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.” Jacques Yves Cousteau

“Either we reduce the world’s population voluntarily or nature will do this for us, but brutally.”  Maurice Strong

We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse. Maurice Strong

The world’s population has more than tripled to seven billion since Ted Turner was born 73 years ago. He believes it must be stabilized at near two billion, or “we’re just going to have more and more catastrophes.” Ted Turner

“What we need to have for 100 years is a one-child policy …If everybody voluntarily had one child for 100 years, we’d basically be back to two billon people.” Ted Turner

“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” Maurice Strong

The biographer of billionaire investor and donor Warren Buffett describes him as having “a Malthusian dread” of population growth among the poor. In 1964 he set up an Omaha foundation centered on stopping that growth, both domestically and abroad, and to this day, the New York Times summarizes, “most of the foundation’s spending goes to abortion and contraception.”

Buffett’s charity, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, has contributed $1.5 billion to help fund the abortion industry in the U.S., making it the largest financial backer of abortion in the country. Between 2003-2018, Buffett’s foundation donated $565 million in support of “reproductive rights.” His first public undertaking came in 1952, when he initiated the convocation of the Conference on Population Problems, in Williamsburg, Va. The discussion took up food supply, industrial development, depletion of natural resources, and political instability resulting from unchecked population growth. The presence of medical doctors, chemists, geologists, economists, and other scientists gave serious weight and prominent attention to the emerging and unrecognized facts of demographic change.

Soon after this conference, Rockefeller established the Population Council. From philanthropic funds at his disposal, he provided $1 million within the first year of operations.

In 1952, Margaret Sanger said:

“If the millions of dollars which are now expended in the care and maintenance of those who in all kindness should never have been brought into this world were converted to a system of bonuses to unfit parents, paying them to refrain from further parenthood, and continuing to pay them while they controlled their procreative faculties, this would not only be a profitable investment, but the salvation of American civilization.

“I believe that now, immediately there should be national sterilisation for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”

And our government in the mid-1960s” when the U.S. Congress, responding to the agitation of overpopulation  ideologues, finally appropriated federal funds to underwrite first domestic and then foreign population control programs. Suddenly, instead of mere millions, there were hundreds of millions and eventually billions of dollars available to fund global campaigns of mass abortion and forced sterilization. The result would be human catastrophe on a worldwide scale.”

Now, besides using the COVID vaccine to sterilize people, the globalists are getting up-front about eugenics.

They actually have become comfortable saying they want to reduce the population and now we are seeing our food supply being shut down. Hmmm. Do you think there might be a connection? Food storage and production plants burning down. Farmland gobbled up by the global elites. Big portions of 5 states being made sterile so carbon (which is not deleterious to us or the land or the air) can be piped a thousand feet below the surface.

Some of us little people are up in arms over the promotion of electric vehicles (EVs) over “gas guzzlers”. Could it be that the intention is that the rich will be the only ones who can afford to purchase them. Under Agenda 21 nobody but the rich are supposed to be left on this earth to want to purchase them.

When you see something that doesn’t add up, guess what? It probably doesn’t in the real-world, but it certainly will in the Agenda 21/Sustainable Development world. As Richard Gardener’s 1974 article, “The Hard Road to World Order”, notes “In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’, to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” And that is exactly what we are seeing in our schools, in movies and television, even in governing bodies. There it is, in black and white, stated almost 50 years ago, now in full bloom. And using asymmetrical warfare – nary a shot fired – yet.

This has been the plan in the making for over 100 years. Those behind it have had pretty much free rein for most of that time. Oh, yes, we have had victories over the years, but in the scheme of things, they are but blips. I’ll drop my snark and quit bemoaning the fact that too many felt more comfortable being conned – it was easier.

It is time to get to work, to get the silent majority speaking out, building freedom pods, organizing their neighbors to be a bulwark against the aggression that will soon be upon them. Our civilization can only survive if we stand up en masse and in time. We are doing just that. And achieving great victories, but, so far, our victories are few compared to the Left’s. Please don’t wait until the food runs out before you speak out. The seeds of Agenda 21 were spread beginning at the end of the 19^th Century, sown in 1976 in the Vancouver Declaration, birthed in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, and has gone through early childhood, and adolescence with the Millennial Goals, Goals 2020, and is maturing with the Green New Deal and the Great Reset. We didn’t nip it in the bud, but we need to take its head off now before it is too late.

Get organized and stand up for what is right.

Let’s hear the lion roar.

What’s so great about the rainbow? Many things, it turns out, provided you get it right. And what’s so great about pride? Not much.

“Pride Month”—the entire month of June—is now barely in the rearview mirror, with “LGBT History Month” not so far away. This means that for two entire months every year, we are compelled to glorify what Pope St. Gregory the Great called “the queen of sin”—specifically, in this case, pride in a sexual orientation that is “objectively disordered” and inclines people to “acts of grave depravity” (CCC 2357). Pride, too, is intrinsically disordered; it is a capital sin that “seeks attention and honor and sets oneself in competition with God,” disordering and damaging our relationship with our Creator and Sustainer.

Pride’s antidote, humility, leads the Christian to acknowledging God as the author of all good. It is, in a sense, the acceptance of reality—that God is good, and truth is good. And the truth is that God created the universe according to certain rules and laws. He created humans to obey certain rules and laws—not just arbitrarily, but for our own flourishing and ultimately for heaven.

In being given this gift of flourishing, we do best when we recognize where we have failed and our fallen state, which is where our failures ultimately come from. This recognition is foundational to a life of poverty of spirit. It is not the imposition of a “vengeful, bearded Sky Daddy bent on eternal damnation for anyone struggling with [insert sin of choice here].” Rather, it is grounded in objective morality, based on our nature as humans.

To attempt to circumvent, disobey, or override the moral laws of God betrays a refusal, an anti-fiat toward him who created us, exemplifying pride in our ability to say “no thanks” to God and pursue a course that suits our own subjective sense of morality. We set ourselves above God this way.

That certainly does not sound like something to celebrate or take lightly.

But now we are to take the sin of sexual immorality lightly—with parades, drag shows, story hours, store discounts, fundraisers, colorful merchandise, and more . . . all pointing to a refusal of God’s laws, and a proud refusal at that.

The revelers may say, “That’s not the type of ‘pride’ we’re advocating for. It’s about being unapologetic about who we are and how we love ourselves and others!” Yet it is one thing to love ourselves for who we are, accepting how God created us, and bearing daily the crosses that come from our individual proclivities to sin. This is the path to holiness. It is something else entirely that “Pride” advocates promote. These advocates want us to celebrate not the heroic efforts of the people who experience non-heterosexual attractions and are doing their level best to live in accordance with God’s law, but the sin itself, which is as disordered as celebrating any other sin.

The “I’m okay, you’re okay, we’re all okay” mentality is patently false. God made each of us in his image and likeness, but we are not he. We are all broken and sinful, able only to reflect the good that God authored and is. God gave us sexual love—the parameters of which, far from being arbitrary, are set up for our flourishing. This love is a beautiful and fruitful thing. But sexual activity removed from that life-giving context becomes disordered. We can’t expect true happiness from these disordered activities—regardless of the fleeting biological or emotional satisfaction they may provide, regardless of how the culture pushes them—any more than we can expect happiness from eating thumbtacks. Some things are just really good for us, given our nature, and some things are really bad. Not even God can change that.

Rather than justify and celebrate behaviors and desires that go against God’s plans for us, we ought to be apologetic. Each of us has turned away from God. As the Confiteor goes: “I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do.” That is what makes the sacrament of reconciliation such a stunning act of love: God fully restores us to himself. He is the only one who can. None of our own attempts comes close.

This can be seen in one of the central emblems of the “Pride” movement: the rainbow. Biblically, the rainbow denotes God’s covenant with us—his promise that he will never again destroy creation with a great flood. He hung up his bow in the sky to show us that his “weapon” has been put to rest; he is at peace with us. God’s rainbow, too, signifies perfection: six days of creation and a seventh of rest. On the other hand, the colors in the “Pride” rainbow, as it stood for years, prior to its redesign in 2021, numbered only six—the “number of man,” a symbol of humanity’s attempts to create and work as God, but ultimately and always falling short of his perfection.

In the book of Joshua, we see man doing his own work, marching around the walls of Jericho for six days. Ultimately, it is the glory of God that makes those walls fall . . . on the seventh day (Joshua 6:1-20). In Genesis, we read that God worked for six days and rested on the seventh, blessing this seventh day and making it holy. As for us, we may labor and do all our work during the first six days of the week, but the day afterward is to be kept separate and holy—not through any effort on our own, but because of the Lord’s command (Exod. 8:8-10). On the sixth day, too, Jesus was crucified and buried. What terrible work of man in nailing the Creator of the universe to a cross! But even in man’s worst work, God was not defeated. Rather, he brought something infinitely more beautiful from it.

This is a word of caution to those who work to change God’s designs for human sexuality. As with all other attempts to effect change that isn’t in his plans, these, too, will ultimately fail.

Industries/Companies that are Scams (or close enough) Sometimes I feel every company is a scam. But I’ll just give you the best examples I can think of. 1.] Uber/Lyft For more than a decade, every Uber ride was partially subsidized by venture capitalists who invested in Uber. Uber kept losing money because the VCs were allowing them to charge little for a ride while paying the drivers a healthy amount. Then the VCs decided that they wanted their money and profits out of the company. So they sold the company to the “dumb money” (VCs are considered “smart money”).Who is the dumb money? We are. Uber went “public”, i.e. anyone in the public can now buy shares of Uber. We are the dumb money. The result: Uber has no plans to make a profit. The only way to make a profit is to pay drivers less (which won’t happen) or charge more for rides (won’t happen).Many VC-funded companies are like this. Example: WeWork. The VCs acted shocked when it turned out WeWork was just a landlord of office space. They are not stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing. 2.] The stock market There are some very good companies on the stock market. But most are scams (see example above). The main reason private companies go public is so that the investors who were funding it at much cheaper valuations can dump their shares to 401k plans and IRAs. They know the companies are too expensive and they are eager to get rid of their shares so they take the companies public. When a company has an IPO, six months after the IPO the “lockup period” ends. This means that private shareholders can now sell. The stocks almost always sell off then. Why are the early investors so eager to sell the shares of companies they supposedly believe in? 3.] Banks (Stock market part II) FASB 157 was a law put in place in 2007 which forced banks to start taking losses if loans they made were 90 days in default or more (I am simplifying). Overnight, almost all banks collapsed (starting with Lehman Brothers). In 2009, this law was revoked, giving the banks discretion again (aka, they can just use their imaginations) about when to take losses. What other industries are allowed to determine their own losses? The market started to rise then as people would rather be permanently fooled than know the reality. To this day, banks “mark-to-fantasy” the loans on their books. While this seems like a pessimistic view I also don’t mind that they do this because I like to see the stock market go up. A rising stock market means innovation gets funded and the few companies that are good and creative get to exist and thrive.

4.] Stock market part III We usually think the stock market goes up because all the companies are good and the economy is good. This is not really the case. Maybe it is true in the long run but not in the short run. In March 2020, the Federal Reserve began increasing the money supply to avoid a depression driven by Covid. They printed about 40% more money into the economy. The stock market also went up about 40%. Without an increase in money supply, the market would be even or down even without Covid. 5.] The music industry Why is it that the 100 best musicians in the world every week (as ranked by Billboard) are strikingly beautiful or handsome? No ugly people practiced the guitar ever? Also, a few production companies produce basically every hit in the Billboard Top 100 (see the book “The Hit Factory”). Katy Perry, Britney Spears, and every pop artist for the past 2 or 3 decades have basically used the same formula to create hits. And if a singer can’t sing, then no problem. Auto-tune. 6.] Education With $1.5 trillion in student loan debt and rising defaults, someone’s been scammed. 7.] Therapy I do think some therapy can be useful but used with extreme caution however. But what other medical profession is set up so you NEVER stop seeing the doctor (unless you have a terminal illness.) 8.] What industries are not scams? For the most parts: plumbers, electricians, vocational jobs, etc. I know this all seems cynical but in every industry, 5% is good and 95% is awful. Think of doctors. There’s a world of difference between a good one and a bad one.

So I have a question. If you believe in moral relativism, how can you judge me to be a terrible person? For those that read my regular rants you may be wondering, where does this come from? Let me explain.

As we continue to listen to the cultural rot pervading our entire society, there is an incredibly focused and concerted effort to shame anyone that disagrees with anything that is leftest. If you think having a penis makes you a boy you are hateful. If you think a traditional nuclear family is best for raising children you must be a monster. If you disagree with murdering unborn babies then you dislike women. And on and on.

The shaming takes place on many levels, banning on social media, people you thought were your friends ostracizing you (that may be a good thing), and (for those in the public eye) an endless parade of media coverage regarding your “transgressions”. The shaming works and most people have simply backed down from taking any stand or any traditional morality no matter how deviant the other side is behaving.

Here’s the problem, if someone is going to shame me then that would mean that they are suggesting I did something wrong… something I should be ashamed of. How is it that people promoting deviant and absurd behavior have the audacity to tell me I should feel bad or am acting immoral? Certainly in a free nation people should have the right to behave as they choose but that is not what they are saying, rather, people with traditional values are being told that they should be ashamed of their prehistoric views. How can you tell me I should be ashamed of my beliefs while at the same time telling me that there is no right and wrong? … All while you’re telling me all morality is relative.

Today I literally read a legitimate news article from a mainstream publication about a grown adult that wears diapers and sucks a pacifier because she “identifies” as a baby. Seriously. It is absolutely this person’s right to pretend she is a baby but I am certain I would be told I am a hateful monster for stating the obvious – she needs mental help.

The problem we are facing is that the group of people that seem to have an issue with traditional values believe that traditional values are irrelevant because morality is relative. This is where their logic fails because if they believe morality to be relative then they do not have the right to judge mine. The relativist must accept my morality, and everyone else’s, because for them there can be no right or wrong.

This also leads to another issue. For the moral relativist/anti-judgement crowd that want us to accept every deviant behavior as “your truth”, there are unintended consequences. Ask your favorite ignorant (and probably leftist) relativist when racism or sexism are okay. Ask them when Hitler’s behavior or child rape are okay. Unless they are mentally disturbed the answer is never but if they are truly a relativist they have to accept the individual’s truth even if the individual really likes racism.

Let me lay this out.

1. For moral relativism to be true then there can be ZERO universal rights and wrongs. This would include discrimination, hate crimes, rape, murder, slavery, genocide, etc. If you believe that these things are ever okay please seek mental help immediately.
2. If ANYTHING is right or wrong then there are morals, and thus moral relativism is a fallacy. This means that if you believe it is “not right” for a person to be “unkind” then you do NOT believe in moral relativism so we should move on to the question of what IS right and what is wrong.
3. I refuse to be shamed over the fact that you disagree with me about what is right or wrong. My faith dictates what I believe to be right or wrong and who are you to suggest that MY faith should take a back seat to YOUR faith or beliefs? In this free country where you, a misguided relativist, believes I should accept your absurd behavior because it is based on “your truth” you have ZERO right to suggest my beliefs are wrong or something to be ashamed of.

Bottom line: if those of us with core values are expected to TOLERATE (not approve of because that will not happen) absurd behaviors, then we ABSOLUTELY and unequivocally have the right to refuse to negotiate about our faith or disapproval of your behavior. You have the freedom to act but we have the freedom to disagree with your actions.

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

And then weak men create hard times.

Woke National Teachers Union Agenda Includes Mandatory Masks, Vaccines and Banning the Words Mother and Father

Here’s an astute observation in the wake of the anti-gun uproar of the last month or so.

Possibly you’re old enough to remember the great massacre spree of 1964? Classrooms shot up, strip malls decimated, Scout troops blown away, fast foot restaurants turned into mortuaries.

And all because, in its infinite stupidity, the U.S. Government dumped 240,000 high-capacity .30-caliber assault rifles into an otherwise innocent America.

Remember when that happened? No? Me neither, despite being a historian. That’s because it didn’t happen, despite hundreds of thousands of M-1 Carbines being dumped on an unsuspecting public in 1963 for less than a hundred bucks apiece. NRA members could buy them for a 20-dollar bill. No background check either.

You could even have them shipped right to your door, complete with a “high capacity” 15-round magazine. Ultra-high catastrophic murder capacity 30-round mags were also available for little or nothing. .30 Carbine ammo was cheap and widely available. I’ll bet some of those bullet casings even had a shark’s mouth painted on it to make it extra scary and more able to blow lungs out of the body.

Correctly noted is that the M-1 Carbine was essentially America’s first ‘assault rifle.’ It didn’t have all the features of the M-16, but it filled that role when the US military was still trying to field a battle rifle, resulting in the less than successful M-14. The walnut stock doesn’t make gun controllers lose bladder control like Eugene Stoner’s rifle, but since that has no effect on the gun’s performance, the Carbine did just fine, thanks.

The point is that capable, concealable, inexpensive rifles were widely available in 1964 had anyone decided to shoot up schools, grocery stores, parks, or whatever. They came with 15 or 30-round detachable mags that could be changed quickly. Some had a dreaded folding stock. The ammo was light but effective. A shooter could easily carry hundreds of rounds on his person. But no one did that.  The M-1, M-1A1, and M-2 Carbines had everything a mass murderer could want. But no one took advantage of them. It’s almost like something different drives murderers these days.  Why not? After all, we’re told that it’s easier to buy a gun than to vote. And that if guns weren’t so easy to get, bad people wouldn’t do bad things. Yet, guns were far easier to buy in 1964 than they are today. There were no background checks of any kind. The mailman would drop it at your door if you wanted. No questions asked. You could literally buy guns at gas stations. I know, because I personally purchased one at a gas station in the 1970s.

There were no background checks of any kind in 1964.

In fact when I was in High School 1964 through 1968, there were school shooting clubs.

The guys would bring to high school their rifles hung on the back of their beater single cab pickup trucks as well as their pistols in order to work on them in machine shop while their buddies in leather shop were making them holsters and rifle cases.

We even had a shooting gallery right in the hallways after school with them set up using ballistic backstops.  No one EVER shot the walls, floors, ceilings or anyone else for that matter.

Does all of that mean there were no bad people around in 1964? Doubtful. But maybe, just maybe, people are bad in a different way now. Could it possibly be true that something other than access to firearms could be driving these twisted individuals to kill innocent people? Even children? Gun owners are often pilloried in the media for not offering solutions to these horrific trends. But what have the gun controllers offered? Ban “assault weapons.” Ban “high capacity” magazines. Tax ammunition. Ban all the guns. Run a microscope up your ass and wait 30 days before allowing the sale. That’s literally all they have.

But 1964 exposes the lie. This is a relatively recent trend. There are multiple causative factors at work here. For instance, those of us who pay attention are aware of what some medications do to people susceptible to their side effects. I witnessed firsthand the complete loss of inhibition in a close friend. The consequences were ugly. Does that mean that medications are solely responsible? No, but I’d bet everything I own that some of them are part of the puzzle. Not to mention how quickly they’re pumped into kids at the first sign of the latest trendy diagnosis.

