NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Gay cowboy love story "Brokeback Mountain" won three of the top four awards from the New York Film Critics Circle Monday, building momentum as the critics' favorite for Hollywood's top honors, the Oscars.

(end of headline)


Search your hearts, what does this say of the generation that we live in? We speak of the ideals of our forefathers just like the Pharisees did during Jesus's ministry here on earth. "Our father is Abraham." But we are a new generation surrounded by the works of Satan.

Do we willingly seek to understand the evil around us? Do we willingly seek to identify how Satan promotes his agenda? How prevasive is the philosophy of humanism ingrained in our beliefs?

In Christ
Jeff

_________________
Jeff Marshalek

Iran leader: Holocaust a 'myth'

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.

The United States, Israel and the European Commission -- along with individual European countries -- have condemned the remark.

Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Last week, he also expressed doubt about the killing by the Nazis of six million Jews during World War II, but Wednesday was the first occasion when he said in public that the Holocaust was a myth.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel," Ahmadinejad said.

"Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, said: "The combination of a regime with a radical agenda, together with a distorted sense of reality that is clearly indicated by the statements we heard today, put together with nuclear weapons -- I think that's a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept."

"What the Iranian president has shown us today is that he is clearly outside the international consensus, he is clearly outside international norms and international legitimacy, and in so doing he has shown the Iranian government for what it is -- a rogue regime opposed to peace and stability and a threat to all its neighboring countries," Regev said.

In addition, Ahmadinejad spoke in Zahedan about Iran's nuclear program, maintaining it will insist on its right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

"Those who themselves produce nuclear arms should not raise hue and cry against those who only want to gain access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," he said, according to a report from the Islamic Republic News Agency.

"Countries which have arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which can be used against other countries at their whim and those who supplied the Baathist regime with (chemical) weapons that killed thousands of innocent Iranians ... now go to all lengths to block Iran from gaining access to peaceful nuclear technology," he said.

"We are sure they have criminal intentions, and there was never any doubt that they were piling weapons of mass destruction to be used against less powerful nations," Ahmadinejad said, according to the IRNA report.

(end of article)


Will the promise of peace be accomplished by democracy that is spread by the sword?

What does Scripture say about the illusions of peace in the last days?

In Christ
Jeff

_________________
Jeff Marshalek

(thought continued from the book page 32)

(A) The New Economy.

In an agricultural economy, the workplace was the home where the husband and wife labored together and lived together. In the industrial economy, the man left the home to work in a factory, while the wife stayed home to look after the children. The agricultural economy gave us the extended family; the industrial economy, the nuclear family. But in the postindustrial economy, husband and wife both work at the office, and no one stays home with the children. Indeed, there may be no children. As political science professor James Kurth of Swarthmore writes:

"The greatest movement of the second half of the nineteenth century was the movement of men from farm to the factory.... The greatest movement of the second half of the twentieth century has been the movement of women from the home to the office...[This] movement separates the parent from the children, as well as enabling the wife to separate herself from her husband. By splitting the nuclear family, it is helping to bring about the replacement of the nuclear family with the non-family."

As men's jobs in manufacturing, mining, farming, and fishing are no longer needed, or are shipped overseas, the skills and talents of women are now more desirable. There are also opportunities in government, education, and the professions open to women today that their mothers and grandmothers never had. Businesses, large and small, offer packages of pay and benefits to lure talented women out of the home and keep them out of the maternity ward, where they are "no good to the company."

It is working. In the scores of millions, American women have left the home for the office to work beside and compete with men. By the tens of millions, women college graduates have put off marriage, many forever. "You can have it all!" the modern woman is told--baby and a career. With nannies, courtesy of open borders, with equal-pay-for-equal work, maternity leave, and daycare, courtesy of the government and the company, the lure is not a lie. What you can't have is a brood of kids back home while keeping pace with the competition at the office.

Forced to choose, women are choosing career, or career and the joy of motherhood, once. The Global Economy works hand in hand with the New Economy, transfering manufacturing jobs from high wage Western nations to the low-wage, newly industrialized nations of Asia and Latin America. With Working America's yellow brick road to the middle class down to one lane, wives must work to keep up with the Jones next door. So children are put off, sometimes for good. In 1950, 88 percent of women with children under six stayed home, where they often had more kids. Today, 64 percent of American women with children under six are in the labor force.

"How you gonna keep' em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?" was said of the World War I soldiers who went off to Europe. Well, how you gonna get' em back in the 'burbs, after they've seen D.C. one might ask of the talented women lawyers, journalists, PR specialists, and political aides who have enjoyed the great game in an exciting city.

Writing in the Spectator, Eleanor Mills is an authentic voice of her generation; "The fact is that girls like me--ie. healthy, hearty, middle-class women in their 20s--are just not breeding." Why not? Because, she writes, "my generation's twin preoccupations are, unfortunately, looks and money." She quotes one of her many childless contemporaries;

"If I had a kid," said Jane, and advertising executive, thoughtfully, "I wouldn't be able to do half the things I take for granted. Every Saturday at 10:30 am when we are still in bed, my husband and I look at each other and just say, "Thank God we weren't up at 5 a.m. caring for a brat." We have such a great time just the two of us; who know if it would work if we introduced another person into the equation?"

"The rich are different from us," said F. Scott Fitzgerald. To which Hemingway replied, "Yes, they have more money." But the rich also have fewer children. Using Occam's razor--the somplest explanation is usually the right one--the best explaination for the sinking birthrate in the West may be the simplest. As America's poor enter the middle class, and the middle class becomes affluent, and the affluent become rich, each adopts the style of the class they have lately entered. All begin to downsize their families; all begin to have fewer children. A corollary follows; The richer a nation becomes, the fewer its children, and the sooner it begins to die. Societies organized to ensure the maximum pleasure, freedom, and happiness for all their members are, at the same time, advancing the date of their own funerals. Fate may compensate the Chinese, Islamic, and Latin peoples for their hardships and poverty in this century with the domination of the earth in the next. Indeed, do we not have it on high authority that "Blessed are the meek...they shall inherit the earth?"

end of thought


The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil isn't it?

In Christ
Jeff

_________________
Jeff Marshalek

_________________
Farai Bamu

Page 35

(B) End of the "Family Wage."


In the 1830s, as America's industrial revolution was about to begin, the Philadelphia Trade Union warned its members about the hidden agenda of what it called "cormorant capital":

"Oppose [employment of our women folks] with all your minds and with all your strength for it will prove our ruin. We must strive to obtain sufficient remuneration for our labor to keep the wives and daughters and sisters of our people at home... That cormorant capital will have every man, woman, and child to toil: but let us exert our families to oppose its design."

In 1848, the year of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, the labor publication Ten Hour Advocate editorialized: "We hope the day is not distant when the husband will be able to provide for his wife and family, without sending [the wife] to endure the drudgery of a cotton mill.?

This vison of American free labor was at war with the view being espoused by Marx and his patron and collaborator, Friedrich Engels, who wrote in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State; [b]"The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex into public industry and ...this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of societ."[/b] Is it not a remarkable coincidence how global capitalism's view of women--as units of production, liberated from husbands, home, and family--conforms so precisely to the view of the fathers of global communism?

As Allan Carlson, who also publishes The Family in America, writes, there was a consensus in America, not so long ago, that employers should pay fathers a "family wage" sufficient to support their wives and children in dignity without their having to leave the home to go to work. That was considered one of the defining characteristics of a good society.

...This idea was widely accepted. Carlson notes that the "wage gap" between men and women actually widened after World War II. In 1939, women earned 59.3 percent of men's pay; by 1966, that had fallen to 53.6 percent. In the 1940s and 1950s, the culture, with a good conscience, separated men and women in the workplace. In newspapers, the "Men Wanted" ads were run separate from the "Women Wanted" ads. Only rarely could working women be found outside such occupations as clerk-typist, secretary, nurse, school teacher, or salegirl. Carlson writes:

"To an observer from the Year 2000, the most amazing thing about this system was that it was both understood by the average people and popularly supported. In opinion polls, large majorities of Americans (85 percent or more), women and men, agreed that fathers deserved as income that would support their wives and children at home and that the labor of mothers was secondary or supplemental. This was seen as simple justice."

This system fell apart in the 1960s, when feminists managed to add "sex" to the discriminations forbidden by the sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1964, which had been written to protect the rights of African Americans. This turned the new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into a siege gun against the family wage. "Men Wanted" ads were declared discriminatory and outlawed. Gender equality replaced "moral contract." The rights of individuals took precedence over the requirements of family. Women's pay soared, and as women began moving into occupations that had been largely restrictived to men--medicine, law, the media, the academy, the upper bureaucracy, and business--families began to crumble.

Between 1973 and 1996, writes Dr. Carlson, "the [real] median income of men, aged 15 and above, working full-time, fell 24 percent, from $37,200 to $30,000," Marching under feminist banners--equal pay for equal work, and equal pay for comparable work--women moved into direct competition with men. Millions succeeded, shouldering men aside with superior performance. Their pay rose steadily, and the absolute and relative pay of married men began to yield to wives' insistence that they " go back to work." Young men found they no longer earned enough in their late teens or early twenties to start a family, even if that had been their hope and dream. Stripped of the duties of fatherhood and family, many of these young men wound up in trouble--and even in prison.

America's young women found they could achieve independance on their own. They need not get married, certainly not yet. More and more did not marry. In 1970, only 36 percent of women aged twenty to twenty-four were unmarried. By 1995, 68 percent were in the "never married" category. Among women twenty-five to twenty-nine, the "never marrieds" had soared from 10 percent to 35 percent.

The young family with a batch of kids is now an endangered species. Only the young rich can afford that "lifestyle," and they are uninterested. With the Democratic party so beholden to feminism that it cannot even oppose partial birth abortions, and the GOP in thrall to libertarian ideology and controlled by corporate interests, the call of the gods of the marketplace for more women workers prevails over the command of the God of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth."

Many conservatives have succumbed to the heresy of Economism, a mirror-Marxism that holds that man is an economic animal, that free trade and free markets are the path to peace, prosperity, and happiness, that if we can only get the marginal tax rates right and the capital gains tax abolished, Paradise--Dow 36,000!--is at hand. But when the income tax rate for the wealthiest was above 90 percent in the 1950s, America, by every moral and social indicator, was a better country.

The reformed radical and Christian convert Orestes Brownson saw this new idolatry of [b]"Mammon worship" rising in the America of the nineteenth century: "Mammonism has become the religion of Saxodom, and God is not in all our thoughts. We have lost our faith in the noble, the beautiful and the just."[/b] A century later, another convert from a failed materialistic faith would remind us again. [b]Wrote Whittaker Chambers, "Economics is not the central problem of our age, faith is."[/b]



The love of money [b]is the root[/b] of all kinds of evil.

In Christ
Jeff

_________________
Jeff Marshalek

page 38

(C) The Population Bomb Hysteria.

Then there was the antipeople movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the elite's backlash against the baby boom. Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist, was its guru, and his bestseller, The Population Bomb, did for population control what Rachel Carson's Silent Spring had done for environmentalism. Ehrlich was a twentieth-century reincarnation of Thomas Robert Malthus, the British demographer whose prediction of world starvation proved so spectacularly wrong in the nineteenth century. Malthus had written: "It may be safely asserted....that population, when unchecked, increases in geometrical progression of such a nature as to double itself every twenty-five years." As the world's food production could not double every twenty-five years, said the gloomy parson, mass starvation was dead ahead.

