Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

The Real Terrorists: Abortion and the Media War on Children and Motherhood

Precise language is a very menacing thing–and therefore fuzzy language is a powerful weapon–to the Powers-That-Be who want to actively and significantly reduce the population in the here and now. That’s why the “PTB” must own the media and weaponize it. ‘

Consider this: To “abort” means to bring something to a premature end, like aborting a mission due to a problem that arose or change of plans. But that neutral-sounding word utterly fails to describe what happens to a child in the womb when it’s murdered via violent dismemberment—a “choice” of the mother, so how dare you object—and that obfuscation of language is on purpose.

Who needs armies to subdue and control a population’s thought patterns and its resulting actions when you “own” words and the means of their transmission? And media control supplements the ultimate societal control realized by creating money as interest-bearing debt, instead of ensuring its debt-free creation in a manner that balances purchasing power with production and makes the economic wheel turn properly, thereby making the raising of families a natural affair.

Such a system of media-induced control cannot let precise language take hold. So, pro-life people are called “anti-abortion” and portrayed as hateful “intolerables” or “deplorables” who oppose “women’s reproductive rights,” as if anyone has a “right to choose” to literally end the life of another (which practically speaking only applies to self-defense against, say, an intruder breaking into one’s home).

So, what the media simply cannot permit is a probe into the concept of “choice,” let alone its stated application of legally allowing a mother to “choose” to have her child killed insider of her.

That’s because of one basic thing: Not every action is justified just because you choose it. If I choose to kick my uncle out of a moving car, is that OK? If I “choose” to take my own life, is that really OK?

Just because I “feel” like it’s somehow justified, to take my own life is to totally disregard others who care for me as well as higher moral realities. Choice be damned. There is more to me, than me. I have a Creator, whether I “choose” to accept it or not. So, I don’t “own” myself, or anyone else, in the absolute sense.

You can see how this “choice” thing plays out. Once it’s deeply embedded, women think they not only “own” “their” bodies, they then advance to “owning” the “fetus” inside of them to the point where they become the arbiters of life itself, believing in the devilry that they can personally decree that the “fetus” must die, based on circumstances that may seem dire one day, yet may soon improve.

Fetus,” akin to a meaningless blob of tissue, is the mandated cover word for a human being. However, a child, according to south Texas MD Lawrence Gelman, is born at conception. Think about this. ‘Birth,’ strictly speaking, means when something first comes into existence. But we call the child’s departure from the womb ‘birth.’ Not so. Leaving the womb, as Dr. Gelman told this writer, is only ‘delivery’ from one physical place to another. Thus, the first manifestation of existence is—and can only be—conception.”

And as Notre Dame Law Professor Emeritus Charles Rice told me in extended discussions, there are people who evidently can’t bear to realize that the person growing inside the womb is the offspring of human parents. “What do people think that offspring is, a giraffe . . . an orange?” Rice asked, as we pondered the refusal of people to face even the most basic realities.

That flight from reality was certainly on display at the anti-Trump, anti-life March of Deluded Women Jan. 21 in Washington D.C., the day after Trump’s inauguration. They made it clear that no man (or woman who thinks womanhood consists of treating men like valid partners and bearing children) is going to tell them what to do with “their” bodies and the undefended bodies of children born, properly defined, at conception.

Furthermore, many patriots fret and warn that “someday, down the road,” in the “coming” New World Order’s “End Game,” we might all be executed in FEMA camps due to a “pending” world regime. But an actual world tyranny, busily twisting the minds of women via radical feminism, is already a real thing—right here, right now. And while we fixate on external threats, this regime has harnessed the near-total brainwashing of women and used them as disposable foot soldiers to rid the world of some 60 million newborn human beings (in the U.S. alone) since the underhanded sabotage of the social contract known as the Roe V. Wade U.S. Supreme Court “ruling” in 1973.

That was the “landmark decision” in the high-sounding words of the liberal-internationalist weaponized media, a decision that advanced “reproductive rights” via “legalized abortion”—consummating women’s ballyhooed “right to choose.”

Sixty million, notably, is about twice the current population of Canada. It’s like having a 9/11 each and every day.

The nations have thus decreed that until a person in a mother’s womb reaches a certain stage of development, they are not even “people.” So, in the eyes of the law, no one is even there to die. Ergo, no one dies. And even if an especially hideous partial-birth “abortion” happens, no one with a name dies. Every “aborted” child is literally written off as if they never existed. Thus, each slain child dies twice, if you will.  It appears that, alongside weaponized media, we have weaponized law, which dooms the very people it’s supposed to protect.

Through the constant repetition of its putrid pap, the orthodox press—as if it were using a form of Chinese water torture—word by word gradually assaults the moral sense, reducing the decision of whether the most defenseless human beings live or die to a purely utilitarian consideration, often based in the immediate sense on the perceived situation of the mother (I cannot afford to keep the child, so I won’t) and based long-term on the noxious Roe V. Wade “ruling” that simply sought to invalidate state laws that prohibited abortion. It didn’t directly “legalize” anything.

To be sure, the Rockefeller-funded efforts to kick women out of the home and force most of them to work and pay taxes (while many women say they love the “choice” of having a career) needs to be fully exposed and countered with effective actions to restore the home, so young women don’t make snap economic decisions to take their child’s life.

In the legal realm, what have we become when we allow (and when we blithely believe) that a single court decision on a single case can decide the fate of newborn people basically forever? In my reasonably informed opinion, Roe V. Wade was the law of the case, not the law of the land. While this article is not focused on this angle, part of the problem, clearly, is the over-fixation on case law, where we assume that because a certain case has certain factors, those factors speak for all people, at all times.

Plaintiff “Roe” later became pro-life anyway but, early on, she was maneuvered into the case by radical activists spouting Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s murderous ideology to reduce the population, especially minority populations. (Memo to minority women at the D.C. march: That’s why so many PP clinics are in minority neighborhoods, although white populations, which already have too-low a birthrate, have been thinned a lot as well, via the abortion-execution mill).

The very existence of Roe V. Wade stems from a radical act of war on the social order, as the late former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who as an activist helped set the stage for Roe V. Wade, confessed before his passing. As the years passed, he found his soul and was profoundly saddened by all the abortions he performed and by his legal actions. He lived a tortured existence while struggling to repent in his final days.

An awakening of that sort is better late than never. But when will society as a whole have a similar awakening? If President Donald Trump’s initial, encouraging pro-life actions signal something more, that’s a welcome thing. But when, and how, will we return to the higher moral plane that we must reach?

Hard to say. But now is a pivotal time to start trying.

Tags:

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.

Mark Anderson

Longtime journalist Mark Anderson began writing for American Free Press in 2006 and succeeded Jim Tucker as the paper's official Bilderberg Group reporter. He covers Capitol Hill and focuses on media issues, monetary reform and ending the warfare state. He blogs at www.TheTruthhound.com

Facebook Comments

CONTACT US

Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Sending

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account

Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become an iPatriot insider. Simply sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend