If you’ve ever believed the lie that feminism’s beginnings were moral and rooted in the Christian ethic only to go off the rails down the road, don’t listen to this episode if you don’t like to have your programming challenged. Joining me on the episode are my wife, Sarahi, and Genesis Deters. Among the topics covered are:

• How feminists admit that their ideology is based on female pagan deities
• How, contrary to Con. Inc’s propaganda, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were virulent anti-Christians
• Margaret Sanger’s abandonment of her husband and children, her sexual escapades with a man who married a lesbian and her endorsement of population control led her to help develop the Class 1 Carcinogen known as the birth control pill
• Why Christian families ought to reject feminism wholesale because of the aforementioned and more

Enjoy and please share!

Telegram: t.me/atatruth

Transcription (Not exact):

Father God, in the name of Jesus, we thank you for once again giving us this opportunity to gather in your name to consider these things through the light of your word. Your word tells us that if we were to submit to the truth, Jesus, that the very same will set us free, and we ask you that this instance will not be any different. Let your Holy Spirit guide our discussion, our conversation this evening. Also, let our minds and our hearts be opened to the truth so that whatever it is that we need to hear so as to make the corrections in our lives and also eliminate the misconceptions that have been taught to us throughout the years that we can eliminate those and stay with the absolute truth that will keep us in freedom. We thank you for this and much more.

In the name of Jesus, we pray. Amen and amen. Now joining me on the livestream are my guests, 1st guest, my wife of more than we’re going on, what, 21 years of marriage. Next year or 22, actually. She’s waving the 2 finger salute at me because, see, this is one of the important things of having a, a good wife where she bails you out.

In those instances, that was very subtle. My wife will be joining me on the livestream. Welcome, Sarai. I am happy to be here. Honored.

Thank you for inviting me, and, I pray that this topic can open. If you’re a woman, that it’ll open your eyes on the many lies that this ideology has not only poisoned the hearts of many women believers as well, but it has, this topic, specifically with the book that we’re gonna be mentioning, has opened my eyes to the depths of how this has infiltrated our society, us as women, and has led us to believe so many lies. And I thank God that we did come across this book, And I pray that again, everybody that listens can at least, approach this topic and hear us out and hear God’s word as well and allow the facts to take you to God’s word and to examine everything that you’ve been led to believe up until this point with the entirety of the topic on feminism. And I would also include that men are part of this because there has been a propaganda warfare that has gone on for plenty of time now where men have also been drawn into supporting ideas that feminism has pushed forward under the guise that this is something that men ought to support when the fact of the matter is is that the seeds of subversion, specifically of masculinity, were always they were always part and parcel of feminism.

And I I I think you’ve stated it adequately where not only women have to awaken to how they’ve been deceived, but men themselves That’s right. Have actually been deceived in all of this. The second guest that we have, during this live stream is a close friend, Jake, Deters has been on with us, before, and, his wife now joins us on this edition of a live stream. Her name, Genesis Dieters. Genesis, if you can take a virtual bow, we’d certainly be appreciative.

Hi, everybody. Blessing to be here. I’m just hopeful that we can tackle this massive subject in a way that really brings it honor honor to God and honor to our families. Absolutely. Alright.

So let’s get right to it. I think if someone were to ask me to concisely state the problems inherent to feminism, if someone were to state, could you succinctly demonstrate the problems that feminism brings about and how that is contrary to truth, I would have to say just look at the results of the very same. Now when I say look at the results, I think it’s important to note that we look above and beyond what, for example, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and other mainstream outlets would point you to in order to demonstrate the validity of how they are promoting it. Because the fact of the matter is is that beneath that veneer of advancement and progress as they would call it, the fact of the matter is is that there are lives destroyed and even deaths included in all of this. I know that may sound hyperbolic, but the fact of the matter is is that just with the fact of infanticide, also known as abortion, That has to be the biggest genocide when we’re just talking about the United States.

We’re not even mentioning Canada. We’re not mentioning Mexico. We’re not mentioning North America as a whole. We’re not even talking about the rest of the world. Just in the United States alone, it constitutes the biggest genocide of people probably in the history of the world, and again that’s not hyperbolic, and that is all the result of how feminism and feminists actually propelled society to accept conditions and ideas which are inherently contrary to what the Bible tells us is God’s design for both men and women.