Malthus proved as wrong about food production as Ehrlich did about the world's resources, which he assured us were running out. Today, the six billion on earth live in far greater freedom and prosperity than did the three billion in 1960, the two billion in 1927, or the one billion in 1830. Political incompetence and criminality, foolish ideas and insane ideologies, are the cause of starvation and misery, not people.

Published by the Sierra Club, Ehrlich's book became required reading in many high schools. By 1977, former secretary of defense and World Bank president Robert McNamara was playing Henny Penny to Ehrlich's Chicken Little, warning that "continued population growth would cause "poverty, hunger, stress, crowding, and frustration," that would threaten social, economic and military stability."

In 1978, a congressional select committee on population announced that the "major biological systems that humanity depends upon....are being strained by rapid population growth...[and] in some cases, they are.... losing productive capacity." As Jacqueline Kasun, author of The War Against Population, writes, about this time the Smithsonian Institution created a "traveling exhibit for schoolchildren called "Population: The Problem Is Us, " [that] featured a picture of a dead rat on a dinner plate as an example of "future food sources."

[b]As a result of this antipopulation propaganda from America's elite institutions of politics and ideas, the public funding for population control here and abroad exploded.[/b] But though the message was taken to heart by the First World wealthy and middle class, it was largely ignored by the Third World poor, at whom it had been targeted. We can see the results today: a birth dearth among the affluent nations, and baby boom across the Third World.

end of thought


The next few posts will be taken from a NSA policy paper that was requested by Henry Kissinger in 1974. This paper outlines the policy the United States would create and establish in this country and the rest of the world. It is an eye opener as to how foolish the kings and princes are in their earthly wisdom.

In Christ
Jeff

_________________
Jeff Marshalek

This is the policy paper which established the United States program for population control in the world and the U.S. This first post begins with the first page of this directive.


NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506

April 24, 1974

National Security Study Memorandum 200
--------------------------------------

TO: The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Deputy Secretary of State
Administrator, Agency for International Development

SUBJECT: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests

The President has directed a study of the impact of world population
growth on U.S. security and overseas interests. The study should look
forward at least until the year 2000, and use several alternative
reasonable projections of population growth.

In terms of each projection, the study should assess:

- the corresponding pace of development, especially in poorer
countries;

- the demand for US exports, especially of food, and the trade
problems the US may face arising from competition for re-
sources; and

- the likelihood that population growth or imbalances will
produce disruptive foreign policies and international
instability.

The study should focus on the international political and economic
implications of population growth rather than its ecological, socio-
logical or other aspects.

The study would then offer possible courses of action for the United
States in dealing with population matters abroad, particularly in
developing countries, with special attention to these questions:

- What, if any, new initiatives by the United States are needed
to focus international attention on the population problem?

- Can technological innovations or development reduce
growth or ameliorate its effects?

- Could the United States improve its assistance in the population
field and if so, in what form and through which agencies --
bilateral, multilateral, private?

The study should take into account the President's concern that
population policy is a human concern intimately related to the
dignity of the individual and the objective of the United States is to
work closely with others, rather than seek to impose our views on
others.

The President has directed that the study be accomplished by the
NSC Under Secretaries Committee. The Chairman, Under Secretaries
Committee, is requested to forward the study together with the
Committee's action recommendations no later than May 29,
1974 for consideration by the President.



HENRY A. KISSINGER



cc: Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

(end of first page)



In the following post you will begin to see how we have been taught to think. What is today, is the result of what began back in 1973.

In Christ
Jeff

_________________
Jeff Marshalek

I'm finding this material fascinating. It's the inevitable result of making "science" the religion of the age...history, economics, and government have all become seen as a competition for resources and survival. Philosophical ideas such as Marxism, evolution, socialism, euthanasia, birth control,...are all driven by a zealous materialistic interpretation of reality.

One last thought about Buchanan’s book. (I assume this material is from the same book.)...not to pick a nit with his concerns about the west's shrinking population, but how many children does he have? ;-)

MC

_________________
Mike Compton

Brother Mike asked:

_________________
Jeff Marshalek

_________________
Mike Compton