Profiles of the Architects of the Culture of Death

[MC Just]

Profiles of the Architects of the Culture of Death

Our fourteen "Architects of the Culture of Death" have two things in common. On the objective side, they reject God, nature and the notion of the human being as a person who lives by knowledge and love. On the subjective side, they are guilty of an intransigent willfulness inasmuch as they accord a higher place to their own egos than to the order of creation. Their weaknesses are transparent; their ambitions, vain; and their logic is a mere house of cards. In sum, they represent a Culture of Death that rests on the shifting sands of a "false humanism."

On the other hand, those who labor to establish the Culture of Life operate from a sound, personalist humanism, something we rightly refer to as anthropological realism. As persons, we know that our nature is not to be self-centered, but to be self-giving. We know that the order of creation is ours to discover and enjoy, not to reinvent and impose. We know that it is the truth that sets us free, and not something that must be deconstructed and relegated to the scrap heap of human history.

Life is a gift to be enjoyed, shared, safeguarded and advanced. The recognition of its imperfections animates our love so that we do not yield to the utopian temptation of creating a greater society out of our own petty dissatisfactions.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was an unashamed atheist and is considered the most pessimistic and woman-hating of all major philosophers. He believed that reality is a malevolent and capricious Will that dooms our lives to misery. The great historian Will Durant was not being intemperate or unfair when he said of Schopenhauer, "Given a diseased constitution and a neurotic mind, a life of empty leisure and gloomy ennui, and there emerges the proper physiology for Schopenhauer's philosophy."

Schopenhauer's philosophy of will had an immense influence on Freud, Nietzsche and the contemporary school of unlicensed freedom of choice. His philosophy dissociated will from reason and thereby made it terrifying.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) took the will as the principle of existence. He regarded this will as the will for power because he saw life as a striving after power. When he was twenty-five years old, Nietzsche witnessed a marching battalion of soldiers, which gave him a vision that would become his lifelong philosophy: "I felt for the first time that the strongest and highest Will to Life does not find expression in a miserable struggle for existence, but in a Will to War, a Will to Power, a Will to Overpower."

Nietzsche was an "unashamed atheist" who detested Christianity, charging that it advanced weak, feminine qualities like modesty, chastity and humility. Nietzsche admired the warrior and the conqueror, and much of his "Superman" thinking was later adopted by the Third Reich.

Nietzsche spent his final days in a mental institution, hopelessly mad and not even knowing his own name.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818-1883) identified himself throughout his life with Prometheus, the mythical figure who overthrew the gods and liberated mankind from tyranny. "I hate all the gods," he declared. "I would much rather be bound to a rock, than to be the docile valet of Zeus the Father."

Marx was a proud atheist who argued that once man is freed from the illusion of God, he is free to possess himself fully. He considered religion the "opium of the people."

Marx helped inaugurate a grand socialist scheme through which he promised to lead the oppressed working class into an earthly utopia.

Marx welcomed violence as the irresistible means by which the oppressed could be liberated. He had scant respect for individuals and assumed that all members of the ruling class were evil and oppressive, while all members of the working class were innocent and good.

Auguste Comte

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was a militant atheist who proposed "Humanity" as the only valid God. Comte had an unbounded enthusiasm for science and viewed the ultimate science to be social physics, or, using the term he coined, "sociology." He wanted to re-organize society so that "our young disciples will be accustomed, from childhood, to look on the triumph of sociability over personality as the grand object of man."

Comte himself possessed a colossal ego. He was dictatorial in the extreme and intolerant of anything in his new religion that he did not personally approve.

Comte proclaimed that "Love is my principle, Order is my basis, Progress my aim." But tyranny was his outcome. Critics of Comte viewed him, at the apex of his career, to be a deranged madman.

Judith Jarvis Thomson

Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929-) is a philosopher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has written the most widely reprinted essay not only on the subject of abortion, but also on any subject within all of contemporary philosophy. Her article has been the most frequently cited apologia for abortion.

In this article, "Defense of Abortion," Thomson asks her reader to imagine waking up one morning and find oneself yoked to an unconscious violinist who has been kidnapped. The reader must remain plugged into this person for nine months in order to save the violinist's life.

Dr. Thomson contends that a perfect moral similitude exists between the above situation and a woman who is yoked to an "unwanted" preborn child: Just as one is justified in unyoking oneself from the "unwanted" violinist, a pregnant woman is equally justified in using abortion to unyoke herself from an "unwanted" child.

Jean-Paul Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) is the most celebrated and most influential of all existential philosophers, bringing the word "existentialism" into common usage. Sartre's peculiar brand of existentialism is atheistic. It incorporates a great deal of the irrational, while glorifying the absolutization of freedom.

Sartre refrains from ever referring to human nature or the human being. For Sartre, man is not man, nor is he any other nature. He is "freedom," a "being-for-itself." He declared that we are "nothing" before we can be "anything." We are not anything in particular. We are choosers who exist, but do not yet have a nature or essence. We are, therefore, freedom.

For Sartre, there can be no reason to limit our freedom.

Simone deBeauvoir

Simone deBeauvoir (1908-1986), long-time mistress of Jean-Paul Sartre and fierce advocate for abortion, is the intellectual matriarch for contemporary radical feminism. Her book, The Second Sex, is the most influential tract in the contemporary world on the subject of women's liberation.

Despite her wide acceptance by feminists, deBeauvoir's philosophy, by her own admission, is nothing other than that of her companion of fifty years, Jean-Paul Sartre, which is essentially misogynistic.

In deBeauvoir's thinking, the female body is "sick," a form of "slavery" and "nausea and discomfort." She states that a pregnant woman is publicly ridiculed "because she is a human being, a conscious and free individual, who has become life's passive instrument."

Elisabeth Badinter

Elisabeth Badinter (1944-) is a philosophy professor in France who continues the legacy of Simone deBeauvoir. "Women, you owe everything to her," she declared, in a sweeping tribute to her model and mentor.

Badinter, also an atheist, extends deBeauvoir's notion of existential individualism much further by absolutizing the ego. She imagines a utopian world in which the unfettered egos of men and women, no longer hampered by gender distinctions, build a future of liberty and peace.

She welcomes contraception, abortion, and reproductive technologies that liberate women from "reproductive servitude." Her enthusiasm for erasing the boundaries that formerly defined the sexes leads her to accept even the "right to incest."

Much of what Badinter advocates is shocking. "Nevertheless," she writes, "what is found disgusting today may perhaps be found desirable tomorrow."

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the father of psychoanalysis, owes a great debt to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche for their philosophy concerning the irrational elements in man. Freud tried in vain to synthesize the irrational in man with the rationality of science. He promised freedom, on the one hand, but created a model that guaranteed chaos. He sought to understand man, but, in fact, reduced him to neuro-anatomy.

Freud saw himself as a great intellectual revolutionary. After Copernicus' cosmological revolution, and Darwin's biological revolution, Freud pioneered a third revolution, the psychological revolution.

Freud regarded religion as an enemy to science. He gave the religious believer a new name, a neurotic. Freud's philosophy depersonalized and despiritualized man: Man cannot be happy or peaceful because his destrudo (instinct for destruction) and thanatos (death instinct) are insurmountable.

Wilhelm Reich

Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957), more than anyone else, is deserving of the title, "Father of the Sexual Revolution." Reich's childhood was both lurid and deeply disturbing. "I was shocked," he wrote, "to recognize the full extent of my hideousness." He formulated a philosophy in which freedom would reign and authority would disappear. He became the first Freudo-Marxist, which is to say, that he wanted to heal both the individual from the oppression of the superego, and society from the oppression of authority. In a rare moment of lucidity, he wrote: "My life is revolution — from within and from without, or is it comedy?"

Reich's abhorrence for authority led him to reject even the simple act of thinking. "I think, therefore, I am neurotic," became his anti-intellectual, yet self-identifying logo. In Reich's philosophy, thinking is a disease.

Helen Gurley Brown

Helen Gurley Brown (1922-) has done for females what Hugh Hefner did for their male counterparts. The hit television show, "Sex in the City," is a trendy reincarnation of the book that launched Ms. Brown's career — Sex and the Single Girl. One of her favorite aphorisms reads, "Good girls go to heaven. Bad girls go everywhere."

Helen is best known as the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, a post she retained for thirty-two years. When she left that position in 1996, Cosmopolitan was number six in newsstand sales among 11,475 magazines published, and number one for the sixteenth straight year at campus bookstores. Brown is currently supervising the 39 international editions of Cosmo, all of which are showing profits. Brown also fights to keep abortion legal.

Derek Humphry

Derek Humphry (1930-) was catapulted into prominence with the publication of his best-selling book, Final Exit, a manual on how to "self-deliver," or commit suicide. He is also the main founder of the Hemlock Society, a pro-euthanasia society dedicated to the creed that each person has a "right to die."

He married Jean Crane who, while in her forties, developed incurable cancer. In his memorial to her, Jean's Way, he meticulously describes her suicide and his role in assisting her. His second wife also took her own life. In addition, Humphry assisted in the double suicide of her parents.