So just by pointing that singular thing out and then some of the other problems that we’ll mention this evening, time permitting, proves, beyond the shadow of adopted feminism has become or or not become. It is one of the most destructive ideologies for men and women to ever adopt. Now there are certain Christians that have come into knowledge of that and they absolutely abhor as they should the ideology just based on that and that’s good enough, but here’s the thing. There is other misconceptions. There are other misunderstandings that have been propagated by persons whom have a vested interest in advancing these lies and these subversions.

Why? Well, one common theme that we have heard from and I even echoed this at one particular point until I started doing more research, and I found this to be the k not the case, is that there was this idea that, well, first wave feminism was okay because it was grounded in in in a biblical idea, but then it went off the rails with second wave or even third wave feminism. Yet when you do the investigations, you actually find out that those that began the movement, those that gave it its germination were actually in fact rabidly anti Christian including but not limited to people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan b Anthony. Just to give folks a clearer understanding of this, there are various conservative women’s organizations in our day and age that have that have called their organizations. One of the most prominent being the Susan b Anthony, I think Center For Life.

I think that’s the name of it. They recently denounced, president Trump over his declarations of how the, laws of abortion need to be softened, then we’ll probably get into that, later. And I’m thinking you’re demonstrating outrage. These women were demonstrating outrage for what Trump stated when Susan b Anthony was a rabid anti christian, but this is something that even in some conservative circles and and in many Christian circles if you mentioned that it’s almost as akin to blaspheming God that kick you out as it were of the book club or the cookie club or the Sunday club just because you stated that. How can you say that?

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, she she was monumental, instrumental, and and and used by God and also Susan b Anthony to bring about, rights and suffrage for women when the fact of the matter is is that we’ve been fed a lie, hook, line, and sinker. We’ve accepted it. All the opposite turns out to be true. So, ladies, first, let’s begin with Sarai and then with Genesis. If I’ve given my spoken my 2¢, if you were to give a brief summation of your own, let’s call it, under your own words, how you would describe how destructive this is, evidences, what have you, how would you state it?

That you’re only given 2 options as a woman when you support feminism. You’re only given 2 options. What are the options? You’re either on birth control or it’s abortion. The stance on being a I’m sorry.

The wanting that a woman has to start her family, have kids, and raise your children is not accepted. It’s career first, and you take that career to however long and to what whatever lengths that may be. And later on in life, if you have time for children, then bring it about. But the feminist ideology in itself for me is summed up in 2 ways. It’s either birth control, birth control, birth control, birth control, or abortion, abortion, abortion.

There’s no in between with them. And, unfortunately, as a woman, as a 43 year old, that is what I was taught when I was in school. Yes. It didn’t come as early as elementary, but this is what I was taught in the public school system. I didn’t go to college, but my first, maybe, trimester there before I left was one of birth control or abortion.

And now that I’m a mom, now that I’m a wife, and we’re on this side, and we’ve been able to tackle this issue and come across this great book that has opened my eyes. Now I see the, the effects. Now I see the danger. Now I know the purpose. Now I know the why behind this movement, and it is in a cult.

I think it’s it’s also important to note that when you state this, this is all in contrast to what the Bible has to mention about family because it does stand in stark contrast to all of that. And that is certainly, I think, more than anything else among the eye opening things of, I think I think in Genesis to you now, one of the things that we’ve talked about, and the same question goes to you, by the way, but if you could address this first. Sarai’s mentioned here of the dichotomy that feminism presents. A lot of women have begun to notice that, and they ask themselves, why can’t for I, for example, I’d be a housewife? Why is that unacceptable if supposedly women’s liberation is based on giving women the ultimate choice?

I think the essence of the answer to that question is the fact that feminism as an ideology is downstream from Marxism, and Marx himself was, influenced by Hegel. And one of Hegel’s concepts main concepts is that of, like, the master slave dialectic. So it appears to Hegel that, all the history if you include Hegel and Marx together, the history of all hitherto society is that of class struggle. But then, Marxism plays itself out and has branches, and then you see that manifested in feminism. And then you could see that play a different role in that of social justice theory.

