Did the sexual revolution happen "by accident"?

Written by: Miri
June 14, 2022

I composed a book review the other day, regarding a very interesting little propagandist pamphlet, disguised as "feminist literature", called 'The Case Against The Sexual Revolution'. One of the most bizarre lines in it (and there was a lot of hefty competition) was:

"And when it comes to a big historical event such as the sexual revolution - which nobody designed or even fully foresaw..."

This is casually yet baldly thrown in there as if it is an ineffable and incontestable fact, yet with no citations or supporting evidence whatsoever for what is - to say the least - rather a 'bold' (read: completely lunatic, ludicrous, and ridiculous) claim.

To paraphrase a well-worn adage, to say the sexual revolution happened "by accident" is akin to saying a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and "accidentally" assemble a Boeing 747.

The sexual revolution was no accident, but unlike the author of the feminist agitprop quoted above, I am actually going to provide some evidence for my claim (I know we start straying dangerously close to the realm of 'conspiracy theory' when we start actually backing our arguments up with citations and facts, rather than just mindlessly repeating TV soundbites and received wisdom from Cosmopolitan magazine, but, sigh, such is life for the consummate conspiraquack).

Well, first, a little history...

In order to understand how and why the sexual revolution came about, we need to first examine the factors that made liberal sexual attitudes possible. The main factor, of course, was the suddenly available option in the 1960s of reliable and legal birth control. This came with the arrival of the Pill in 1964 (it was available as early as 1961, but only to married women), and the legalisation of abortion in 1967. Prior to these introductions, contraception was so unreliable, that, having sex pretty much meant having children, hence conservative sexual attitudes prevailed in an attempt to restrict childbearing to committed, stable (married) couples. The fear of pregnancy and literally being left 'holding the baby' was the key factor determining most women's attitudes to intimate relationships with men.

This all changed with the introduction of the Pill.

Funnily enough, the Pill did not develop 'by accident' - it was not the result of a particularly scientifically adept junkyard tornado - but rather, intensive and heavily elite-bankrolled research for a “magic pill” to prevent pregnancy had been underway since 1950. This research was driven by Margaret Sanger, the founder of America’s most successful and ubiquitous birth control clinics, Planned Parenthood.

While she is often celebrated as a champion of women’s rights and reproductive freedoms, the truth about Margaret Sanger is rather more unsavoury. Sanger was in fact an ardently racist eugenicist with ties to the Ku Klux Klan[1] whose motivations for proponing birth control had little to do with liberating women, and very much more to do with ‘cleansing society’. She stated in 1921 that:  “birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." [2]

To further clarify Sanger’s feelings on reproduction and birth, consider this paragraph from her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilisation:

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." [3]

Margaret Sanger also began publishing her own newspaper where she argued in favour of birth control and abortion. In 1915, she was charged with publishing an "obscene and lewd article", and so fled to Britain. It was here in London that she met the young Marie Stopes, at a meeting at the Fabian Society Hall in London in mid-July 1915. [4]

It is worth noting that The Fabian Society is not without controversy and the place of this meeting not incidental. The name “Fabian” comes symbolically from the man who in Rome was named Fabius Cunctator, the Delayer, who used to advocate  “a slow and progressive tactic”, instead of direct attack. [5]

The aims of the Fabian Society were developed by prominent early member, Sidney Webb. He derived them from the teachings of Englishman John Ruskin (1819-1900) at Oxford University. Ruskin advocated a utopian society, and espoused theories developed from the teachings of great philosopher, Plato (428-347 BC). In his work, The Republic, Plato outlined his ideal society, which was an aristocratic society ruled by the elite. It included the elimination of marriage and the family, and introduced selective breeding by the government that would destroy all inferior offspring. [6]

The Fabian Society describes itself as having “played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre.” [7]

Early members include such prominent figures as George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee (grandfather of Guardian journalist, Polly), and H.G. Wells - and every UK Labour Prime Minister to date has been a Fabian Society member.  [8]

Many critics have made much of the fact that, the original emblem for the Fabian Society, was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. [9] 

In 1895, Fabian Sidney Webb founded the London School of Economics (LSE), which became a branch of the University of London. Among its major contributors was the Rockefeller Foundation.

As many readers will know, the Rockefellers are an extremely wealthy family dynasty who originally made their money in oil, and who also have strong associations with banking (particularly the Chase Manhattan Bank – now J.P. Morgan Chase). They are renowned for using their wealth to fund various social, academic and other projects, describing themselves as ‘philanthropists’  - though they have often been associated with some rather questionable pursuits, including unethical human experimentation.

In 1911, Dr. Hideyo Noguchi of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research injected 146 hospital patients (some of whom were children) with syphilis. He was subsequently sued by some of the parents of the child subjects. [10]

The fact that it is the Fabian Society, with its powerful connections to the elite, old money, and eugenics, that heralded the meeting of the two most prominent birth control activists in the world - Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes - is not insignificant.

The second figure at this meeting, Marie Stopes, became, as many will know, world famous for her efforts to promote birth control for women. In 1921, Stopes opened Britain's first birth control clinic and, with the aid of second husband Humphrey Roe, she went on to found an entire chain of clinics with chapters throughout Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Voted “Woman of the Millennium” by Guardian readers in 1999, and even honoured on a 2008 UK postage stamp. Stopes is once quoted as saying:

“Utopia could be reached in my lifetime, had I the power to issue inviolable edicts… I would legislate compulsory sterilisation of the insane, feeble-minded… revolutionaries… half-castes.”

Stopes, like Sanger, was a zealous eugenicist - and had strong Nazi connections. She attended the International Congress for Population Science in Berlin in 1935, and appears to have been a close personal friend of Adolf Hitler, once writing to him:

“Dear Herr Hitler, Love is the greatest thing in the world: so will you accept from me these (poems) that you may allow the young people of your nation to have them?” [11]

Stopes’ devout eugenicism did not merely pertain to Nazi simpering or dreams of genocide, however, but extended to her own family, too – she cut son Harry out of her will when, fearing the condition might be hereditary, he married a woman who was short-sighted. [12]

When she died in 1958, Marie Stopes left a sizable portion of her personal fortune to the British Eugenics Society. Now called ‘the Galton Institute’, other members have included:

  • Arthur Neville Chamberlain, British prime minister between 1937 and 1940;
  • William Beveridge, author of the Beveridge Report, which laid the foundations for the welfare state and NHS;
  • Leonard Arthur, a doctor tried for the attempted murder of Down's suffering son, yet acquitted;
  • Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous.  
  • Walter Bodmer, author of Bodmer report. In 2005, appointed to lead a £2.3 million project by the Wellcome Trust at Oxford University to examine the genetic makeup of the UK;
  • Margaret Pyke, founder of the British Family Planning Association, and – of course:
  • Margaret Sanger.

To surmise, there can be no doubt that birth control methods were developed and wildly propagated, not to liberate women, but to control the population and diminish the birth of ‘undesirables’. Conversely, had they been intended as an attempt to liberate women, then they would have failed spectacularly. Study after study has shown that women’s happiness has consistently decreased since the 1960s.

According to a study published in the American Economic Journal in 2009: “More than 1.3 million men and women have been surveyed over the last 40 years, both here and in the U.S. and in developed countries around the world. Wherever researchers have been able to collect reliable data on happiness, the finding is always the same: greater educational, political, and employment opportunities have corresponded to decreases in life happiness for women, as compared to men. “ [13]

The UK Guardian published an article on this same subject in 2009, stating that “according to several significant studies, women's happiness relative to men's has declined in the last 25 years. This includes women of all age groups, and it is evident in many countries, particularly in the US and the UK.”[14]

So if measured as a 'liberating' intervention to make women happier, the Pill has been a failure. However, if measured as a eugenic device to dramatically reduce birth rates, then it has been very successful indeed. The true eugenic agenda of powerful hormonal birth control (which comes with a catalogue of health risks) has been so successful because of how it was marketed: put simply, it has been cleverly sold to women as giving them ‘liberation’, meaning women engage in it voluntarily, rather it being forced upon them. Forced sterilisation in an attempt to impose eugenics (which has certainly been attempted by the ruling classes on many occasions) simply isn't as effective as convincing people to voluntarily sterilise themselves.

This phenomenon (convincing someone that they are doing something voluntarily, when really they are being manipulated and coerced into it) is referred to as ‘the manufacture of consent’ – a term coined by writer and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, Walter Lipmann, in 1922 (it is worth noting the Lippmann was one of the founding fathers of the Council for Foreign Relations, the most influential foreign policy think-tank in the world, which was chaired for 15 years by David Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty – the same Rockefellers who funded the Fabian LSE, and whom we will meet again later) and expanded upon in an eponymous 1988 book co-authored by Noam Chomsky.

The manufacture of consent is essentially the use of propaganda to mould and shape public opinion to suit the whims of government and other agendas – in other words, to get people to do what you want them to do, by making them believe they want to do it. Eugenic goals were achieved this way, by marketing birth control and abortion to women with terms such as ‘liberation’, ‘freedom’, ‘equality’ and so on.

Similar tactics were used by the feminist movement, which gained an incredible amount of funding from none other than - the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefellers supported "sexual liberation" by making available funds to a huge array of eugenic projects – including Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood  - and, in a now-infamous interview[15] with film director Aaron Russo, Nicholas Rockefeller explained that his family had championed sexual liberation for two primary reasons: one, because before this, the bankers couldn't tax half the population (since women largely did not do paid work and were instead at home raising children), and two, because it allowed them to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, thus breaking up the traditional family model. [16]

This huge cultural change was accompanied by an aggressively marketed campaign to change people's entire perceptions of the purpose of sex. Rather than a bonding and reproductive tool confined to serious, committed relationships, the sexual revolution encouraged people to see sex merely as a lifestyle option and recreational activity. That sex is a leisure activity that need have no more intrinsic meaning or consequence than playing tennis - and partners need not know each other any better than semi-strangers who might stop to have a quick game.

The purpose of this dramatic reframing of human physical intimacy was to re-engineer social perceptions of what sex is for – namely, to divert human sexual energies away from bonding, procreation, and family.

As one thinker argued, “We are on the brink of a revolution in reproductive medicine - the coming era of designer babies, a fundamental transition in the evolution of life in the universe. Evolution will shortly cease to be "blind" and "random", as it has been for the past four billion years. Instead, intelligent agents are going to choose and design genotypes in anticipation of their likely behavioural and psychological effects. Specifically, prospective parents will increasingly choose the genetic makeup of their future children rather than playing genetic roulette. Natural selection is going to be replaced by "unnatural" selection.” [20]

If this is indeed the intended destiny that social engineers have for mankind, then clearly procreative sex cannot be allowed to happen too regularly – far too much chance of it throwing up random accidents, and ‘undesirables’. Much better to encourage people to use contraceptives up to, including, and after the point of conception, and to see reproductive effects as an irritating blip, a distraction, from the true purpose of sex – pleasure and fun. 

Reproduction, eventually, will have nothing to do with sex at all. Many prophetic and 'predictive programming' vehicles, such as the book 'Brave New World', have made this clear. Remember that author of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, had a brother, Julian, who was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society. Aldous didn't write that book because he had a "good imagination". He wrote it because he was an insider who knew. He'd seen the blueprints, he knew the plans, and he was informing the public about them - just as the ruling classes always do (more recently, in 1993's 'Demolition Man', where physical contact is forbidden and babies are made in labs).

As Patrick Lee argues in his essay ‘Miconceptions About Sex, Procreation and Marriage’, “one might object that condoning contraception does not entail condoning manufacturing babies in laboratories.  One might object, in other words, that the slope towards Brave New World is not that slippery.  But… to separate sex from procreation is to separate the personal relationship, and by implication the person, from the bodily and the natural.”

In her acclaimed paper ‘Sex and Social Engineering’, Valerie Riches expands upon the situation:

“In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, there were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a number of organisations in the field of birth control (i.e., contraception, abortion, sterilisation). From an analysis of their annual reports it became apparent that a comparatively small number of people were involved to a surprising degree in an array of pressure groups. This network was not only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology and sometimes addresses: it was also backed by vested interests and supported by grants in some cases by government departments. At the heart of the network was the Family Planning Association (FPA) with its own collection of offshoots. What we unearthed was a power structure with enormous influence.”