For Derek Humphry, physician-facilitated rational suicide is "the ultimate civil liberty." Concerning his own final exit, he makes the following statement: "Should you use a clear plastic bag or an opaque one? That's a matter of taste. Loving the world as I do, I'll go for a clear one if I have to."

Jack Kevorkian

Jack Kevorkian (1928-), a.k.a. Dr. Death, is the most notorious of the promoters and practitioners of medically assisted killing. "My specialty is death," he says without apology. Time magazine writes of him, "With his deadly humor and his face stretched around his skull, he has become a walking advertisement for designer death."

Kervorkian killed more than 100 clients. Finally, in an act of brazen defiance, he killed fifty-two-year-old Thomas Youk by means of a lethal injection before tens of millions of viewers watching CBS's 60 Minutes. As a result of this act, Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to ten to twenty-five years in prison.

Peter Singer

Peter Singer (1946-) currently holds the Ira W. De Camp chair of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for the Study of Human Values. He is convinced that the traditional Western ethic built on the "sanctity of life" has collapsed. His book, Rethinking Life and Death, has been called the Mein Kampf of the pro-euthanasia movement, while its author has been dubbed "Professor Death" and compared with Josef Mengele. An advocate for the disabled calls Peter Singer "the most dangerous man in the world today."

For Singer, an avowed atheist, life as a whole has no meaning. However, since some people prefer certain states of affairs to others, it may be possible for particular lives to be meaningful. It is this "preferred state" that justifies continued existence, and not the subject or person who has this preferred state.

[MC Just]

I have noticed these states of minds and likeness in many people.. Seriously many have been touched by these people.

[Paphnutius]

Indeed, but do not be so quick to pass over the good that they have accomplished. We have something to learn from everyone. It was heretics that forced the Church to define its doctrine in a creed, it was battling such notions as these that enables our faith to be so rich. They have something to offer us no matter how hard they try to tear us down.

[MagiDragon]

maybe so, but i still wish that none of these people had ever had any influence on any other people.

[MC Just]

i dont want to criticize other Catholics but why is there always some type of justification of evil men and their falsehoods?

[MC Just]

these people are the leaders of a culture that murder's it's disabled and innocent children. They deserve no justification.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Now the way of death is this: First of all, it is evil and full of curses: murders, adulteries, strong desires, unlawful sex acts, thefts, idolatries, magic acts, sorceries, robberies, false testimonies, hypocrisies, two-heartedness, deceit, arrogance, badness, assumptions, greed, shameful speech, jealousy, an overbearing nature, loftiness, pride; persecutors of good; hating truth, loving falsehood; not knowing the reward of what is right, not clinging to good, nor to just judgment, watching not for good but for evil. Far from these people are meekness and endurance. They love worthless things, persuing revenge, not showing mercy to a poor person, not laboring for those who are weary, not knowing the one who made them, murderers of children, corrupters of molded image of God, turning away those who are in need,oppressing the afflicted; comforters of the wealthy, lawless judges of the poor; universal sinners. Children, may you be rescued from all of these.

See to it that no one lead you astray from this way of the teaching, since it does not teach you without God. For if indeed you are able to bear the whole of the Lord's yoke, you will be complete. But if you are not able, do what you are able. (Didache, AD 80)[/quote]

[MC Just]

Thank you!

[MichaelFilo]

People like these have started something that is wicked at it's core. They all are crazy, I don't disagree. And as for your remark, Pap, those same heretics caused nothing but eternal damnation for their followers, as have these people listed in the excellent article. To say that what these people did led to some sort of good makes anything better is wrong. They did nothing to make things better, and their movements caused nothing. It is only the Spirit's work making grace abound where there is much evil that anything good came from their decedance and evil.

God bless,
Mikey

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Mar 25 2005, 12:00 PM'] i dont want to criticize other Catholics but why is there always some type of justification of evil men and their falsehoods? [/quote]
Because God is able to bring good from any evil. I am not saying their are justified by any means, I was simply meaning do not turn your nose up on some of the indirect positive influnces they have had intended or not. These men will have to answer for their heinous deeds and spreading the culture of death, agreed, but one must acknowledge the good that others have been able to bring form their failed attempts. I am not wanting to draw a parallel but the Church does have a history of Christianizing pagan things...

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Mar 25 2005, 01:18 PM'] They all are crazy, I don't disagree. And as for your remark, Pap, those same heretics caused nothing but eternal damnation for their followers, as have these people listed in the excellent article. [/quote]
You are able to say that of course because you know their follower's exact disposition. You know that their followers had full knowledge, full consent, etc... I have noticed that you have made remark after remark here about this person being damned to hell, that one falling from God's grace, the saints would of killed this person, these people are going to suffer eternal pain. You are awfully quick to hand out judgment in God's stead. The Church has a savior MichaelFilo, He died and rose almost 2000 years ago. Leave the judgment to Him please.

