Children are the prize to the winners of the cultural war. Those who control what young people are taught and what they experience will determine the future course for our nation. The predominant value system of an entire culture can be overhauled by those with unlimited access to children. Homosexual activists understand very clearly how important children are to their cause.
“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, …wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. …We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed…”
Since the 1960s, a variety of anti-traditional movements, including modern feminism, sexual liberation, and gay rights, have risen to prominence in the West. The institution of the family has been hit the hardest. In the United States, the Family Law Reform Act of 1969 gave a green light to unilateral divorce. Other countries soon rolled out similar laws.
In the United States, the ratio of divorces to marriages more than doubled from the 1960s to the 1980s. In the 1950s, about 11 percent of the children born in a married family saw their parents divorce, and in 1970, the ratio soared to 50 percent.  According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 40 percent of newborn infants in the United States in 2016 were born out of wedlock. In 1956, this figure was less than 5 percent. 
In traditional societies in the East and in the West, chastity in relations between men and women was seen as a virtue. Today, it’s thought to be quaint and even ridiculous. The same-sex marriage movement, accompanied by the feminist movement, has sought to redefine family and marriage. A law professor who is currently a member of the U.S. Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a declaration in 2006 called “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships.” It advocated that people form any sort of new family, according to whatever desires they may have (including polygamous marriages, joint homosexual-couple families, and so on). The professor also argued that traditional marriage and family should not enjoy more legal rights than any other form of “family.” 
In public schools, premarital sex and homosexuality, which were regarded as shameful for thousands of years in traditional societies, have not only been instilled as normal but in some schools, they are even tacitly or explicitly encouraged. In this view, a child’s sexual orientation should be freely developed and chosen, with the obvious result of an increase in homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and so on. For example, in 2012, the Rhode Island School District banned a school’s tradition of holding father-daughter dances and mother-son baseball games — activities that implicitly endorsed traditional gender roles, of girls enjoying dancing and boys enjoying baseball — saying that public schools have no right to instill in children ideas such as that girls like to dance or that boys like baseball.
The trend toward the gradual destruction of the traditional family is now obvious. The elimination of the family advocated by communism will become a reality before the long-promised elimination of class differences.
In Western societies, there are many aspects to the destruction of the family. This includes the impact not only of feminism, sexual liberation, and the homosexual movement, but also the broader social backdrop of left-wing advocacy, progressivism, and the like, all of which are claimed to be under the banners of “freedom,” “fairness,” “rights,” and “liberation.” These ideas are buttressed explicitly and implicitly by-laws, legal interpretations, and economic policies supported by fellow ideologues. All of it has the effect of inducing people to abandon and transform the concept of traditional marriage and family.
These ideologies originate from the beginning of the 19th century and are deeply infused with communist factors. The evil specter of communism excels at continuous mutation and deception, which has led to constant confusion about what exactly people are supporting when they endorse these policies and ideologies. The result is immersion in a worldview whose parameters were set by communist ideas. The tragic situation today—the degradation of the traditional family and people’s confusion about the true nature of this trend—is the result of the meticulous planning and gradual implementation of the spirit of communism over the past two hundred years.
The consequence is that not only is the family eliminated as a basic unit of social stability, but traditional morality established by God is also destroyed, and the role the family plays in passing on and nurturing the next generation in a framework of traditional beliefs is also lost. Thus, the younger generation is unconstrained by traditional ideas and beliefs, and become playthings for ideological possession by the communist specter.
1. The Traditional Family Laid Down by God
In the traditional cultures of the East and the West, marriage was established by gods and is considered to be arranged by Heaven. Once formed, the bond of marriage cannot be broken. Both men and women were created by gods, in the image of gods, and they are all equal before gods. At the same time, gods also made men and women different physically, and established respective roles for them. In Western tradition, women are the bone of men’s bones and flesh of their flesh.  A man must love his wife as though she were part of his own body, and if necessary, sacrifice himself to protect his wife.
In turn, a woman should cooperate with and help her husband, making the couple an integral whole. Men are responsible for working hard and making a living to support the family, while women suffer in childbirth. All this stems from the different original sins people carry.
Similarly, in Eastern traditional culture, men are associated with the yang of yin and yang, which is symbolically connected with the sun and the sky. This requires them to continuously strive to make progress and shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the family through hard times. Women belong to the yin principle, symbolically connected to the earth, which means they bear and nurture everything with great virtue. They should be yielding and considerate of others, and they have the duty to support their husbands and educate their children. Only when men and women work well in their own roles can the yin and the yang be harmonized and children grow and develop in a healthy manner.
Traditional families play the role of transmitting beliefs and morality and maintaining the stability of society. The family is the cradle of belief and the bond for the transmission of values. Parents are the first teachers in children’s lives. If children can learn traditional virtues such as selflessness, humility, gratitude, endurance, and more from their parents’ words and deeds, they will benefit for the rest of their lives.
Traditional married life also helps men and women grow together in morality. It requires husbands and wives to treat their emotions and desires with a new attitude and to be considerate and tolerant of each other. This is fundamentally different from the idea of cohabitation. Human emotions are fickle. If the couple is together because they like to be together and break up because they don’t like it anymore, the relationship is not much different from a common friendship unbounded by marriage. Marx ultimately hoped for widespread “unconstrained sexual intercourse,”  which of course is about dissolving the traditional marriage and thus, in the end, eliminating the institution of the family.
2. Communism’s Aim to Eliminate the Family
Communism believes that a family is a form of private ownership. To eliminate private ownership, therefore, it follows that the family should also be eliminated. The original principle of communism regards economic factors to be key in determining the kind of family relationships formed. Contemporary Marxian-Freudianism regards sexual desire as the key to questions associated with the family. The common characteristic of these two ideologies is their casting aside of basic human morality, their worship of materialism, desire, and pragmatic interests. All of this simply turns humans into beasts. It is a twisted ideology that has the effect of destroying the family by corrupting thought.
The fantastic delusion that sits at the heart of communism is the doctrine of the liberation of mankind. This manifests not merely as supposed liberation in an economic sense, but also the liberation of mankind itself. The opposite of liberation, of course, is oppression. So where does the oppression that must be resisted come from? Communism’s answer is that the oppression comes from people’s own notions, which are imposed by traditional social morality: The patriarchy of the traditional family structure oppresses women; traditional sexual morality oppressed human nature, and so on.
The feminism and homosexual rights movements of later generations inherited and then expanded upon this communist-inspired theory of liberation. It leads to a full battery of concepts in opposition to traditional marriage and family, as well as sexual liberation, homosexuality, and the like. All of these ideas have become tools used by the devil to undermine and destroy the family. Communism sets itself against and wishes to overthrow all traditional moral values, as clearly stated in The Communist Manifesto.
3. Communism’s Promotion of Promiscuity
The communist evil specter sets itself against the traditional family, which it wants to destroy. Early in the 19th century, Robert Owen, a representative of utopian socialism, sowed the seeds of the devil’s ideology. An ideological pioneer, Owen established the utopian community New Harmony in Indiana in 1824. (It failed two years later.) On the day the community was established, he declared:
I now declare, to you and to the world, that Man, up to this hour, has been, in all parts of the earth, a slave to a Trinity of the most monstrous evils that could be combined to inflict mental and physical evil upon his whole race. I refer to private, or individual property—absurd and irrational systems of religion—and marriage, founded on the individual property combined with someone of these irrational systems of religion. 
After Owen died, another influential utopian communist was the Frenchmen Charles Fourier, whose thoughts deeply influenced Marx and Marxists. After Fourier’s death, his disciples brought his thoughts into the Revolution of 1848 and the Paris Commune and later spread them to the United States. Fourier first coined the term “feminism” (“féminisme” in French).
In his ideal communist society (called the Phalanx), the traditional family was scorned, and bacchanals and orgies were praised as fully liberating human inner passions. He also declared that a fair society should take care of those who are sexually rejected (such as the elderly or unprepossessing) to ensure that everyone has the “right” to sexual gratification. He believed that any form of sexual gratification, including sadomasochism, and even incest and bestiality, should be allowed as long as it’s consensual. Fourier, therefore, can be regarded as the pioneer of queer theory, a branch of the contemporary homosexual movement (including LGBTQ and the like).
Because of the influence of Owen and especially of Fourier, dozens of communist utopian communes were set up in the United States in the 19th century, though most were short-lived and ended in failure. The longest was the Oneida Commune established on the basis of Fourier’s theory, which lasted 32 years. The commune despised traditional monogamous marriages and advocated polygamy and group sex. Members got “fair” sexual access by being allotted the opportunity each week to have sex with anyone of their choosing. In the end, the founder, John Humphrey Noyes, fled for fear of a lawsuit by the church. The commune was forced to abandon wife-sharing, though Noyes later wrote books and became the originator of Bible Communism.
Communism’s promiscuous gene is an inevitable consequence of its theoretical development. From the very beginning, the demon of communism tempted people to abandon godly teachings, to deny the divine, and to deny original sin.
According to this logic, social problems originally caused by the degeneration of human morality were attributed to private ownership. Communism leads people to believe that if private property is destroyed, people will not fight over it. However, even if all property is shared, people might also have conflicts over their spouses. Therefore, utopian socialists openly use a system of wife-sharing to solve such problems inherent in human nature.
These communist “paradises” either directly challenged the traditional family or advocated a system of common wives, which led local communities, churches, and governments to see them as a challenge to traditional morality and ethics, and take action to suppress them. The scandalous communist sharing of wealth and wives became widely known.
The failure of utopian communes taught Marx and Engels a lesson: It was not yet the time to openly advocate promiscuous wife-sharing. Although the goal of eliminating the family in The Communist Manifesto had not changed, they adopted a more concealed approach to putting forward their theories and destroying families.
After the death of Marx, Engels published the book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan to complete Marx’s theory on the family and further expound the Marxian view of marriage: “[The emergence of monogamy] is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father’s property as his natural heirs. It is distinguished from pairing marriage by the much greater strength of the marriage tie, which can no longer be dissolved at either partner’s wish.” 
Engels argued that monogamy was based around private property and that once all property is shared, there would be a brand new model of marriage based purely on love. Superficially, it sounds so noble—but it is not.
The attempted defenses of Marx and Engels seem feeble in light of the actual implementation of communist theory. Feelings are unreliable. If a person loves someone today and another person tomorrow, does that not encourage promiscuity? The promiscuity that took place after the establishment of the former Soviet Union and the Chinese communist regime, described in the next section, is, in fact, the result of applied Marxist doctrine.
Relationships between husbands and wives aren’t always smooth sailing. The vow “till death do us part” during a traditional wedding is a vow to God. It also represents the idea that both parties are prepared to face and overcome all hardships together. What maintains a marriage is not merely emotion or feelings, but also a sense of responsibility. Treating one’s other half, the children, and the family with care transforms the husband and wife into a mature man and a mature woman, both with a sense of moral responsibility.
Marx and Engels boasted in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State that in a communist society, private property becomes public; housework becomes professionalized; there’s no need to worry about looking after children since it’s the country’s responsibility to take care of and educate the children.
They wrote: “This removes all the anxiety about the ‘consequences,’ which today is the most essential social—moral as well as economic—factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will, not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame?” 
What Marx and Engels promoted, even though using the phrases “freedom,” “liberation,” and “love” to conceal the fact, was nothing more than the complete abandonment of personal moral responsibility. They encouraged people to act solely on their desires. However, during Marx’s era and that of Fourier, most people had not abandoned godly teachings entirely and were wary of communism’s promotion of promiscuity. Yet even Marx himself could hardly have imagined the rationalizations that people would come up with, in the 20th century and following, to embrace the sexual chaos of Marxist thought and press forward the goal of eliminating the family.
Certain individuals emerged to sow these seeds of prurience and deviance. It also systematically arranged for luring people to follow their desires and oppose godly teachings, so as to gradually deprive them, until finally achieving the goal of eliminating the family. This ultimately brings about the deviation of the human heart and leads people to fall into the devil’s grasp.
4. The Practice of Wife-Sharing Under Communism
The sexual chaos described above is an innate part of communism. Marx is believed to have raped his maid and had Engels raise the resulting child. Engels cohabitated with two sisters. Lenin carried out an extramarital affair with a woman named Inesa for 10 years and committed adultery with a French woman. He also contracted syphilis from prostitutes. Stalin was equally lecherous and is known to have taken advantage of other people’s wives.
After the Soviets seized power, they instituted the practice of wife-sharing. The Soviet Union at the time can be viewed as the pioneer of sexual liberation in the West. In the tenth edition of the Russian magazine Rodina, printed in 1990, the phenomenon of wife-sharing during early Soviet rule was exposed. The piece also described the private lives of Soviet leaders Trotsky, Bukharin, Antonov, Kollontai, and others, saying that they were as casual as dogs in their sexual activities.
a. Wife-Sharing in the Soviet Union
As early as 1904, Lenin wrote, “Lust can emancipate the energy of the spirit—not for pseudo-family values, but for the victory of socialism must this blood-clot be done away with.” 
At a meeting of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, Trotsky proposed that once the Bolsheviks had seized power, new fundamental principles of sexual relations would be drafted. Communist theory demands the destruction of the family and the transition to a period of unconstrained satisfaction of sexual desires. Trotsky also said that the responsibility to educate children should reside solely with the state.
In a letter to Lenin in 1911, Trotsky wrote: “Undoubtedly, sexual oppression is the main means of enslaving a person. While such oppression exists, there can be no question of real freedom. The family, like a bourgeois institution, has completely outlived itself. It is necessary to speak more about this to the workers.”
Lenin replied: “And not only the family. All prohibitions relating to sexuality must be abolished. … We have something to learn from the suffragettes: Even the ban on same-sex love should be lifted.” 
After the Bolsheviks seized power, Lenin brought out a series of regulations effectively abolishing marriage and the punishment of homosexuality. 
At that time, there was also the slogan “Down with shame!” This was part of the Bolshevik attempt to create the “new man” of socialist ideology. Sometimes followers even roamed the streets naked, hysterically screaming slogans like “Shame is in the bourgeois past of the Soviet people.” 
On December 19, 1918, to celebrate the commemoration day of the decree effectively abolishing marriage, lesbian groups celebrated. Trotsky writes in his memoirs that the news of lesbians celebrating with a parade made Lenin very happy. Lenin also encouraged more people to march naked. 
In 1923, the Soviet novel The Loves of Three Generations popularized the term “glass-of-waterism.” The author, People’s Commissar for Social Welfare Alexandra Kollontai, was a revolutionary who fought her way into the Bolshevik faction from a traditional family, in search of “women’s liberation.” The “glass-of-waterism” promoted by the novel is, in fact, a term for sexual indulgence: In a communist society, satisfying sexual desire is as normal and easy as drinking a glass of water. “Glass-of-waterism” was widespread among factory workers and especially teenage students.
“The current morality of our youth is summarized as follows,” the well-known communist Madame Smidovich wrote in the newspaper Pravda (March 21, 1925):
Every member, even a minor, of the Communist Youth League and every student of the Rabfak [Communist Party training school] has the right to satisfy his sexual desire. This concept has become an axiom, and abstinence is considered a notion of bourgeois. If a man lusts after a young girl, whether she is a student, a worker, or even a school-age girl, then the girl must obey his lust; otherwise, she will be considered a bourgeois daughter, unworthy to be called a true communist. 
Divorce also became normalized and widespread. “The divorce rate skyrocketed to levels unseen in human history. In short order, it seemed as though everyone in Moscow had a divorce,” Paul Kengor noted in his book Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage. In 1926, the American magazine The Atlantic published an article about the astonishing situation in the USSR, with the title “The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage.” 
The phenomenon of “Swedish families”—which, rather than having anything to do with Sweden, refers to a large group of men and women living together and engaging in casual sex—also appeared during this period of sexual liberation. This opened the doors to promiscuity, sexual chaos, homosexuality, moral collapse, the destruction of families, sexually transmitted diseases, rape, and more. 
Following the expansion of socialist communes, these “Swedish families” spread across the Soviet Union. This was known as the “nationalization” or “socialization” of women. The socialist women in Yekaterinburg of 1918 are a sad example: After the Bolsheviks seized the city, they issued an ordinance that young women between the ages of 16 to 25 must be “socialized.” The order was implemented by several Party officials, and 10 young women were “socialized.” 
The Bolsheviks quickly tightened their policies on sex at the end of the 1920s. During a conversation with feminist activist Clara Zetkin, Lenin deplored the “glass-of-waterism” philosophy, calling it “anti-Marxist” and “anti-social.”  The reason for this was that sexual liberation brought about an undesirable byproduct: many newborn babies, many of whom were abandoned.
Again, it was shown that the destruction of the family eventually results in societal collapse.
b. Sexual Liberation in Yan’an
During the CCP’s early years, the circumstances were similar to those of the Soviet Union. Of course, these communist parties are all varieties of poisonous fruits from the same tree. Chen Duxiu, an early communist leader, was known for his debauched personal life. According to the memoirs of Zheng Chaolin and Chen Bilan, communists such as Qu Qiubai, Cai Hesen, Zhang Taipei, Xiang Jingyu, and Peng Shuzhi had a somewhat confused sexual history, and their attitude toward sex was similar to the “glass-of-water” of the early Soviet revolutionaries.
“Sexual liberation” was embraced not only by the Party’s intellectual leaders, but also by ordinary people living in the CCP’s early “Soviets” (revolutionary enclaves set up before the Nationalist Party was overthrown) in Hubei, Henan, and Anhui. Due to the promotion of equality of women, and absolute freedom of marriage and divorce, revolutionary work was often disrupted in order to satisfy sexual desires.
Young people in the Soviet areas sometimes engaged in romantic affairs in the name of connecting with the masses. It wasn’t unusual for young women to have six or seven sexual partners. According to the Collection of Revolutionary Historical Documents in the Hubei-Henan-Anhui Soviet Districts, among local party chiefs in places like Hong’ an Huangma, Huangqi, Guangshan, and elsewhere, “about three-quarters of them kept sexual relations with dozens or hundreds of women.” 
In the late spring of 1931, when Zhang Guotao took charge of the Hubei-Henan-Anhui Soviet districts, he noted that syphilis was so widespread that he had to report to the Party Central for doctors who specialized in treating the disease. Many years later, in his memoirs, he vividly recalled stories of women in the Soviet districts being sexually harassed, including some of the senior generals’ mistresses. 
In 1937, Li Kenong was serving as director of the CCP’s Eighth Route Army Office in Nanjing, making him responsible for collecting military stipends, medicine, and supplies. On one occasion, when checking the medicine list of the Eighth Route Army, the National Government staff found a large number of drugs for treating sexually transmitted diseases. The staff asked Li Kenong, “Are there a lot of people in your army suffering from this disease?” I wasn’t sure what to say, so he lied and said it was to treat the local people. 
By the 1930s, however, sexual freedom came to be perceived as a threat to the regime. The same problem of social disintegration found in Soviet Russia was apparent, and Red Army conscripts began worrying that their wives would take up extramarital affairs or divorce them once they joined the revolution. This affected the combat effectiveness of the troops. Moreover, the trend of promiscuity seemed to reinforce the notoriety of the “common property, common wives” slogan. Thus, Soviet districts began implementing policies protecting military marriages, limiting the number of divorces, and more.
5. How Communism Destroys Families in the West
The evil spirit’s ideological trends find their origins in the 19th century. After a century of transformation and evolution in the West, they finally came to the fore in the United States in the 1960s.
In the 1960s, influenced and encouraged by neo-Marxism and various other radical ideologies, social and cultural movements manipulated by the evil spirit appeared. These included the hippie counterculture, the radical New Left, the feminist movement, and the sexual revolution. These turbulent social movements were part of a fierce attack on America’s political system, traditional value system, and social fabric.
The movements quickly spread to Europe, rapidly altering the way the mainstream thought about society, the family, sex, and cultural values. While this was going on, the gay rights movement was also rising. The confluence of these forces led to the weakening of traditional Western family values and the decline of the institution of the traditional family and its centrality in social life. At the same time, social turmoil triggered a series of problems, including the proliferation of pornography, the spread of drug abuse, the collapse of sexual morality, the rise of the juvenile crime rate, and the expansion of groups depending on social welfare.
a. Promoting Sexual Liberation
Sexual liberation (also known as the sexual revolution) originated in the United States in the 1960s. Its subsequent rapid spread through the world dealt a devastating blow to traditional moral values—in particular, traditional family values and sexual morality.
Ample preparations were made for using sexual liberation against Western societies. The free love movement paved the way to gradually erode and disintegrate traditional family values. The concept of “free love” violates traditional sexual morality, and argues that sexual activity of all forms should be free from social regulation. In this view, individual sexual activities, including marriage, abortion, and adultery, should not be restricted by the government or law, nor subject to social sanction.
The followers of Charles Fourier and John Humphrey Noyes were the first to coin the term “free love.”
In recent times, the main promoters of free love ideas are almost all socialists or people deeply influenced by socialist thought. For example, among those pioneering the free love movement in Britain was a socialist philosopher Edward Carpenter, who was also an early activist for gay rights. The gay rights movement’s most famous advocate, British philosopher Bertrand Russell, was an avowed socialist and a member of the Fabian Society. He claimed that morality should not limit humanity’s instinctive drive toward pleasure and advocated premarital and extramarital sex.
The main forerunner of the free love movement in France was Émile Armand, an anarcho-communist in his early days who later built on Fourier’s utopian communism, founded French individualist anarchism (which falls under the broader category of socialism), and advocated promiscuity, homosexuality, and bisexuality. The pioneer of the free love movement in Australia was Chummy Fleming, an anarchist (another offshoot of socialism).
The free love movement in America bore important fruit: Playboy, the erotic magazine founded in 1953. The magazine made use of coated paper to create the impression that it was artistic and not seedy. It also used expensive color printing, with the result that pornographic content typically regarded as low-class and vulgar swiftly entered the mainstream, and Playboy became a “high-class” leisure magazine. For more than half a century, it has spread the toxin of sexual freedom to people around the world and has laid siege to traditional morals and perceptions regarding sex.
In the middle of the 20th century, with hippie culture increasing in popularity and free love gaining widespread acceptance, the sexual revolution (also known as sexual liberation) made its official debut. The term “sexual revolution” was coined by Wilhelm Reich, the German founder of communist psychoanalysis. He combined Marxism with Freudian psychoanalysis, and believed that the former liberated people from “economic oppression,” while the latter liberated people from “sexual repression.”
Another founder of the sexual liberation theory was Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School. During the Western counterculture movement of the 1960s, his slogan “Make Love, not War” embedded the notion of sexual liberation deep within people’s hearts.
Since then, with the publication of Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female and the widespread use of oral contraceptives, the notion of sexual liberation swept through the West. It is worth mentioning that contemporary scholars have discovered distorted statistical data in Kinsey’s work, as well as exaggeration, over-simplification, and other fallacies driven by his political and ideological commitments. Kinsey set out to show that extramarital sex, homosexual sex, and so on were common, and thus to direct society to accept the normalization of these phenomena, a task at which he was largely successful. 
All at once, being “sexually liberated” became fashionable. Among young people, promiscuity came to be considered normal. Teens who admitted to being virgins were ridiculed by their peers. Data show that of those who turned 15 years of age between 1954 and 1963 (the ’60s generation), 82 percent had premarital sex before the age of 30.  In the 2010s, new brides who were still virgins before they married numbered only 5 percent, while 18 percent of brides had previously had 10 or more sexual partners before marriage.  The cultural mainstream has become saturated with sex, including in literature, film, advertising, and television.
b. Promoting Feminism and Spurning the Traditional Family
The Communist Ideology Behind the Feminist Movement
The feminist movement is another tool communism has used to destroy the family. When it began in Europe in the 18th century, the feminist movement (also known as first-wave feminism) advocated that women should be accorded the same treatment as men in education, employment, and politics. The center of the feminist movement shifted from Europe to the United States in the mid-19th century.
When first-wave feminism started, the notion of the traditional family still had a strong foundation in society, and the feminist movement did not advocate directly challenging the traditional family. The influential feminists at that time, such as Mary Wollstonecraft of 18th-century England, Margaret Fuller of 19th-century America, and John Stuart Mill of 19th-century England, all advocated that in general women should prioritize the family after marriage, that the potential of women should be developed within the domain of the family, and that women should enrich themselves for the sake of the family (such as educating the children, managing the family, and so on). They thought, however, that some special women who are particularly talented should not be constrained by society and should be free to utilize their talents, even to the extent of competing with men.
After the 1920s, when the right for women to vote was written into law in many countries, the first wave of women’s rights movements gradually receded. In the following years, with the impact of the Great Depression and World War II, the feminist movement essentially laid down its flag.
At the same time, the communist specter began to sow the seeds of destruction for traditional marriage and sexual ethics. The early utopian socialists in the 19th century laid the direction for modern radical feminist movements. François Marie Charles Fourier, called “the father of feminism,” declared that marriage turns women into private property. Robert Owen cursed marriage as evil. The ideas of these utopian socialists were inherited and developed by later feminists, including, for example, Frances Wright, who in the 19th century inherited the ideas of Fourier and advocated sexual freedom for women.
The British feminist activist Anna Wheeler inherited Owen’s ideas, fiercely condemning marriage for supposedly turning women into slaves. Socialist feminist activists were also an important part of the feminist movement in the 19th century. At that time, among the most influential feminist publications in France were La Voix des Femmes, the very first feminist publication in France, and La Femme Libre (later renamed La Tribune des Femmes), as well as La Politique des Femmes, among others. The founders of these publications were either follower of Fourier or of Henri de Saint-Simon, the advocate of modernity. Because of the close connection between feminism and socialism, the authorities scrutinized feminism.
When the first wave of women’s rights movements proceeded in full swing, communists also made arrangements to introduce a variety of radical thoughts to attack traditional concepts of family and marriage, paving the way for the more radical feminist movement that followed.
The second wave of feminist movements began in the United States in the late 1960s, then spread to Western and Northern Europe, and quickly expanded to the entire Western world. American society in the late 1960s went through a period of turmoil, with the civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam War movement, and various radical social trends. Feminism, taking advantage of this unique set of circumstances, emerged in a more radical strain and became popular.
The cornerstone of this wave of feminist movements was the book The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, published in 1963, and Friedan’s National Organization for Women (NOW). Using the perspective of a suburban middle-class housewife, Friedan fiercely criticized the traditional familial roles of women, and argued that the traditional image of a happy, content, joyful housewife was a myth forged by a patriarchal society. She argued that middle-class suburban families are “a comfortable concentration camp” for American women, and that modern educated women should reject the sense of accomplishment attained through supporting their husbands and educating their children, and instead realize their worth outside the family. 
A few years later, more radical feminists dominated NOW, inheriting and developing Friedan’s ideas. They said that women had been oppressed by patriarchy since ancient times and attributed the root cause of women’s oppression to the family. In response, they came to advocate the complete transformation of the social system and traditional culture, and struggle in all aspects of human affairs—the economy, education, culture, and the family—to achieve female equality.
Classifying the members of a society into “the oppressor” and “the oppressed” to advocate for struggle, liberation, and equality is exactly what communism is all about. Traditional Marxism classifies groups according to their economic statuses, while neo-feminist movements divide people based on gender.
Friedan was not, as her book described, a middle-class suburban housewife bored with her housework. Daniel Horowitz, a professor at Smith College, wrote a biography of Friedan in 1998 titled Betty Friedan and the Making of ‘The Feminine Mystique.’ His research reveals that Friedan, under her maiden name Betty Goldstein, had been a radical socialist activist from her college years up to the 1950s. At different times, she was a professional journalist or propagandist to be accurate, for several radical labor unions in the orbit of the Communist Party USA.
Former leftist David Horowitz (no relation to Daniel Horowitz) reviewed Friedan’s published articles to understand the development of her views.  She was a member of the Young Communist League while at the University of California–Berkeley. Friedan even requested twice, at different times, to join the CPUSA. Judith Hennessee, Friedan’s authorized biographer, also indicates that she was a Marxist. 
Kate Weigand, an American scholar, points out in her book Red Feminism that feminism, in fact, did not stay quiet in the United States from the early 20th century to the 1960s. During that period, a large group of red feminist writers with communist backgrounds paved the way for the subsequent second-wave feminist movement. These included Susan Anthony, Eleanor Flex, Gerda Lerner, Eve Merriam, and the like. As early as 1946, Anthony applied the Marxist analytical method to draw an analogy between the white oppressing the black, and the male oppressing the female. Due to the McCarthyism of the period, such writers didn’t talk about their communist backgrounds. 
In Europe, French writer Simone de Beauvoir’s iconic work The Second Sex ushered in a craze for the second wave of feminism. De Beauvoir used to be a socialist. In 1941, together with communist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and other writers, she created Socialiste et Liberté, a French underground socialist organization. With the rise of her reputation for promoting feminism in the 1960s, de Beauvoir declared that she no longer believed in socialism, and claimed that she was only a feminist.
She said, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” She advocated that though sex is determined by physiological characteristics, gender is a self-perceived psychological concept formed under the influence of human sociality. She argued that the temperaments of obedience, submissiveness, affection, and maternity are all derived from the “myth” carefully designed by the patriarchy for its oppression of women, and advocated that women breakthrough traditional notions and realize their unrestrained selves.
This mentality, in fact, lies at the heart of the damaging notions of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and the like. Since then, various feminist thoughts have emerged in a constant stream, all looking at the world through the lens of women being oppressed by patriarchy, which is realized through the institution of the traditional family—making the family, then, an obstacle to the realization of female equality. 
De Beauvoir held that women are restrained by their husbands due to marriage, and called marriage as disgusting as prostitution. She refused to get married and maintained an “open relationship” with Sartre. By the same token, Sartre also engaged in sexual encounters with other women.
De Beauvoir’s view on marriage is the standard among contemporary radical feminists. Such chaotic sexual liaisons and relationships are precisely the system of communal wives envisioned by Charles Fourier, a forerunner of utopian communism in the 19th century.
Read Part II here.
 W. Bradford Wilcox, “The Evolution of Divorce,” National Affairs, Number 35, Spring 2018. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce
 See Table 1–17. “Number and Percent of Births to Unmarried Women, by Race and Hispanic Origin: the United States, 1940–2000,” CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x17.pdf
 “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 9:2 (July 1, 2006): 161–171. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15240650801935198.
 Victoria Cavaliere, “Rhode Island School District Bans Father-Daughter, Mother-Son Events,” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rhode-island-school-district-bans-father-daughter-mother-son-events-article-1.1162289#nt=byline.
 Genesis 2:23, http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-23.htm.
 Engels, Frederick. n.d., “Origins of the Family. Chapter 2 (IV),” accessed June 17, 2018. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm.
 “Robert Owen, Critique of Individualism (1825–1826),” n.d., Indiana University. Accessed June 17, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20171126034814/http://www.indiana.edu:80/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week11/Owen1826.html.
 Engels, Frederick, n.d. “Origins of the Family. Chapter II (4.),” accessed June 17, 2018. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm.
 Engels, Ibid.
 This translation is from the Russian: Melnichenko, Alexander, 2017. “Великая октябрьская сексуальная революция [The Great October Sexual Revolution].” Russian Folk Line, August 20, 2017, http://ruskline.ru/opp/2017/avgust/21/velikaya_oktyabrskaya_seksualnaya_revolyuciya/. This and other sources draw on the work of former Menshevik Aleksandra Kollontai.
 Наталья Короткая，“Эрос революции: “Комсомолка, не будь мещанкой – помоги мужчине снять напряжение!” https://lady.tut.by/news/sex/319720.html?crnd=68249.
 Paul Kengor, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage (WND Books, 2015), 54.
 See Melnichenko (2017).
 Xia Hou, “The Promiscuous Gene of Communism: Sexual Liberation,” The Epoch Times (Chinese edition). April 9, 2017, http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/17/4/9/n9018949.htm; The Weekly Review, Volumes 4–5 (National Weekly Corporation, 1921), 232, available at https://goo.gl/QY1gBc; for the incident of Red Army commander Karaseev socializing 10 girls, see Olga Greig (Ольга Грейгъ), Chapter 7 of “The Revolution of the Sexes,” or “The Secret Mission of Clara Zetkin” (Революция полов, или Тайная миссия Клары Цеткин), available at https://rutlib5.com/book/21336/p/8
 Clara Zetkin, “Lenin on the Women’s Question,” My Memorandum (transcribed from the Writings of V.I. Lenin, International Publishers, available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm)
 Huang Wenzhi, “‘What Happened after Nora Left’: Women’s Liberation, Freedom of Marriage, and Class Revolution: A Historical Survey of the Hubei-Henan-Anhui Soviet Districts (1922–1932),” Open Times no. 4 (2013). Chinese: 黃文治：〈 “娜拉走後怎樣”：婦女解放、婚姻自由及階級革命——以鄂豫皖蘇區為中心的歷史考察（1922～1932）〉《開放時代》，2013年第4期.
 Huang Wenzhi (2013), Ibid.
 “Yang Ning, “Why Did the Eighth Route Army Purchase Medicines for Sexual Transmitted Diseases?” The Epoch Times (Chinese), http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/18/1/18/n10069025.htm
 Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.; Edward W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990); “Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two (Kinsey) reports.”; “Really, Dr Kinsey?” The Lancet, Vol. 337 (March 2, 1991): 547.
 L. B. Finer, “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” Public Health Reports 122(1) (2007): 73–78.
 Nicholas H. Wolfinger, “Counterintuitive Trends in the Link Between Premarital Sex and Marital Stability,” Institute for Family Studies, https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability.
 Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1963).
 David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 1999, http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html
 Joanne Boucher, “Betty Friedan and the Radical Past of Liberal Feminism.” New Politics 9 (3). http://nova.wpunj.edu/newpolitics/issue35/boucher35.htm.
 Kate Weigand, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002).
 Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. Constance Borde, Sheila Malovany-Chevallier (New York: Vintage Books, 2011). Source
People’s hearts are troubled, their minds are in a state of confusion, the Bible tells us a time of great delusion that will come upon the people, that time has arrived, the politicians must come up with more significant and more believable lies in order to bring on the antichrist, we have entered the doorstep Tribulation.
“Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of man and devils”…
The 127 Faith Foundation understands the pain and sorrow associated with being a throwaway child, We push this throwaway child towards bettering their education, be it junior-college are going for a Masters’s degree. This program is about them because they determine by the grace of God if they’re going to be a pillar in the community or a burden on society. Some of the strongholds orphans deal with are: fear, resentment, bitterness, unforgiveness, apathy, unbelief, depression, anxiety, lust, anger, pride, and greed. Many of these strongholds do open the door to addiction. Please Help The 127
The Birth Pains Are Growing Stronger….
“Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.”
My name is Steve Meyers and I need to share a vision and warning that the Lord showed me back in April 2007….
Many of you will ask why I waited so long to share the warning. I didn’t. I shared the story with everyone that would listen from pastors to friends to family to colleagues. Immediately following the initial vision, I called a close friend. I told him to sit down that I had something to tell him. I needed it documented as I knew this was supernatural and from God. As I witness events unfolding today, I need to share the vision again.
The risk of loss in trading futures and options on futures can be substantial. The author does not guarantee the accuracy of the above information, although it is believed that the sources are reliable and the information accurate. The author assumes no liability or responsibility for direct or indirect, special, consequential or incidental damages or for any other damages relating or arising out of any action taken as a result of any information or advice contained in this commentary. The author disclaims any express or implied liability or responsibility for any action taken, which is solely at the liability and responsibility of the user. Steve Meyers
The silencing of the American people before 2020?
“The human heart is an idol factory.”
The Un-Godly — Those That Suppress the Truth, the social media giants built multi-billion dollar empires by giving everyone a voice, but now that they have such a dominant position on the Internet they have decided that many prominent conservative voices should be completely silenced.
Our government has been overthrown. As evidenced by Trump’s capitulation on the border, his recent servitude to the GMO industry and his acquiescence to the warmongers, our President has been compromised. Our liberties are being eliminated one by one. Gun confiscation is next. The Constitution is gasping its last breaths. Our borders are destroyed and our culture has been turned upside down by every perversion known to man.
The prophet does not confuse truth with consensus. The prophet does not confuse God’s word with the word of those who happen to hold power at present, or with the opinion of the majority. This is because powerholders and the majority can fall victim to a lying spirit-and this means a power that actually seizes the majority of experts, the political leadership, and the public.
Everything done in dark will be brought to light, being biblically bankrupt will not exclude the elitist.
Let Me Make This Abundantly Clear. (I Am Apolitical) While I Have a General Distaste for Politicians No Matter the Party They Belong To, I Am Unashamedly Politically a Bible Believing Conservative Christian. I Have a Severe Distrust of Government. I Believe It Is the Most Inefficient and Ineffective Way to Accomplish Most Things. While I Strongly Disagree with Liberals/Progressives and Conservative on Most Political Issues, and While I Believe Liberals/Progressives and Most Politicians Are Terribly Misguided and Naive About What Big Government Will Eventually Result In, I Strive to Not Question Their Motives. at the Same Time, While I Find Myself in Agreement with Conservative Politicians on Some Issues, I Do Not Believe Electing Republicans Is the Answer to Everything. for Me, Very Sadly, the Main Difference Between Republicans and Democrats Is How Quickly They Want to Drive the Car Towards the Cliff. Simply Put, I Do Not Believe the Government Is the Solution for Everything. I Do Not Place Any Faith, Trust, or Hope in Any Politicians to Fix What Is Wrong with the World. “Come Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20) The prophet does not confuse truth with consensus. The prophet does not confuse God’s word with the word of those who happen to hold power at present, or with the opinion of the majority. This is because powerholders and the majority can fall victim to a lying spirit-and this means a power that actually seizes the majority of experts, the political leadership, and the public. StevieRay Hansen
Thanks to people like Pastor Steven Anderson and the choir of preachers he has assembled within the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement there has been a resurgence in what is called the Reprobate Doctrine. A Biblical doctrine that demonstrates in scripture, that God will turn people over to their vile lifestyles as a curse, blinding them to salvation in Jesus, giving them over to a devil’s hell for eternity. A doctrine that I believe is completely Biblical and defined by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 is unmistakably visceral language.
TO BRING PEACE BUT A SWORD.” MATTHEW 10:34… In Song of Solomon 6:4 and 10 we read that the beautiful and lovely bride is also “awesome as an army…Read More
The Birth Pains Are Growing Stronger…. One of the signs of ruling class collapse is when they can no longer enforce the rules that maintain…Read More
GOD’S TRUTH WILL BE KNOWN… Second Thessalonians 2:9-12 speaks of a strong delusion God will send in the end times: “The coming of the lawless one…Read More
These Are The “Fake News” Sites That Told You ‘Distrusting China Over Coronavirus Was Dangerous’YouTube Was The Worst
YouTube, Google News Feeds, Tweeter, Fakebook, Dr. Fauci The WHO, CDC, and Bill Evil Gates MouthPiece Says US COVID-19 US Deaths Could Be As Low…Read More
Up-Date 7/8/2020 Satan Soldiers Are Getting Aggressive The BLM Foot Soldiers Black Panthers Declaring
Racial War Right Now on the Streets of America, This Is Not Going to End Well… Tribulations in Play,In several places in the Bible there…Read More