One thing that didn’t exist in 1964: psychotropic medications for teenagers.

There are many possibilities and I’m not qualified to address most of them in detail. But we have a pretty good idea what they might be. How about the crippling lack of a strong father figure in the lives of many young men? Think that just might have something to do with it?

I could go on, but you get the point. I don’t hear a peep about that stuff from the gun controllers. Just watch their heads explode when a pro-gun advocate dares to bring up mental health or the destruction of the nuclear family. But it’s just more proof that the operative word in gun control is “control.”

And you can’t tell liberals any of this because they will blow their stacks and lose their minds and heads will begin exploding from the facts.  But I digress.

So in closing I will part with this.

Either Peyton Gendron [Buffalo] or Salvador Ramos [Uvalde] could have employed it to the same results. So, in 1964, the guns were there— lots of them, everywhere, dirt cheap. But Gendron and Ramos were not. We must look elsewhere for the reason why.

https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/self-spreading-vaccines-scientists-are-creating-vaccines-that-spread-like-a-disease?_kx=SwY-W9jaBdZlVw3p_bes2dp7kTfXujA2YGAAFEym7Gw%3D.NNdpPE

The image of fatherhood has been under attack for several generations now. This is cause for alarm, because when we reject “Father,” we reject God.

When my wife gave birth to our first child, a girl, my world changed. Present for the labor and delivery as well as physically cutting the unbiblical cord, as I eventually did with all three, I witnessed what can only be described as a miracle, however commonplace. A new person, body and soul came into the world and the world changed. It was as I later stated, “as if the universe was pushed six inches sideways.”

We began the stressful routine of round-the-clock crying, diaper changes, and feedings. In time, as sleep deprivation set in, Mom and Dad needed a break. Arrangements were made to leave the baby with Grandma. We went to a party given by an acquaintance. Though not married, the host was expecting a baby, a decision she told us was “thought through very carefully.” She had no intention of marrying or changing her “lifestyle,” but the relentless ticking of her biological clock couldn’t be ignored. She wanted children.

I tried to disabuse her of romantic notions about baby care. “One person really can’t do everything,” I warned. “What about the baby’s father?”

She fixed me with a determined look and laughed. “A child doesn’t need a father!”

I felt as though I had been kicked in the stomach. Intentional or not, it was a shot at me personally—just a single shot in a war waging against fathers.

In the last fifty years, fatherhood has been under attack. The father has been redefined from the biblical figure of compassion and justice at the center of the family to a frivolous and expendable shadow. Television portrays fathers as self-righteous autocrats in dramas and ineffective buffoons in sitcoms. The father who is too dull-witted to do laundry or change a diaper is a staple in advertising, raised to the level of a cultural icon, a touchstone immediately understood and recognized.

When fatherhood is devalued, what reason does a young man have to rearrange his life, curtail his freedom, and shoulder a burdensome responsibility? Begetting is easy, raising a child is hard; yet sex is glorified, fathering devalued.

Ironically, society has reached this conclusion at the same moment that research has pointed to the opposite. Since the 1950s, psychology has produced studies that confirm the father’s role. Writing in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Drs. Constance Ahrons and Richard Miller state, “Frequent contact with the father is associated with positive adjustment of the children.” James Dudley, a research professor at the University of North Carolina, notes that “fathers have much to offer their adolescent children in many areas, including their career development, moral development, and sex role identification.”

In fact, the positive effects fathers have on their children are most easily seen by looking at cases where fathers are absent:

• 85 percent of all children with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
• 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
• 75 percent of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
• 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
• 85 percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes.
• 70 percent of those serving long prison sentences were fatherless.
• Fatherless children average significantly higher in teen suicide, illegitimate birthrates, incarceration, and unemployment.
• Fatherless children average significantly higher in illegitimate birthrates.
• Fatherless children average significantly higher in incarceration rates.
• Fatherless children average significantly higher in unemployment rates.
• Fatherless young men are more likely to commit serious crime, including rape and murder.

Perhaps it is in recognition of these consequences that the Old Covenant ends with a warning: if we don’t turn “the hearts of fathers toward their children and the hearts of children toward their fathers,” Yahweh will “strike the land with a curse” (Mal. 3:24). Our conclusion must be that fathers are not expendable, but absolutely necessary to the developing human person.

Then whence arise the attacks, denigrations, and dismissals of fathers? As Christians, we need to apply the biblical principle: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16–20). The results of this war on fatherhood is the destruction of souls. There is something diabolical in it. Paul warns us that it “is not against human enemies that we have to struggle, but against principalities and powers who bring darkness to this world” (Eph 6:12). There is no mistaking the spiritual dimension of this attack, but it is only a reflection of a greater war, a war against the fatherhood of God.

The Catholic Church always has taught that God has no sex. The Catechism puts it in the clearest terms: “In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband” (370).

All the same, today, many feminist theologians are waging a battle against the “image” of God as Father. They wish to “depatriarchalize” the God of Scripture. In their critiques, the Father image is wedded to complaints of sexism in the Church. One such writer, Mary Daly, puts the complaint in a nutshell: “If God is male, then male is God.” This formula gets right to the marrow of the feminist’s bone of contention. Images of God as Father, they argue, imprint God with an indelible “maleness” that elevates males to some divine status unavailable to females. To correct this perceived problem, much ink has been spilled in recovering the latent feminine images of God in Scripture.

The measure of a metaphor is its usefulness, derived from what one already believes—hence the feminist call for images of God which “match our experience.” Once untethered from revelation, imaging God is an open market. But God’s Fatherhood is not a mere image. It is a transcendent truth.

Jesus himself often refers to God as “my Father.” This is not an exclusive relationship between Jesus and God, but one that God extends to all his people. In fact, this fatherhood is primary, the rule by which all other fatherly relationships are measured. Paul writes, “I pray, kneeling before the Father, from which every paternity, whether spiritual or natural, takes its name” (Eph. 3:14-15). God alone is the real Father. All other fathers are reflections or distortions.

“Father” describes a relationship. It denotes two parties joined together in a familial bond. As Thomas Aquinas notes, “The name ‘Father’ signifies relation” (ST I:33:2:1). Moreover it is a relationship which is chosen by God. He invites us to “call out to me saying, ‘My Father, my God.’” (Ps. 89:26).

Those who have suffered from their own fathers need this good news. Instead of being excused from accepting God as Father, they need to be strengthened and encouraged to enter into a healing relationship with their one true Father. For those who have been abused or abandoned by their human fathers, the image of a heavenly Father may be an obstacle, but overcoming the obstacle will bring God’s great gift for us. Because “Father” is more than image. It is the way God has chosen for us to be bound to him in love.

The name by which Jesus lays bare the nature of God is “Abba” (“Daddy” or “Father”). Jesus used it consistently. He taught it to his disciples. And we affirm it every time we say the prayer he gave us; “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” To hallow God’s name is to bless it. The name we bless is “Father.” When Jesus speaks God’s true name, he does not “free us to use whatever metaphor best expresses our confidence in God.” He frees us from picking and choosing among competing images that necessarily fall short. He reveals God in his essence.

Aquinas tells us that a name is given to that which “perfectly contains its whole signification, before it is applied to that which only partially contains it; for the latter bears the name by reason of a kind of similitude to that which answers perfectly to the signification of the name” (ST I:33:3). God is the only one who contains and fulfills all that the name “Father” signifies. This is why Jesus warns us, “Call no man father” (Matt. 23:9). To put other fathers before God, the true Father, is a form of idolatry. Earthly fathers are worthy of the name only when, by his grace, they reflect the true fatherhood of God.

It cannot be said too plainly. When we reject “Father,” we reject God.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-20-controlled-demolition-of-food-and-energy-infrastructure.html