And then you get DEI and all of these other sort of theories that are downstream from that. So all of that to say is that feminism in principle pegs the sexes against each other. It it it posits that the history of all hitherto society between the sexes is that of a game of domination of power struggle between men and women. And I think that once you have that as your motivating, as your focus, then all that the fruit of that can only be negative. And which, by the way, to your point, Genesis, that power struggle, we see it.

It goes back to the basics. It goes back to Genesis. Yep. The power struggle. I mean, this is it’s an interesting thing when you consider that one of the things that happens because of sin is God telling Eve, now your desire will be with, you know, towards your husband, but the interesting thing is is that God says, and I’m going to paraphrase here, your desire is going to be an essence to try to control him, and we’ve seen that from the very beginning.

What ends up happening is that, to Genesis’s point, Marx, taking from Hegel, this dialectic, he philosophizes it in some way, shape, or form, and makes it more popular for the masses to consume under this fallacious idea that somehow men and women should be at war with each other or against each other because of God’s design. The way that they pronounce as it were God’s design is like Genesis says, well, here’s the man in particular. He’s the power structure that needs to be brought down. Woman is the one that’s brought under his thumb, and this needs to be absolutely and utterly, destroyed when that’s not at all the way that the Bible describes the design that God had placed as it were, for man and woman. But more on that a little bit later, Genesis, same question that I asked Sarai and I elucidated my vantage point on this.

If you were to be pressed as it were, Genesis, give me in less than 2 minutes or or 3 minutes why you believe it. What is the overarching absolute, evidence that that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that, feminism is evil? Give me give me a few examples. How would you how would you state it? Sure.

I would say, first off, that feminism falsifies reality. That’s that would be the first point because it feminists themselves posit that men are inherently like, there’s a cons there’s a male conspiracy to subjugate women, and that manifests itself either in the home by impeding that she work. It manifest manifest itself in the political realm in the sense that women weren’t allowed to vote, women weren’t allowed to hold property, which is a lie as Rachel Wilson herself, demonstrates through her citing of primary sources, for example, with women in Mesopotamia and Sparta and the like. But once you start off with an argument that has a false presupposition, you can’t you can’t arrive at a cogent conclusion. So once once you cudgel women into thinking that all of the male men around them are either out to rape them or subjugate them or in any way, shape, or form control their will, then you’re going to invite a reactionary response from women that manifests itself in what we see today, which is unfortunately a lot of women who reject marriage, a lot of women who are, giving free rein to either erratic thoughts or behaviors, who are rejecting childbearing as in some way oppression and which ultimately contributes to women live living lives that, aren’t really as fulfilling and ultimately as Christians aren’t honoring to God because we see that, for example, with with the fruit of of the spirit being joy.

One of the main contributors of joy in women’s lives is being married, having a household, and rearing your children in the way of the Lord. And feminism operates in a way that you can’t have those things. Very well stated. Now just to give our audience a proper baseline understanding of and, by the way, before I finish that thought, I have to interrupt myself here. I don’t know if I mentioned earlier.

One of the basis, points that we’re going to use for our discussion this evening is Rachel Wilson’s book, Occult Feminism, the Secret History of Women’s Liberation. For those of you that may be asking, highly recommended. My only disclaimer to all of this is as follows. Well, there’s actually two things in particular. Number 1, you will note that Rachel Wilson is an avid Eastern Orthodox, and she goes on to claim that Protestantism and the Roman Catholic, what shall we call it, division of things, in reality not exist because the original church is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

That is a contention that I will vehemently fight against, and it’s not that I am a defender as it were of Martin Luther or of John Calvin, neither am I a defender of Roman Catholicism. The fact of the matter is is that even though she points to first sources to be able to prove that feminism is in fact evil from its inception, she doesn’t do the very same thing with her assertion that Easter to Orthodoxy is in fact the base as it were for Christianity. I mean, those of you that have heard my declarations, what I’ve taught throughout the years, what I’ve exposited, I very clearly teach that I am against denominationalism. Why? Because the Bible doesn’t allow for that.

