In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians he makes a comment that I have always found intriguing: "... in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes." (2 Cor. 2:11)
I find this interesting, because as it seems to me, Christians continue to be outwitted by their chief Enemy and merrily remain unaware of his schemes. Of course, this applies to non-Christians, but that goes without saying, since they don't even believe he exists. Christians, the bulk of whom presumably believe Satan is real and active, seeking those to devour, have no such excuse.
Anthony Horvath is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries and the Policy Intersections Research Center. He regularly blogs on apologetics and life issues at www.sntjohnny.com. Some of his research on the culture of death is available here.
The example I want to provide today of the devil's schemes, to be clear, is not something I am putting at the feet of Christians, as if to blame them. Instead, I submit it as an example of how devious and deceptive our enemy is; alert to his schemes, we perhaps won't allow ourselves to be outwitted.
The example is the news out of California yesterday that over a period of about five years, imprisoned women were sterilized without state approval. In some of those cases, it appears also that the women had not given consent. In others, it may be the case that they did not even know the procedure was going to be performed. It is hard to tell from the article. What is clear, is that some of the women who did 'give consent' were pressured into doing so.
This treatment of women, some would think, is the sort of thing that could never happen after Roe vs. Wade. Didn't it enshrine a women's right to do with her body as she pleased? This is one of the enemy's first deception, and one that I am afraid he has found many humans happily willing to knowingly go along with the deception. The 'right' to an abortion has little to nothing to do, in the eyes of the elites, with a woman's reproductive choice. They were concerned, and remained concerned, with only two things: population control and making a bunch of money for themselves, preferably on the tax payer's dime. "Choice" is a mere myth that popular society has imbibed and accepted, the elites, such as those who run Planned Parenthood, don't give a lick.
I realize that is an assertion that many should like to see extensively corroborated. Space won't allow it, but if there is a single document that exposes just how quickly organizations such as Planned Parenthood are willing to dispense with "women's rights" in considering solutions, take a look at what is known as the Jaffe Memo. This memo, submitted to the Population Council in 1969 by Planned Parenthood's vice-president in charge of 'population' issues, Frank Jaffe, proposes a number of measures to reduce fertility in the United States. Examples include:
- Adding fertility control agents in the water supply
- Requiring women to work and then providing few child care facilities
- Abortion and sterilization on demand
- Compelling women to be sterilized--or get abortions
- Oh, and encouraging increased homosexuality.
I'm sure that the rapid public acceptance of homosexuality in our society has everything to do with rights, and nothing to do with elite propagandists forty years ago who saw in it a convenient way to reduce the population in the United States. (To draw the connection for people in our society today who for some reason may not be able to understand Jaffe's logic... gay couples cannot, by themselves, reproduce. Did you know that? You may think this perfectly plain self-evident fact is a bigoted statement rather than the perfectly plain self-evident fact that it is. You can thank the propagandists for your inability to grasp this logic, and the speed in which you pull out the "you are a bigot!" card.)
That is a slight digression, but I make the point because it is another case in point of secular humanist liberal atheist materialists in a previous generation lying about their objectives, and winning acceptance of their proposals on a basis entirely different than the one that drives their agenda.
It may seem hard for some of us to learn that Planned Parenthood submitted abortion on demand as a population control measure, and was even willing to consider compelling women to get abortions, but that is precisely what they did. Whether or not this remains their agenda, of course we'll never know, because, like the Enemy, they lie.
But every now and then, cracks appear and the light shines in. In the article about the deceptive sterilization of women inmates, one of the doctors Dr. James Heinrich reportedly says, ""Over a 10-year period, [the money spent on sterilizations] compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children - as they procreated more."
This is the sort of argument that permeated eugenics programs and proposals--within our lifetimes.
One inmate, aghast at what she was hearing, is reported to have said, "I was like, 'Oh my God, that's not right. Do they think they're animals, and they don't want them to breed anymore?"
And the answer is, yes, they do think they are animals, and I would say Heinrich's comment above confirms the view that they don't want them to breed anymore; he just didn't use the word breed.
And we do believe we are animals, right? Isn't that what Darwin has proved to us? Why resist extending the proof to its logical conclusion? After all, Darwin used the 'artificial selection' of animal breeders as the controlling analogy for 'natural selection.' The difference between people today who accept Darwinism and the eugenicists of yesterday is merely that they were willing to act on their beliefs, whereas today--notsomuch. Except, when they do, quietly, without even perhaps knowing they are doing so, as Dr. Heinrich does.
Finally, we read that 34 year old Christina Cordero reports that "As soon as [Dr. Heinrich] found out that I had five kids, he suggested that I look into getting it done. The closer I got to my due date, the more he talked about it. He made me feel like a bad mother if I didn't do it."
This is 'consent' in action. But you should know that such 'persuasion' has a long history. After the Nazis, eugenicists could not access the levers of power, so instead, in the words of eugenicist Frederick Osborn in 1956, a new approach was proposed:
People will accept the idea of a specific hereditary defect. They will go to a heredity clinic and ask what is the risk of our having a defective child. They balance that risk against the chance of their having a sound child, and they usually come up with a pretty sound decision. But they won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation.
Given the right circumstances, people will have children in proportion to their ability to care for them. If they feel financially secure, if they enjoy accepting responsibility, if they have warm affectional responses, if they are physically strong and competent, they are likely to have large families, provided they have a reasonable psychological conditioning to this end. If they are unable to feed the children they have, if they are afraid of responsibility, if their affectional responses are weak, people don't want many children. If they have effective means of family planning, they won't have many. Our studies have shown this to be true all over the world. On such a base it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.
It seems to me that if it is to progress as it should, eugenics must follow new policies and state its case anew, and that from this rebirth we may, even in our own lifetime, see it moving at last towards the goals which Galton set for it. Eugenics Review, 1956, 21-22; "Galton and Mid-Century Eugenics")
Here, I think is a nice overview of the true origins of 'reproductive rights' in America. Note that he wishes to promote a "voluntary unconscious selection." By 'selection' he is referring to selection in the Darwinian sense. The goal is to get people to unconsciously act on eugenics principles, without knowing they are doing so, and have them believe it is their own idea and choice! As you can see from the excerpt, it wasn't just "defective children" he has in view, but also family size in general, consistent with eugenic concerns about population size and population quality. This approach would soon have a catch phrase. You may recognize it: "Every Child a Wanted Child."
And as you can see, it has nothing to do with reproductive freedom, choice, or privacy. They really do believe some of us are "second-rate." They just know they won't get anywhere by putting it in those terms, anymore. Also, regrettably, they have little hope of accessing the levers of powers in the way the Nazis did. Tricking us is about all they have left.
But tricking us they have been doing, and sometimes, in fact, they do access the levers of power. In fact, judging from the amount of tax payer dollars Planned Parenthood and other population control organizations get, they have amassed quite a bit of power. And I have only scratched the surface. I have been researching just this for many years now, and formed an organization to try to inform people of precisely this sort of thing. Check it out at www.policyintersections.org.
More to the point, inmates are, by definition, subject to the levers of power exerted upon them. They are thus vulnerable to people with latent Malthusian, Darwinian, Eugenical viewpoints. It need not be a conspiracy--I am not saying Dr. Heinrich is a closet eugenicist. More likely, he has accepted eugenical arguments "on other motivations" and doesn't even know what he is doing, or that what he is proposing is very similar or even identical to eugenics proposals a half century or so ago.
But we can be quite sure that making people feel like bad mothers is just the sort of thing Osborn would have approved of, and considered consistent with his objective of attaining eugenic goals... within our lifetime. For example, earlier in the same he advances the need to change the public's opinions so that 'voluntarily' frown on things he does not like. In regards to "defective children," for example, he believes that Galton would agree that "by educating the public [...], backed by public opinion, [people would be] increasingly hesitant to run the risk of bringing defective children into the world." (20)
Now, what lessons may we infer from all this so that we may not be outwitted?
1., Realize that our Enemy, and our enemies, work generationally. Social realities we are dealing with today were set in motion decades ago, who knew that if they did not act generationally, gradually, they stood no chance. That is to say, they knew that what they wanted to do would be perceived as outright wicked if they just came out and did it.
2. Realize that our Enemy hates humans themselves, and wishes to divide and destroy them at every turn. If he can get even humans to hate other humans, that is icing on the cake. Examples of this over the centuries abound. But we cannot allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking such people don't exist.
3. People who hate people, and wish to reduce their numbers (eg, "to save the planet"), gravitate to the places where they can actually reduce their numbers. They go into politics, public health, and various government agencies. The work they do happens behind closed doors: we wouldn't even know about the sterilization of these women if not for a couple of them making a stink and evidence coming out via a public records request.
4. Of all the things the Enemy wishes to do most to inflict harm on humanity, God's primary organizational plan for humanity, the Family, is the prime target. Satan has been attacking the Family, with numerous willing accomplices (see #3) for hundreds of years. From Divorce-on-Demand that facilitates the decimation of families for, by definition, no reason at all, to Abortion-on-demand, that literally allows women to murder their offspring, to restructuring ideas of the family itself so that children are a small factor in the idea of marriage (see again, the Jaffe Memo), he is willing to try it all, and he is willing to work it out over generations.
But knowing this, what shall we do? The problem, of course, is that even though people-haters gravitate to places where they can properly inflict their hatred--ie, the Government--people-lovers tend to do the same. They set up agencies and bureaucracies and establish services and do all sorts of things, which I am willing to admit, they often do in perfect good faith. Unfortunately, once such systems are set up, the people-lovers eventually move on. People-haters take control, and people who had come to expect good faith treatment at the hands of these various agencies, now find themselves 'voluntarily' doing things for reasons entirely different than the service providers really want them to do them.
You may draw your own conclusions from this. For my part, I believe that the phrase, "the more power you give to someone to help you, the more power you give to them to hurt you" entails, for the sensible and sane person, the refusal even to give those people the power to 'help' you. These days, you just never know if they are there to help or hurt you, so it is better to simply deny them the ability to do either.
But another thing seems clear: if you insist on giving such powers to various agencies, and providing such services, etc, it is imperative that you understand the history of these agencies and these services, and keep a careful, careful, eye on their operations--all the time. For example, eugenicists have been sterilizing people without state approval and without consent for more than a hundred years. Google Dr. Sharp, of Indiana, if you wish to know more, or check out the book "A Century of Eugenics in America" for further corroboration.
Personally, I believe it is impossible to provide the kind of oversight to 'helpful' agencies, especially when they are expanding in number and scope, exponentially, every year. It is better to take care of such things on our own, without recourse to the Government. But at least don't be a dupe. Make sure in your advocacies you are not furthering agendas that you would deem wicked.
True, while this will require time and research on your part, Paul was giving words of encouragement when he said that we are not unaware of Satan's schemes. The truth is, it is not hard to detect where Satan is busy. Just look for the broken people, the broken families, and the piles of human dead, and you can be certain that carved on some wall or under some rock somewhere is the phrase, "Satan was here."