Riches' discovery that seemingly independent groups and organisations are actually linked by ‘funds, ideology and sometimes addresses’ through ‘a comparatively small group of people’ is the key finding here, and dovetails precisely with what we have already seen regarding the close interlinking ties between Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, The Fabian Society, The British Eugenics Society, and of course, the Rockefellers. The longstanding patriarch of the Rockefeller dynasty, David, who died in 2017 aged 101, was – although of a relatively low profile when compared to heads of state and Royalty – perhaps one of the most powerful men in the world (certainly he was one of the richest – the Rockefeller family assets are estimated to be worth around $110 billion[21]). To give some perspective on this, here is a list of the positions that David Rockefeller occupied over his lifetime:

·  Chairman/Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (Chairman: (1970–1985);

·  Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank (1969–1981);

·  Founder and North American Chairman (1977–1991), Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission;

·  A U.S. founding member, life member, and member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group (1954-);

·  Founding Chairman of the Partnership for New York City (PFNYC) (1979–1988);

·  Board Director, B. F. Goodrich & Co. (1956–64), Punta Alegre Sugar Corp., The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (1960–65);

·  Chairman/Chairman Emeritus of the Museum of Modern Art (1948-, Chairman: 1962-1972, 1987–1993);

·  Founder and Chairman/Honorary Chairman of the Council of the Americas (1963-);

·  Honorary Chairman and Life Trustee of The Rockefeller University (Chairman: 1950-1975);

·  Trustee/Life Trustee of the University of Chicago (1947–1962, 1966-);

·  Director of the Peterson Institute (Formerly: The Institute for International Economics);

·  President and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Harvard College Board of Overseers (1954–1960, 1962–1968);

·  President of the Board of Overseas Study at Harvard University;

·  Member, American Friends of the London School of Economics;

·  Co-founder and Chairman of the Chase International Advisory Committee';

·  Chairman, Chase International Investment Corporation (1961–1975);

·  Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York;

·  Leading member of the Russian-American Bankers Forum (1992);

·  Chairman of the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry;

·  Director of the New York Clearing House (1971–1978);

·  Founder and Chairman of the Center for Inter-American Relations (CIAR) (Cultural adjunct of the Council of the Americas, 1965);

·  Founder and Chairman/Honorary Chairman of the Americas Society;

·  Co-founder of the Chairman's Latin American Advisory Council;

·  Founder of the Forum of the Americas;

·  Honorary Chairman of the Japan Society;

·  Chairman of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association;

·  Director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation;

·  Co-founder of The Business Committee for the Arts (BAC) (1967);

·  Chairman of Morningside Heights, Inc.;

·  Board member of the Westchester County Planning Commission;

·  Board member of the Commerce Committee for the Alliance for Progress (1961);

·  Founder of the Emergency Committee for American Trade;

·  Director of the Overseas Development Council;

·  Director of American Overseas Finance Corporation;

·  Member of Reagan's President's Commission on Executive Exchange (1981);

·  Director of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council;

·  Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Council for U.S.-China Trade;

·  Founder of the Emergency Committee on American Trade (ECAT);

·  Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Council on Japan-United States Economic Relations;

·  Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Reform of the International Monetary System;

·  Founding member/Honorary member of the Commission on White House Fellows (1964–1965);

·  A Trustee of the John F. Kennedy Library;

·  An Honorary Trustee and Chairman of the Executive Committee of International House of New York;

·  A Trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1947–1960);

·  Primary Founder/U.S. Executive Committee, Dartmouth Conference;

·  Founder and Chairman of the International Executive Service Corps (IESC) (Chairman: 1964-1968);

·  Co-founder of the Synergos affiliated Global Philanthropists Circle;

·  Honorary Advisor/International Advisor of Praemium Imperiale;

·  Member of the Peace Parks Foundation;

·  Trustee of Historic Hudson Valley (1981-);

·  Chairman of the Stone Barns Restoration Corporation;

·  Chairman of Rockefeller Financial Services;

·  Chairman, The Rockefeller Group Inc. (1983–1995);

·  Chairman, Rockefeller Center Properties Inc. (1985–1992);

·  Co-founder and Advisory Trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) (1940) (Chairman: 1981-1987);

·  Co-founder and Honorary Trustee of the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) (1967);

·  President of his father's Sealantic Fund;

·  Founder of the David Rockefeller Fund (1989);

·  Founded and funded the David Rockefeller Global Development Fund (RBF) (2006);

·  Founded the David Rockefeller Graduate Program at Rockefeller University;

*Co-founded, funded and on the Advisory Committee of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS) at Harvard (1994-).[22] 

This sphere of power and influence is awe-inspiring enough, but the might of the Rockefellers does not stop with David (though he has been one of the most active); members of the Rockefeller family have held positions in organisations as prestigious as (involved members in brackets):

Returning to Nicholas Rockefeller, he who alleged that his family had funded the feminist movement in order to be able to tax women and dismantle the family, he is a member of the following groups:

  • The Council on Foreign Relations
  • The International Institute of Strategic Studies
  • The Advisory Board of RAND,
  • The Corporate Advisory Board of the Pacific Council on International Relations  
  • The Board of the Western Justice Centre Foundation 
  •  The Central China Development Council
  • He has also served as a participant in the World Economic Forum and the Aspen Institute and serves as a director of the Pacific Rim Cultural Foundation, and is a member of the boards of visitors of the law schools of the University of Oregon and of Pepperdine University.[23]

What is clear here is that the extraordinary amount of power held by the Rockefeller family – apparently unprecedented by any other unelected non-regal dynasty in history – combined with their extraordinary wealth, equips them with all the vehicles and support to have virtually whatever social impact they please.

If we are to believe the testimony of Nicholas Rockefeller – and there is no reason not to believe him  – then we can certainly believe that the ‘re-engineering’ of women, sex, and reproduction, is a social goal the Rockefellers would be entirely capable of achieving if that was what they intended.

Returning to Valerie Riches' paper on sex and social engineering, she concludes with the warning:

It is imperative that people of good will investigate and unravel the strands which have been cleverly woven round the policies, laws and institutions in their own countries. The instigators need to be identified and exposed, because they function with impunity, in secrecy or behind a screen of pseudo-respectability given when governments fund their activities and policies. It is an awesome situation to contemplate and act upon. It is one which requires coordinated effort by those who believe in and support the family and the sanctity of life. It is a battle to be fought now by those who cherish the true meaning of freedom.”

From Ms. Riches' perspective then, this may be a battle we have lost – as she wrote her paper in 1986.

As of 2008, Britain was officially pronounced the most promiscuous country of any major nation.[24]

A study asked 14,000 people in 48 countries to fill in anonymous questionnaires regarding their numbers of sexual partners and one-night stands. Their attitudes were assessed by asking them how many people they expected to sleep with over the next five years and how comfortable they were with the idea of casual sex.

Britain’s liberal attitudes and behaviours topped the leagues of any major country in the West, far out-scoring other major nations, such as the USA (6th) or Australia (5th).

As a result of this, and unsurprisingly, the UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe[25] - and the highest rate of abortions.[26] 

In short, these figures are completely in line with the eugenic goals we have seen outlined previously. Sex is for pleasure – not reproduction. Reproductive consequences are unpleasant, inconvenient liabilities, and must be deal with swiftly - especially for groups eugenicists have taken a particular dislike to.

In his book, 'Liberal Fascism', Jonah Goldberg says of the pioneer of Western birth control, driving force behind the Pill, and associate of The Guardian’s Woman of the Millennium, Margaret Sanger: 

A fair-minded person cannot read Sanger’s books, articles and pamphlets today without finding similarities not only to Nazi eugenics, but… As editor of the Birth Control Review, Sanger regularly published the sort of hard racism we normally associate with Goebbels or Himmler.[28]

He explains quite succinctly how Sanger intended to advance her agenda:

Sanger believed – prophetically enough – that if women conceived of sex first and foremost as a pleasurable experience rather than a procreative act, they would embrace birth control as a necessary tool for their own personal gratification. She brilliantly used the language of liberation to convince women they weren’t going along with a collectivist scheme but were in fact “speaking the truth to power” as it were.”[29]

This seems an entirely accurate description of modern feminist-liberal thought – that, far from being herded in a collectivist direction, liberal feminists proclaim they are “speaking the truth” to the “power” of oppressive elites. They’re quite right that there are oppressive elites who must be opposed – the problem is that they’re speaking for them, not against.

As Goldberg concludes:

Sanger in effect “brought off” women (and grateful men) by offering tolerance for promiscuity in return for compliance with her eugenic schemes.”[30]

So...yeah. Less "tornado in a junkyard" and more "ruthless malevolent psychopaths using their untold wealth and resources to deceive and manipulate the public into doing their bidding" - just as the ruling classes have always done, and are still doing.

There is a sea-change underway on the world stage now - a manufactured 'backlash' against the also-manufactured sexual revolution - for one specific reason: such extraordinary propaganda to curtail reproduction is no longer necessary, because most people of childbearing age are now either sub- or infertile.

The documentary film 'Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda' has been released this month (I haven't watched it yet, but I don't need to to know why it has been released now), and that - mass infertility - is the next planned stage of the eugenic and depopulation agenda that has been going on since at least 1950. To spell it out, vast numbers of young people have been sterilised by the Covid "vaccine" (and lacing vaccines with sterilants is nothing new - as the 'Infertility' website alludes to, this has been going on in the developing world for years), so pushing contraception and abortions on them is no longer going to be required.

Abortion laws are currently being tightened up in America, as a mirror to the predictive programming vehicle, The Handmaid's Tale, where abortion is outlawed as fertility levels inexplicably plummet. In The Handmaid's Tale, most women suddenly and inexplicably become infertile, and even the few who do become pregnant, only have a 1 in 5 chance of a healthy, live birth. Meanwhile, in our society currently, not only is infertility suddenly surging, but so is miscarriage and neonatal death. Acclaimed author and journalist, Dr. Naomi Wolf, calls this "the baby die-off".

This is happening because the ruling classes have invested a gargantuan fortune into eugenic depopulation at any cost. Initially, the most effective method they found was to "re-engineer" sex (e.g. the sexual revolution) by aggressively promoting powerful hormonal contraception and abortion. Now, however, they have found an even more 'effective' method - an injectable solution that irreparably harms reproduction by sterilising women, inducing miscarriage, and that passes through breastmilk to harm and kill babies.

This is exactly what is happening right now, and all the evidence is there, for anyone who cares to look, rather than scoffing and crying "conspiracy theory!". Well, it is certainly a conspiracy, but it is no theory. Mass infertility is intended as the "new normal" (as shown to us by predictive programming like 'The Children of Men'), as is a sexless future (as depicted in films like 'Demolition Man'), as sex will be deemed "too dangerous" - both as a virus risk (hence the ever-ramping up "Monkeypox as STD" propaganda) and because men are far too brutish and violent for women to have anything to do with (as per the ever increasing anti-male propaganda, including the book I reviewed and quoted at the beginning of this piece).

The intended future the ruling classes have in mind for the masses consists of single, sexless, childless people, living alone in their SMART pods - and everything that has been happening on the world stage in the post-war years, has been a lead up to exactly that.

The sexual revolution was no accident, and the counter-sexual revolution currently underway is no accident, either. These have both been meticulously devised and planned by some of the most brilliant, and the most evil, minds in human history. Minds that work in ways the average person simply cannot comprehend, which is precisely why, in the vast majority of cases, they don't.

So, reader, I leave it to you to decide. What is the more compelling case:

"And when it comes to a big historical event such as the sexual revolution - which nobody designed or even fully foresaw..."

Or what I've written above?

[1] Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366

[2] Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

[3] Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

[4] Margaret Sanger, My Fight For Birth Control

[5] Extracts from Pierre de Villemarest' book Facts & Chronicles Denied to the Public, Vol. 1

[6] David Allen Rivera, 1994, Modern History Project

[7] http://www.fabians.org.uk/about-the-fabian-society

[8] Ibid.

[9] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_Society_coat_of_arms.svg

[10] Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War, Annals of Internal Medicine, American College of Physicians, July 15, 1995 vol. 123 no. 2 159

[11] The Telegraph, March 8, 2010.

[12] Peter Pugh (2005) Barnes Wallis Dambuster. Thriplow: Icon ISBN 1-84046-685-5; p. 178

[13] https://www.oprah.com/money/whats-happening-to-womens-happiness/all

[14] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/26/women-wellbeing-unhappiness

[15] http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal.htm

[16] Ibid

[17] Jessica Hynes, quoted in The Guardian, 25 May 2007.

[18] O’Neill, D.W., Dietz, R., Jones, N. (Editors), 2010. Enough is Enough: Ideas for a

sustainable economy in a world of finite resources. The report of the Steady State Economy

Conference. Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy and Economic

Justice for All, Leeds, UK

[19] Kristian Niemietz at The Institute for Economic Affairs, 12 January 2011

[20] Talk delivered at the Touch Me Festival, Zagreb, December 2008, reproduced at http://www.reproductive-revolution.com/index.html

[21] Rockefeller Archive Center "Family, JDR"

[22] Who's Who 2006, 158th Annual Edition, London: A & C Black Publishers Ltd; Rockefeller Archive Center Web site: Biographical details; Will Banyan, The Proud Internationalist, (PDF, 2006), Martin Frost Web site; William Hoffman, David: Report on a Rockefeller, 1971; Memoirs, 2002.

[23] http://www.nicholasrockefeller.net/

[24] David Schmitt, Bradley University, cited in The Times, November 30, 2008

[25] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7911684.stm

[26] Statistics from ‘Eurostat’, cited in The Telegraph, 12 Nov 2009

[28] Goldberg, J. Liberal Fascism, Penguin Books, 2007

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you. 

Find Miri AF on social media via the links below...

SubstackFacebookInstagramYouTube and Twitter (posting there as my other resource, Informed Consent Matters)


If you enjoyed reading this, please consider supporting the site via donation:
[wpedon id=278]

2 comments on “Did the sexual revolution happen "by accident"?”

  1. The Fabian Society was just few Eugenic projects. The others just used different language. Hitler was like a cartoonish Genocidal buffoon. Never flamboyantly make your plans that Obvious. Sheesh

    Sanger Checking progress in 1934 (after they starved 8-10 million. Stalin immediately reversed course after her critique.

    Soviet Abortion was never about 'choice' is was sent to a panel and they decided if she was worthy and encouraged ich way the deemed the best stock

    Upon visiting the Soviets’ Institute for the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood, she observed glowingly that “the Government was exerting itself strenuously to teach the rudiments of hygiene to an enormous population that had previously known nothing of it.” [42]

    Russia was also aiming to free women from the two bonds that enslaved them most—the nursery and the kitchen. . . . Children were the priceless possessions of [Soviet] Russia. Their time was planned for them from birth to the age of sixteen, when they were paid to go to college, if they so desired. No longer were they a drain or burden to their families. Not only were teachers or parents forbidden to inflict corporal punishment, but children might even report their parents for being vindictive, ill-humored, disorderly, and in many cases they did so.

    . . .

    Furthermore, Russia was investing in future generations by building a healthy race. If there were any scarcity of milk the children were supplied first, the hospitals second, members of the Communist Party third, industrial groups fourth, professional classes fifth, and old people over fifty had to scrape along on what they could get, unless they were parents of Communists or closely associated with them.

    Upon returning to the United States, Sanger said: “The right of women to birth control is clear. And this right need not be bulwarked, as in our country by health reasons, economic reasons, eugenic reasons, but is granted as a simple human right.” [43]

  2. Well put for the record.

    I still support free choice for the ladies who demand it, especially after covid. I tell them so and state that I just don't think it should be politised. I say girls should also have equal access to organisations to help them along if they are alone and want to keep their baby and the organizations performing abortions need to be neutral. This doesn't happen in blue cities although in the rural south there are billboards with numbers to call... nefarious motives are possible, however there are plenty of sincere groups, for sure.

    What I find really dastardly is that women are silenced from discussing and dealing with their regret. You'd think the ladies in California would be having red tent powwows and tearing their hair out with grief but no. If you mention this processing needs to be aired then there is something awful about you. You receive appalled looks and conversation moves swiftly on. I think this is important or abortion would not have lasted. There must be something really weird about someone is the 80s having had an abortion, then encouraging their daughter's free choice without explicitly stating she is available to help under any circumstances. IDK. Liberals are weird. Conversely, there was so much social shame attached to unwed pregnancy previously, that caused problems so it became very much don't say don't tell, bearing in mind that the hippy culture (and any subculture foisted on people) was only taken up by a minority. For example, women were slowly entering universities without any help from the Rockefellers. My friend's mother still goes to her Philanthropic Educational Organization meeting every week, age 83. "P.E.O. was founded on January 21, 1869, by seven students at Iowa Wesleyan College in Mount Pleasant, Iowa. This circle of kindred spirits – bonded by their enthusiasm for women's opportunities – eventually expanded to include women off campus as well."

    So maybe the planners can only latch into and distort natural eras elsewhere ordained.

    In South Africa, meanwhile, girls lose their minds and go insane after killing their babies because apparently the ancestors torment them and certainly they are closer to natural rythmns, but the culture vultures don't care. But they also pay monthly child grants and many many dump 2 or 3 with their own mothers so there's a bit of money. It's not hard to see how the wires got crossed.

Leave a Reply




[wpedon id=278]
©2024 Miri A Finch. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram