The 144th Congress of Correction, which was held between August 15 to August 20, 2014 in Salt Lake City, featured a workshop over the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and its ramifications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) populations in detention. The consensus of those presenting this workshop was that inmates of these particular orientations were at increased risk for sexual victimization. Never once during the course of this workshop was the possibility raised of LGBTI inmates actually perpetrating such victimization. This omission betrayed an implicit partiality for those who embrace unconventional sexual orientations. Perhaps this omission was, to some extent, attributable to the overall outlook of those who assembled the workshop. The chief speaker was Bernadette Brown, who, in addition to being a Senior Program Specialist for the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, is a self-avowed lesbian. During her presentation, Brown boldly declared, “Gender is a social construct” (Brown).
This radical claim, which hinges on a purported disjunction between sex and gender, is certainly nothing new. In recent years, it has been largely popularized by socially and politically active feminists. Recognizing the equally advantageous implications of the sex/gender dichotomy for their own social movement, various LGBTI rights organizations have adopted it as a central rationale for their platforms as well. Underpinning the claim is the tacit promotion of androgyny as normative. In turn, the promotion of androgyny can be traced further back to the most pervasive of ancient heresies: Gnosticism. The pseudepigraphical Gospel of Thomas exemplifies this normative view of androgyny. In Saying 22, the Gnostic revision of Christ portrays androgyny as a salvific union:
Jesus said to them, “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].”
As is the case with most revolutionary movements that populate modernity, feminism qualifies as what Eric Voegelin called a Gnostic political religion. Gnosticism taught that, in the beginning, there was a spiritual singularity (the “Pleroma”) within which divinity functioned at optimal potency. This pure unity was divided into a plurality by the error of an intermediate deific being known as Sophia (“Wisdom”). Emanating from Sophia’s own being was a defective consciousness that eventually assumed the Biblical appellation of Jehovah, who the Gnostics blasphemously caricatured as the “Archon of Arrogance.” This misotheism was attributable to the Gnostics’ assignment of an ontological status to evil. With evil no longer imputed to the will, corruption was projected upon all things external to the Gnostic. This projection encompassed the external world, which invariably became the recipient of either explicit or implicit contempt.
Because they believed that evil possessed substance and form, the Gnostics were predisposed to some variant of Docetism and Manichean dualism. The diminution of the human condition, which Biblical Christianity identifies as the Fall of humanity’s original parents, was conflated with the very act of creation. After all, if evil possesses form and substance, then only a malevolent God would fetter the purity of spirit to the corruption of matter. The exoneration of God entailed the arbitrary bifurcation of His roles as Creator and Father into two separate deities. God the Father was docetistically portrayed as absolutely transmundane, ontically distant from the created order. God the Creator was portrayed as a veritable warden presiding over the cosmic prison of the material world. Thus, the Gnostics vilified the Biblical God because of His creatological role.
The palpable realm was a horrible accident resulting from a precosmic splintering of the Pleroma. As corrupt and detached fragments of the emanated divine essence, the ontological confines of the material world were regarded with a docetistic cosmological attitude. Through this interpretative lens, the existential status of physical embodiment was tantamount to imprisonment. Herein is the basis for the normative view of androgyny. Because the possession of sex organs is a defining feature of physical embodiment, Gnosticism expressed a tacit derision for the gender categories of male and female. From this anthropological pessimism arose a broader cosmological pessimism. The temporal-spatial realm was regarded as a penal colony governed by the demonic agents of time and space. Humanity was supposedly thrust into this cosmic prison through the act of creation. Fettered by the physical laws of nature and an objective morality codified as the Mosaic law, the pneuma (spirit) of man found itself separated from the divine pneuma and in a perpetual state of alienation. This state could only be overcome by action based upon gnosis (i.e., direct revelatory knowledge of humanity’s unity with the divine). Gnosis was considered superior to pistis (faith).
The Gnostic conception of unity with God should not be confused with the Orthodox Christian conception, which is distilled in 2 Peter 1:4. In that passage, Peter states that Christians enjoy the promise of becoming “partakers of the divine nature.” What Peter was describing was theosis, a transformation in the Christian’s whole being that conforms him/her to the image of the resurrected Christ. In contradistinction, Gnosticism actually taught that man was part and parcel of God. As such, man was ontologically equivalent with God. Thus, the promise of gnosis was the promise of the transfiguration of human into divine or apotheosis. In the original Greek, the prefix apo- conveys spatial denotations such as “away,” “off,” “from,” and “apart.” These terms indicate a distinction or a separation. Of course, theos means “God.” So, apotheosis means a transfiguration that takes place completely apart from God. Salvation, for the Gnostic, was not man’s redemption from sin through Jesus Christ, but his redemption from the stupefaction of his isolation and alienation within the material cosmos through gnosis. Gnosticism divorced the Creator from the salvational process, thereby opposing Christianity’s theocentric soteriology with an anthropocentric soteriology.
During the 18th century Enlightenment, religious Gnosticism became political Gnosticism. As religious Gnosticism was transmogrified into political Gnosticism, its dualistic framework was inverted. Where ancient Gnosticism valued transcendence, the new Gnosticism valued immanence. In contradistinction to objects of transcendent experience, objects of immanent experience are within the experiential limits of man. As such, they permanently pervade the physical universe. Will, consciousness, and even the Divine are ontologically anchored to material agencies. In this sense, immanentist Gnosticism synchronizes rather comfortably with modern materialism, which is ironic in light of its ancient antecedent’s docetistic atttitude towards materiality.
The codification of the ancient Christian heresy of Gnosticism into revolutionary doctrine resulted in the secularization of the very Christian eschatology that Enlightenment thinkers derided. For the modern Gnostic, the eschaton (i.e., end of days) indwells history itself. This secular eschatology, which assumed a myriad of forms among modern socialist revolutionary movements, proffered a redemptive world history that culminated with an immanent Parousia facilitated by the hand of man. For instance, Marxism held that the proletariat would redeem the world from thousands of years of class exploitation. Likewise, Hitler’s Aryanism promised to redeem the world from the alleged corruption of mankind by so-called “inferior” races. Cultural feminism, which has rose to prominence in recent years, seeks to redeem the world from millennia of alleged male domination.
The Gnostic strand running through the fabric of feminism is made evident by the movement’s experiments in religious engineering. Viewing religion through the same pragmatic optic of Enlightenment luminary August Comte, feminists attempt to re-sculpt traditional faiths along socially and politically expedient contours. Theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether declares: “Feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon… Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible” (Ruether ix). What is one of the chief sources of inspiration for feminist theology? The answer is provided by feminist theologian Chung Hyun Kyung, who candidly states: “[F]eminists are free to use the ancient Gnostic texts, originally rejected as heretical, because the Christian canon was created by men” and that “women are not obliged to accept a book… they had no part in framing” (qutd. in Jones 82).
According to Voegelin, the modern Gnostic’s anthropocentric soteriology can only attain the semblance of sense in the absence of God. After all, in order to create a new order, one must first supplant the creator of the old one. This cosmic regime change stipulates the ultimate revolutionary act: deicide. Voegelin reiterates:
In order… that the attempt to create a new world may seem to make sense, the givenness of the order of being must be obliterated; the order of being must be interpreted, rather, as essentially under man’s control. And taking control of being further requires that the transcendent origin of being be obliterated: it requires the decapitation of being – the murder of God. (35-36)
The murder of God is precisely what the feminist has in mind. Feminist Naomi Goldenberg has stated: “[T]he feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Jehovah. Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy” (Jones 195). Synopsizing the feminist objective of deicide, Goldenberg declares: “We women are going to bring an end to God” (180).
Where the ancient Gnostic laid claim to gnosis (i.e., secret knowledge) as the nucleus of their anthropocentric soteriology, the feminist lays claim to a fabled enlightened androgyny. The irony is that, while androgyny ostensibly combines male and female traits, the feminist actively works to rob women of their femininity. This theft is effected through the divorce of gender from sex. Just as the Gnostic viewed the cosmos and its inherently hierarchical order as an illusion projected by some malevolent demiurge, the feminist portrays masculinity and femininity as synthetic constructs imposed upon humanity by some chimerical patriarchical tyranny.
The bifurcation of sex and gender relies upon the perennially debated dichotomy of nature and nurture. Within the polarizing framework of the sex/gender divide, sex is portrayed as a product of nature while gender is depicted as a consequence of nurture. However, developments in neuroscience are rendering the nature/nurture dichotomy untenable. Darlene Francis and Daniela Kaufer state:
The “nature vs. nurture” conundrum was reinvigorated when genes were identified as the units of heredity, containing information that directs and influences development. When the human genome was sequenced in 2001, the hope was that all such questions would be answered. In the intervening decade, it has become apparent that there are many more questions than before.
Since advancements in neuroscience are swiftly banishing the nature/nurture dichotomy, it stands to reason that the sex/gender divide is being banished with it. If nature and nurture are not dichotomously related, then neither are sex and gender. Thus, sex and gender cannot be situated within the extreme polarities of some sort of binary opposition. Such a binary oppositional framework results in terminological confusion concerning both the general disparities between the sexes and the internal nuances that arise within each. In Gender, Nature and Nurture, Richard Lippa draws attention to this terminological confusion:
Some researchers have argued that the word sex should be used to refer to the biological status of being male or female, whereas the word gender should be used to refer to all the socially defined, learned, and constructed accoutrements to sex, such as hairstyle, dress, nonverbal mannerisms, and interests. However, it is not at all clear the degree to which the differences between males and females are due to biological factors versus learned and cultural factors. Furthermore, indiscriminate use of the word gender tends to obscure the distinction between two different topics: (a) differences between males and females, and (b) individual differences in maleness and femaleness that occur within each sex. (3-4)
Lippa observes that “”the very concept of gender is partly defined by differences between the sexes–differences in men’s and women’s dress, grooming, occupational choices, communication styles, aggression, and nonverbal behaviors” (4). Indeed, differences define gender. Those differences include biological distinctions. All of the semantic gymnastics aside, gender and sex remain synonymous. This axiomatic synonymy defies any disjunction that the sexual revolutionary may wish to impose upon the two.
The disjunction imposed upon gender and sex is an arbitrary one. It is designed to provide the sexual revolutionary with an expedient degree of elasticity in redefining the parameters of sexual sanity. If one’s sexual identity can be divorced from biology, then even the most harmful forms of intercourse can be justified. The extent to which this reality offends the delicate sensibilities of the politically correct is irrelevant. The juvenile objections notwithstanding, it is an inescapable medical fact that deviant forms of intercourse are accompanied by certain health risks. Chief among these deviant forms of intercourse is anal sex, a practice exercised prolifically within the homosexual milieu and some of the unconventional quarters of heterosexuality. No matter how loudly these enclaves may object, the fact is that even many secular medical authorities agree that anal intercourse is harmful. One such authority is Robert I. Krasner, a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biology at Providence College. He writes:
Some sexual behaviors are considered more risky and unsafe than others. Anal sex is the most dangerous because the lining of the anus is more subject to tears and injury than is the lining of the vagina, allowing the AIDS virus (and other microbes) easier passage into the blood. (416)
Of course, objective research seldom deters those who believe that reality will re-adjust itself to accommodate their hedonism. This mentality is exemplified by self-avowed “sex professor” Debby Herbenick, who promotes anal intercourse as a “way to explore and act out new fantasies with [your] lover” (11). In light of the obvious health risks inherent to such a mode of intercourse, such a promotion betrays a childish refusal to commune with truth on its own terms. To circumvent the inconvenient facts surrounding their harmful practices, sexual revolutionaries conjure up the fictional disjunction between gender and sex. The ultimate goal is to rationalize the rejection of the immutable natural order and enshrine one’s own appetites.
Underpinning the divorce between sex and gender is a pervasive dysteleological outlook. Through this interpretative lens, biology becomes a mere accident of nature. That one happens to be male or female is a consequence of blind, purposeless forces imposing themselves upon machines composed of meat. Ironically, proponents of such an outlook often give their assent to evolutionary theory, which is irreducibly teleological. No matter how much the evolutionist may object, the fact is that the evolutionary process strives towards a telos. Such striving presupposes the guidance of a rational agency. It is terribly difficult to invoke blind, purposeless forces while simultaneously positing a system of intricate design. Thus, even if biology were the result of evolution, the biological classifications of male and female would hardly qualify as accidents.
Moreover, the dysteleological portrait of the universe is a meaningless one. This portrayal is self-refuting. The one who claims that existence is meaningless must first assume that his or her own dysteleological proclamation is a meaningful one. If the universe were actually meaningless, then one could never express such a view meaningfully. Evidently, there is meaning in the universe. Otherwise, even dysteleological contentions could not be coherently conveyed. This internal contradiction of the dysteleological outlook belies the true motives of the ones who invoke it. Those motives are articulated rather candidly by Aldous Huxley:
I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality, because it interfered with our sexual freedom. We objected to the political and economic system, because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claim that in some way they embodied the meaning–a Christian meaning, they insisted–of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confusing these people and at the same time justify ourselves in our political and erotic revolt. We could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. (270)
The objectives of “political and erotic revolt” are rendered ostensibly tenable by the “philosophy of meaninglessness.” The division of sex and gender also hinges upon such dysteleology. Ultimately, the “philosophy of meaningless” camouflages revolutionary objectives. The various feminist and LGBTI organizations that are currently re-sculpting Western civilization harbor similar revolutionary aims. This fact underscores yet another contradiction endemic to the sex/gender dichotomy. The claim that gender is a social construct is self-refuting because it is, essentially, the product of movements (particularly various feminist and LGBTI organizations) advancing their own set of social constructs. Thus, the claim itself is a social construct. Since social constructs are viewed as mutable at best and inherently false at worst, one must conclude that the depiction of gender as a social construct is rendered untenable by its own criteria of acceptability.
Assuming that gender is a social construct, one would be committing the Genetic Fallacy by presupposing its falsity on such grounds. Simply underscoring a belief’s possible point of origin does not automatically render that belief false. One might argue that the warning to avoid speaking to strangers is a social construct, but very few would actually consider ignoring that parental admonition just because it might have originated through societal or cultural practice. In fact, gender categories might have originated through societal or cultural practice because society or culture recognized certain immutable truths at one time. One such immutable truth was that nature and biology will not re-adjust themselves to accommodate the desires of those seeking to redefine the parameters of sexual sanity.
Many individuals from across the political spectrum have noted feminism’s role as an agent of destructive social change. Sources as diverse as right-wing radio pundit Rush Limbaugh and dissident feminist Camille Paglia have commented on the ways in which the feminist movement, in particular the second-wave feminism that was launched in the 1960s, caused a gradual defection from sexual sanity and an erosion of social stability. Few, however, have written or spoken about modern feminism’s origins in the sub rosa levels of politics and intelligence. The fact that modern feminism was cultivated in the unseen world of deviant elites and criminalized intelligence circles cannot be dismissed as paranoid fantasy.
Aaron Russo, the famed deceased American film producer and director, may have learned a portion of feminism’s hidden history during conversations he had with Nicholas Rockefeller, a member of the infamous Rockefeller dynasty. Some debunkers and pathological skeptics have asserted that Nicholas Rockefeller was merely an invention of Russo’s imagination. Nicholas Rockefeller, however, is a very real person, as is evidenced by the following biography provided by Bloomberg’s Businessweek:
Mr. Nicholas Rockefeller has served as the company Director since February 1999. Mr. Rockefeller is an attorney with the law firm of Troop Meisinger Steuber Pasich Reddick & Tobey, LLP, and has been with the firm since June 1997, prior to which he was engaged in the private practice of law for ten years. Mr. Rockefeller also serves as a Managing Principal of the Rockvest Development Group and its affiliate, the Rockefeller International Fund, which supervises investments in publicly traded securities and private enterprises and maintains an active venture capital portfolio. Mr. Rockefeller is also Chairman of Rockefeller Asia, a financial services company. He serves as Member of Advisory Board at RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy. Mr. Rockefeller is a member of the California and Washington, D.C. bars, and holds a J.D. from Yale Law School. Mr. Rockefeller is the trustee of The SHMNM Investment Trust, which is currently a stockholder of the Company and which was established pursuant to a stockholders’ agreement between Mr. Nicholas Matzorkis and The Kushner-Locke Company. Mr. Rockefeller was elected a director of the Company as the director designated by the trust pursuant to the stockholders’ agreement. (“Company Overview of RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy: Nicholas Rockefeller”)
In addition to proving that Nicholas Rockefeller is not a fiction, the Businessweekbiography also gives readers an idea of the status and position that this particular member of the Rockefeller dynasty holds in elite circles. Nicholas Rockefeller is not a low-level businessman or a bottom feeder; he, like many other members of the Rockefeller dynasty, is a serious mover-and-shaker.
According to Russo, Women’s Liberation came up as a topic of discussion during one of his visits to Rockefeller’s residence. Rockefeller allegedly asked Russo: “Women’s Liberation is all about?” (“Reflections and Warnings – An Interview with Aaron Russo”). Russo gave the widely accepted answer, stating that Women’s Liberation was “about women having the right to work and getting equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote” (ibid). Russo claimed that Rockefeller began laughing at his answer and called him “an idiot” (ibid). Rockefeller then told Russo that the Rockefeller dynasty had financed the Women’s Liberation movement with two goals in mind (ibid). The first goal, according to Russo, was to bring women into the workforce so that a larger portion of the population could be taxed (ibid). The second goal, Russo asserted, was to disintegrate the traditional nuclear family so that children would begin viewing the State as their family (ibid).
The Intelligence Community appears to have played a significant role in the social engineering campaign Rockefeller described to Russo. For many years, the Rockefeller dynasty has been immersed in the world of intelligence. During the Cold War, intimate ties between the Rockefeller Foundation and U.S. intelligence circles were established. Author Frances Stonor Saunders shares some of the details concerning this unholy marriage:
The convergence between the Rockefeller billions and the U.S. government exceeded even that of the Ford Foundation. John Foster Dulles and later Dean Rusk both went from the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation to become secretaries of state. Other Cold War heavies such as John J. McCloy and Robert A. Lovett featured prominently as Rockefeller trustees. Nelson Rockefeller’s central position on this foundation guaranteed a close relationship with U.S. intelligence circles: he had been in charge of all intelligence in Latin America during the Second World War. Later, his associate in Brazil Colonel J.C. King became CIA chief of clandestine activities in the Western hemisphere. When Nelson Rockefeller was appointed by Eisenhower to the National Security Council in 1954, his job was to approve various covert operations. If he needed any extra information on CIA activities, he could simply ask his old friend Allen Dulles for a direct briefing. One of the most controversial of these activities was the CIA’s MK-ULTRA (or “Manchurian Candidate”) program of mind-control research during the 1950s. This research was assisted by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played no small role in the rise of one of second-wave feminism’s leading lights: Gloria Steinem. Steinem crossed paths with the CIA in the fall of 1958, a time when her trajectory hardly suggested greatness. Steinem had recently returned from a scholarship trip to India (Wilford 141). During her stay in India, Steinem “had befriended Indira Gandhi and the widow of revolutionary humanist M.N. Roy” (141). Her exposure to greatness, however, had not resulted in social elevation. According to author Hugh Wilford, Steinem “was having difficulty finding a rewarding job” (141). Steinem “was reduced to sleeping on the floors of friends’ apartments as she hunted for work in New York” (141).
It was at this low point in Steinem’s life that Clive S. Gray entered the picture to open the doors of opportunity. Steinem had first met Gray in Delhi, “where he was ostensibly working on a doctoral dissertation about the Indian higher education system” (141). In reality, Gray was working for the CIA, “talent-spotting potential agents in the student movement” (142). Gray asked Steinem to head up the Independent Service for Information on the Vienna Youth Festival (ISI), which Wilford describes as “a major CIA-financed student enterprise launched in 1957 with the aim of rescuing Third World youth from the clutches of communist propagandists” (141). Gray and the other founders of the ISI were former NSA officers who hoped to influence the impressionable, young minds of attendees of the Vienna World Festival of Youth and Students, an event planned by KGB head and former student leader Alexander Sheljepin (141-142). According to Wilford, Gray’s proposal was too good for Steinem to refuse:
The suggestion immediately appealed to Steinem, not just because it meant paid work but because it also offered an outlet for the political idealism awakened in her by her Indian experiences, and soon after the call from Gray she met in New York with another former NSA president turned CIA officer, Harry Lunn (who, like most other young men of her acquaintance, promptly fell in love with her). Next she traveled to Cambridge, there to be interviewed by two former NSA Vice-Presidents for International Affairs, Len Bebchick and Paul E. Sigmund, Jr., and Boston lawyer George Abrams. By January 1959, she had taken up the post of Director of the Independednt Service for Information, with offices in Harward Yard and a salary of $100 a week, plus $5 per diem “because Cambridge rents were so expensive” (a generous allowance fixed by the infatuated Lunn). (142)
Steinem was not a unwitting agent or dupe. She was quite aware of the fact that the CIA was pulling her strings. Wilford elaborates:
As for Steinem herself, she became witting when she began asking questions about the ISI’s funding, and the undercover CIA officers explained that the Boston grandees and foundations apparently subsidizing the venture were in fact pass-throughs for secret official fund. (142)
In the weeks running up to the festival, Steinem and her ISI staff sent pamphlets and fact sheets to students planning to attend (143). Aiding Steinem was Time, Inc. executive C.D. Jackson, the master of psychological warfare “who secretly volunteered to coordinate a massive antifestival propaganda campaign on the CIA’s behalf, involving Radio Free Europe, Time reporters, and Austrian cabinet ministers” (143). When CBS canceled plans for a one-hour documentary on the festival, Jackson came to Steinem’s aid, attempting to convince CBS president Frank Stanton to reconsider (143). Jackson was very successful in raising support for ISI efforts at the festival (143-144).
Many left-wing researchers have portrayed the CIA as a collection of arch-conservatives that teeters on fascism. Steinem’s relationship with the CIA, however, paints a different picture. When speaking to the Washington Post concerning her relationship with the CIA, Steinem stated, “In my experience the Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, non violent, and honorable” (147). Speaking about the Vienna Youth Festival, Steinem told the New York Times, “I was happy to find some liberals in government in those days who were farsighted and cared enough to get Americans of all political views to the festival” (147). Steinem apparently saw little difference between her radical message and the beliefs held by many within the CIA’s ranks.
While anti-Soviet, the CIA was not necessarily opposed to radical and revolutionary ideas. The Agency’s close collaboration with Steinem clearly illustrates this point. It did not seem to alarm the CIA in the least that Steinem was seeking to dismantle traditional marriage and the nuclear family. The Agency did not seem to mind if people were radicalized, so long as it controlled that radicalization campaign and selected the revolutionary doctrine that would be disseminated.
The CIA may have developed a radical pedigree that even included an entertainment of Marxist ideas. This pedigree began to develop with the CIA’s precursor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). General William “Wild Bill” Donovan, the head of the OSS, was not opposed to employing communists (Smith 9). Donovan justified the employment of communists by invoking the threat of the Axis powers (9). An Allied victory, contended Donovan, had to be secured at all costs. For Donovan, concerns over communist subversion had to be subordinated to the larger goal of winning the Second World War. Donovan even told an OSS assistant, “I’d put Stalin on the OSS payroll if I thought it would help us defeat Hitler” (9). The result of this thinking was an OSS that was “very tolerant of the political left” (9). Strategic and sensitive positions in the wartime intelligence agency were not off limits to communists or Marxists. Author Richard Harris Smith elaborates:
One ex-Communist of an earlier vintage correctly stated: “In the Office of Strategic Services… employment of pro-Communists was approved at very high levels provided that they were suited for specific jobs.” OSS often welcomed the services of Marxist enthusiasts, so long as they made no attempt to conceal their political affiliations. (9)
Donovan not only winked at the communist affiliations of OSS employees; he actively sought out communists for recruitment and employment. At one point, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “triumphantly presented the general with dossiers of three OSS employees with Communist Party affiliations and demanded their ouster from the organization” (9). In response to the evidence presented by the FBI, Donovan stated, “I know they’re Communists; that’s why I hired them” (9). Following the end of the Second World War, the OSS morphed into the CIA.
Given its revolutionary and radical pedigree, it is not at all surprising that the Agency employed Steinem, a radical feminist activist who portrayed morality and traditionalism as machinations of male oppression. While both the CIA and Steinem were opposed to the Soviet Union, neither was necessarily opposed to Marxism. Like the CIA she served, Steinem embraced Marxist concepts and ideas. Steinem even admitted that her opposition to Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade prompted her to adopt Marxism (Mitchell 130). Cultural Marxism was a major element of the social engineering campaign carried out by the Rockefellers, the CIA, and Steinem.
Steinem’s choice of allies is especially ironic in light of the misogyny endemic to the Establishment. The Rockefellers, for instance, could hardly be characterized as particularly sympathetic to the plight of modern women. If the remarks of Nicholas Rockefeller to Russo were truly uttered, then it becomes painfully apparent that the oligarchical dynasty’s motives for financing the rise of feminism was purely pragmatic. Moreover, feminism was birthed from the womb of a misogynistic outlook, a paradoxical reality underscored by the movement’s Gnostic inspirations. Recall that, according to Gnostic creatology, the human race has a female Aeon (Sophia) to thank for its collective dilemma. The defective consciousness that supposedly presides over the intrinsically corrupt physical cosmos emanated from her own being. Such a creatology is hardly flattering towards women. This misogyny is explicitly expressed by the Gnostic revision of Christ in the pseudepigraphicalGospel of Thomas:
Simon Peter said to all the other disciples, ‘”Let Mary Magdalene go out from among us because women are not worthy of life.”
So, feminism originated with a misogynistic heresy. There can be little wonder why this inherently misandric ideology shares so much in common with the misogynistic order it ostensibly opposes. Ultimately, the hegemony sought by the oligarchical interests of the Establishment is not gender-specific. Androgyny stipulates not only the destruction of masculinity, but of femininity as well. In this sense, misandry and misogyny are merely interim outlooks that invariably segue into androgyny. Neither one emphasizes the complimentary dynamic function served by the other. Instead, both seek primacy. The dialectical tension between the two is intended to gradually undermine gender as a defining determinant of human identity. Because identity is inextricably linked to gender, it must be abolished. After all, serfs have no need for personal identities. The world order being enshrined by the deviant elite will be populated by neither males or females. In the end, if the deviant elite realize their eschatological vision for the world, it will be populated by the new inhuman race.
About the Authors
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism and co-authored the book The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship with his brother Paul Collins. Both books are available at www.amazon.com. Phillip has also written articles for News With Views, Conspiracy Archive, and the Vexilla Regis Journal.
In 1999, Phillip earned an Associate degree of Arts and Science from Clark State Community College. In 2006, he earned a bachelor’s degree with majors in communication studies and liberal studies along with a minor in philosophy from Wright State University.
Phillip worked as a staff writer for a weekly news publication, the Vandalia Drummer, between late 2007 and 2011. During his tenure with the paper, he earned several accolades.
In 2011, he was inducted into the Media Honor Roll by the Ohio School Board Association for his extensive coverage of the Vandalia-Butler School District. That very same year, the Ohio Newspaper Association bestowed an Osman C. Hooper Newspaper Award upon Phillip for Best Photo. In addition, the City of Vandalia officially proclaimed that November 7, 2011 would be known as “Phillip Collins Day.” This honor was bestowed upon Phillip for his tireless coverage of the City and community.
Shortly after bringing his journalism career to a close, Phillip received another Osman C. Hooper Newspaper Award in the category of In-depth Reporting. This award was given to Phillip for his investigative work over the death of U.S. Marine Maria Lauterbach and the resultant Department of Defense reforms concerning sexual assault and rape. The case drew national attention and received TV coverage by major media organs.
Phillip currently works for the Wyoming Department of Corrections, where he earned the distinction of Employee of the Quarter for the third quarter of 2013. Phillip still works as a freelance journalist and is currently collaborating with his brother on a follow-up to The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship.
Paul David Collins is the author of The Hidden Face of Terrorism and the co-author of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship. In 1999, he earned his Associate of Arts and Science degree from Clark State Community College. In 2006, he received his bachelor’s degree with a major in Liberal Studies and a minor in Political Science from Wright State University. He worked as a professional journalist for roughly four years.
From 2008 to 2012, Paul covered local news for several Times Community News publications, including the Enon Messenger, the New Carlisle Sun, the Tipp City Herald, the Kettering/Oakwood Times, the Beavercreek News Current, the Vandalia Drummer, the Springboro Sun, the Englewood Independent, the Fairborn Daily Herald, and the Xenia Daily Gazette.
Paul also wrote for other local papers, including the Enon Eagle, the New Carlisle News, and the Lusk Herald. In addition to his work in the realm of mainstream, Paul has published several articles concerning the topics of deep politics and elite deviancy. Those articles have appeared in Terry Melanson’s online Conspiracy Archive, Paranoia magazine, Vexilla Regis Journal, and Nexus magazine. He currently works as a correctional officer with the Wyoming Department of Corrections.