BTW it is Paphnutius not Pap. Thanks.

[Guest nateharburg]

People need to understand that contraception is evil not only because it says "NO! Stay OUT of my private life!" to God, but also because many forms of contraception are ABORTIFACIENT! ALL hormonal contraception and ALL IUD's can and do kill children, albeit tiny children, in the ealiest days of their lives! Hormonal birth control factual information can be found here supporting my claim:

[url="http://www.all.org/brthcnt.htm"]http://www.all.org/brthcnt.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.epm.org/articles/26doctor.html"]http://www.epm.org/articles/26doctor.html[/url]

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 25 2005, 06:52 PM'] You are able to say that of course because you know their follower's exact disposition. You know that their followers had full knowledge, full consent, etc... I have noticed that you have made remark after remark here about this person being damned to hell, that one falling from God's grace, the saints would of killed this person, these people are going to suffer eternal pain. You are awfully quick to hand out judgment in God's stead. The Church has a savior MichaelFilo, He died and rose almost 2000 years ago. Leave the judgment to Him please.

BTW it is Paphnutius not Pap. Thanks. [/quote]
I recant my position about that guy who made that play about Jesus that is so sacreligious it is sickening. However, you'd have to admit, a heretic who leaves in full knoweldge of the Church's Truth is damned to hell, and you'll also have to admit that among thtose who follow men who teach error ther are some who fill thee conndiiton of having full knoweldge of the Church's Truth and leaving it. So these men who teach error can be said to cause damnation of the soul of their followers. It would be quite wrong to say that they don't. They do beaver dam the souls of their followers because the Church teaches so. Anyone who follows man and not God is damned, that is just how it goes. Jesus is the way, following anything else is damnable. If you don't like it, thats fine, but it's the truth. Would you tell me that these men in their hearts love God and will to serve Him?

God bless,
Mikey

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Mar 26 2005, 01:54 PM'] However, you'd have to admit, a heretic who leaves in full knoweldge of the Church's Truth is damned to hell, [/quote]
Agreed.

[quote] and you'll also have to admit that among thtose who follow men who teach error ther are some who fill thee conndiiton of having full knoweldge of the Church's Truth and leaving it.[/quote]

Yes there are some, but please refrain from making blanket statements. That is how we get labeled prejudice and what not...

[quote]So these men who teach error can be said to cause damnation of the soul of their followers.[/quote]

They [b]may[/b] of casused the damnation of some, yes. Do we know all of them, no. I trust them into God's mecry, especially if they were not fully aware of the Church.

[quote] They do beaver dam the souls of their followers because the Church teaches so.[/quote]

Donde? I am aware of the requirments of mortal sin and being a heretic, but I do not think that one can simply say all who follow this man or that is damned to hell. Some may be, but once again I trust them into His mercy.

[quote] Anyone who follows man and not God is damned, that is just how it goes. Jesus is the way, following anything else is damnable.[/quote]

So those who lived in, lets say China, before Christ are damned? I know what you mean, but please be more precise when speaking about people's souls. We have the same views but one has to very careful when talking about damnation.

[quote]Would you tell me that these men in their hearts love God and will to serve Him? [/quote]

I do not pretend to know their hearts and I will not make a judgment one way or another. I firmly believe in fighting ideals and the culture of death, but not people. We are called to save those people, not beaver dam them to hell, and not to take up arms against the person, but rather their concept and idea. Can you really bring someone who does not believe in God or in hell closer to Christ by anathmatizing them?

Pax et Bonum,

[MichaelFilo]

Actually , even those men in China who never hear about Christ, if they put anyone before God (even if not knowing so) will surely perish. To desire to be part of the Church (as is the general requirement fo rthe baptism of desire) would be to desire to follow Her teachings. Putting God above others in action is an acting out of that desire, even if a monothesitic God isn't something you are aware of.

We do not know their hearts, but we cannot be blind to the fact that certain actions are derived from certain mindsets. If you hate the Church, can you truely love God? As far as anathmatizing someone to get them closer to God, Paul used it, and in the Council of Trent it was used. It's a sure form of getting people to think about what they are doing and where they stand. Possibly the last before they go into an obstinate mode for the rest of their lives. Unless I have missed something, I've said that these people go to hell because they are against God in their ideas and practices. Would it be wrong to say that if someone (and their ideas) lead someone away from the Church then the person cannot love God? So if living out a particular idea or belief that sets you against God (and you know so, as these cases are quite clear of the fact) isn't damnable, then what is?

God bless,
Mikey