It doesn’t allow for sectarianism. It’s one of the things that Paul speaks out against. So that’s a word of warning to people that buy her book, and I would contend that, if I were to ever interview her or ask her about this, that’s a contention, that I would take up with her. And here’s the second point. Towards the end of the book, she states that this is not necessarily a book that intends to tell people how to live.

Well, I also take issue with that because if you’re taking issue with the very ideology that is telling women to live, by nature, innately, you are telling people that you ought to live in the opposite manner. So my and and it’s not something that I am stating that she did out of malice in her heart when she states this. I’m just saying that there is an incongruity of sorts, philosophical incongruity by stating that you’re not telling anyone how to live. The fact of the matter is is that if I message people and tell them this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, then inherently, I am also telling people that by that being wrong, I’m also telling them that this is, or the opposite of that is the right way to do it unless I have some something else in mind, and then I clarify that. It would be akin to saying Jesus taught against sin, but then he wasn’t telling people how to live.

That’s that doesn’t make any sense. Jesus wasn’t only telling people that this is wrong, he’s also telling them this is the way that you ought to live. So those are the 2 contentions and and the, admonitions that I would give people that were to buy her book, be on the lookout for those two things because those are our slippery slopes. And one of the primary reasons that I also tell people to try to stay away or not stay away, but be aware of that is because I’ve noticed that there’s an increase of of biblical Christians now that are beginning to flirt with the idea of becoming Eastern Orthodox. That’s right.

I remember a couple of years ago, and some of you, older listeners, will remember the name Hank Hanegraaff. I know some of you will remember that name. Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible Answer Man. He became Eastern Orthodox a couple of years ago, and one of the excuses that he gave to state that he became Eastern Orthodox is is it says the Eastern Orthodox Church is more experiential. I feel as if there’s more reverence in the way that they approach Christianity, and in one sense, I can understand if I can use that phrase why certain Christians are feeling that about Western Christianity, so to speak.

Because let’s face it, many so called churches have diminished Christianity to where it’s a joke of itself. That’s just the fact of the matter, but it doesn’t excuse all of a sudden the, flirtations that not many Christians are wanting to have with Eastern Orthodoxy when I believe it to be, again, just another sectarian form of distancing ourselves from what the Bible, the scriptures have to say on those things. So a word to the wise when purchasing this book, on on that in in particular. So just to break the ice here with respect to being able to prove that all of these things come, in fact, from a pagan underpinning. I’m gonna quote from a couple of portions of, Wilson’s book and I would encourage, Sarai Genesis the same thing.

If you have certain, things that you’d like to quote from, please feel free to do so. But I’m gonna start reading from page 9 of her book, and then we’ll springboard from there. Quote, one of the oldest and most perennial goddess figures is the ancient Mesopotamian goddess, Ayanna, also known as Ishtar, associated with the morning star or the planet Venus. She was first worshiped in Sumeria probably as early as 4000 BC, but she is still worshiped by various religious cults even now. She was worshiped as the goddess of both love or more accurately female sexuality and warfare and the, quote, queen of heaven, end quote, in antiquity.

But among modern goddess worshipers, she seems to be primarily an icon of female sexual power and liberation. Simone de Beauvoir, which she will play an integral part in our discussion this evening, mentions Diana or Inanna, rather, in her famous book, The Second Sex, saying that she represents, quote, the undomesticated unattached woman. Inanna, Ishtar is also the very important figure in, Gardenarian Wicca with her name appearing several times in Wiccan liturgies, chants, spells, and myths. In an ancient Sumerian poem, the god Enki establishes the order of the world giving each of the 7 deities a domain and certain power. Inanna is unsatisfied with whatever was given to her, and Enki dismisses her.

She challenges him to a drinking contest and wins. Enki passes out giving Inanna the opportunity to steal the mess or the rules of civilization. The mess contained all aspects of humanity, and with it in her possession, Inanna is able to gain more power for herself. She was never associated with marriage or motherhood, but instead was often seeking more power, especially over men and god. She is also notorious for treating her male lovers in a demeaning and sadistic manner using her sexuality to control and punish them.

For this reason, ritual magic performed in her honor often includes BDSM or a dominatrix submissive element, and Anna is also generally believed to have no offspring. In the Akkadian epic of Gilgamesh, Inanna, now Ishtar, asks Gilgamesh to be her lover. He refuses, citing the horrible sadistic things that Ishtar has done to all her former lovers. She is enraged at his answer and sends the bull of heaven to attack him. It’s easy to see why such a character would be a hero of modern feminist.

There’s a striking tendency in modern goddess worship revival to venerate only goddesses who dominate male gods and humans rather than goddesses who typify motherhood, marriage, or submission to masculine entities. I can think of no other motivation for such strong preference of these often vengeful and violent girl power goddesses over submissive maternal ones other than the fact that modern feminism is so preoccupied with dominating and pushing men and seeking power for women. Another example she gives is Lilith. The legend of Lilith may have originated in ancient summer as well. In fact, one legend of Inanna says that she took a tree from the banks of the Euphrates and took it to her garden to make it into a throne for herself, but the tree was inhabited by a serpent, a bird, a Lilith, who many believe was the forerunner to the Jewish folk legend of Lilith.

She makes her way into rabbinic Jewish mysticism as early as the 1st century AD and is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar. Now this let me pause here ladies. This was something that I know a lot of people have been pondering lately with all of the things that have been happening with respect to Jewish interest and and, Jewish natural nationalists that are in fact Jewish first people instead of American first people that are in congress and things of that nature. A lot of people have begun noticing this thing. Attached to all of that, and I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago when I covered the issue of Candace Owens and Daily Wire and Ben Shapiro and, and and Judaism and all these things.

A lot of Christians are actually surprised to find out that what some consider or what they consider to be Jewish orthodoxy is in fact tinged with paganism. For example, I’ve heard it from people whom were a part of Jewish orthodoxy, That Kabbalistic studies were an essential part of Jewish so called orthodoxy. What is it that we Christians are typically told to believe about Jewish orthodoxy? No. These these are just people that follow the Old Testament and that’s it.

When the fact of the matter is is that from a very young age, you find that in many Jewish circles, they’re actually taught the Kabbalah, which many people attribute back to to Solomon and whatnot, and they’re they’re shocked to find out that there is in fact paganism within those things. Your thoughts? Well, it’s funny how you mentioned that because if we follow Lilith, People have come to confuse Eve with Lilith, claiming that Lilith was Adam’s first wife. And the book talks about that made from the earth like he was she refused to take the sexuality submission position beneath Adam uttered the secret name of God and flew into the sky. And this is how, if you are a Bible believing woman or you haven’t done your due diligence and your foundation biblically is not on a true real foundational doctrine in Christ, when you read this as a woman, you’ll have the itchy ears, and you’ll start to think, okay.

Well, let me investigate a little bit more. And if you if you as a woman, again, are not Christ centered, well, your point a will always be something else, and point b will be always be something worse. So when I read this part well, many of the things, I was alarmed because I’m thinking, how does one conclude to that? Well, how does one arrive to that conclusion? And reading that and knowing that I I believe God’s word and what it states, it’s it’s incredible how one can easily just replace Eve and now go and claim that it’s Lilith.

I mean, there’s videos all over YouTube claiming that, hey, this might be true, that this could be Adam’s first wife. But then if that’s the case in Genesis, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. When you talk about that, then you begin to see the infiltration of the whole woman power, ideology creeping its way as it were into Christianity by giving an allowance to these sorts of things. I mean, this whole side conversation about Jewish mysticism having pagan underpinnings doesn’t really surprise me. I mean, I think you sent a mini video a few weeks ago of Dennis Prager literally admitting that Jewish people have long been associated with the most depraved and destructive ideologies that have plagued the earth including feminism, including Marxism.

Sanger herself was a Jewish atheist. I I don’t know how you square that circle, but it’s not really all that surprising. Yep. Yeah. Absolutely.

And just to just to continue to, make this more vivid for the audience, think about some of the other things that she mentions about this. You were mentioning this, babe. Lilith Lilith Lilith, I’m sorry, was Adam’s first wife made from the earth like he was. She refused to take the sexually submission position beneath Adam. I mean, this is this is just getting now graphic.

Right? Yes. Uttered the secret name of God and flew into the sky. She went to the Red Sea where god sent 3 angels to bring her back to Eden. God said she, let’s see here.

Where is it? She must return or else a 100 of her children who are apparently demons must die. Lilith tells the angels, to leave her alone and that she was only created to cause sickness and death in infants. They threatened to drown her in the sea if she refused return to Adam. Eventually, Lilith makes a deal with the angels that she will spare any infant who is protected by an amulet containing the names of the 3 angels and that a 100 of her demon children will die each day.

Other Jewish mystical traditions say that Lilith is a succubus who rapes men in their sleep in order to spawn demon children. The Zohar says she is not only the first wife of Adam, but also the wife of Satan. Folks, when you take a look at this, I know some might be asking, but how is this the underpinnings of feminism? Well, one one of the examples that she gave was Simone de Beauvoir. Wilson, she gives Simone de Beauvoir as quoting this.

Here’s another one. In page 11 of the book, she reprints the cover, the first edition of Miss Magazine, which features the goddess Cali, and on it, if I can paint the mental picture for the audience, it’s in essence a woman that has 8 arms, 4 on each side. She’s blue, she’s wearing high heels, she’s got this baby as it were that’s germinating in her midsection, and then she’s holding out a ton of different things, an iron, a steering wheel, what appears to be a typewriter, a meat, a clock, etcetera, etcetera. And then one of the things that says here, it says Jane O’Reilly on the housewife’s moment of truth. So these are just a few instances.

These are just a few examples of how women in the feminist movement actually appealed to pagan ideologies, to things that are a part of the occult to give their ideas underpinnings and then try to popularize that, again, through our popular culture. But even then, when you mention these things nowadays, some people look at you with a baffled face saying, where do you get where are you getting these things from? Right? Well, I hearken I wanna hark back to Simone De Beauvoir because, Rachel Wilson in her book towards the end, page 123, she states that no woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Authorized them.

Oh, yeah. Exactly. Women should not have that choice precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. Interesting. But doesn’t that point Genesis, by the quote that Sarai just read, doesn’t that necessarily state then that there’s a natural as it were intuition by women, and I would say placed there by God, to be as it were caretakers in the home tending to, the family, etcetera, etcetera.

Isn’t that necessary? In essence, de Beauvoir is admitting this is as it were if we can use that phrase godly wiring, and we have to rewire it somehow. And not just that. It’s normative. And I know that in this progressive progressively saturated society, we don’t like to say that anymore because we’re supposed to be bashing norms.

But Simone de Beauvoir was also the spearhead of queer theory. She never married. She never had children. She took I believe she took care of, a a stepson that her lover had, and then she had a really tough time with the fact that that lover rejected her. So her, Cady Stanton, Susan b Anthony, Susanna Budapest, who we should probably also talk about right here on page 17.

All of these women unfortunately come from backgrounds of seriously dysfunctional family relations, And we’re all supposed to just say, like, oh, okay. The ideology that springs from these women is inherently a good one, is inherently one to be praised, one to be enforced by law. I mean, I think it needs a lot more exploration than that. I think it would be very naive as a society to think that this is all a good fruit. Genesis, let me ask you the following question because this is something that I know some listeners are interested in, and I think it’s important for us to broach the subject.

There has been an increase in the chatter through social media where women in particular have begun to notice more and more that in the performances, whether it be through the Grammys, whether it be the Super Bowl halftime shows, whether it be through even concerts that they’re going to, that they’re noticing that a lot of these so called artists, they’re using it’s become more and more evident that the appeal to hellish things, occultic symbolisms, the way that they dress up, the incantations that they’re using during these performances. It it seems to be ever on the increase, but at the same time, they’re noticing that most of the things, the the so called art that they’re producing for society is tinged with these sorts of, symbolisms and things of this nature. Now I get it. Some people would say, well, this is something that is traditionally left to maybe as it were, the fringe groups to notice, but one can’t help but notice that there is in fact, and this is going back to what we’re trying to prove in this first portion of our conversation here, that all these things are in fact influenced by paganism in some way, shape, or form.

Wouldn’t you say? I would, and it’s not all that surprising to me that a society that rejects Christ as lord and savior, as creator, as the great designer of our world would embrace something like this. I’m not going to sit here and say that I know for sure that Cardi b and Megan Thee Stallion are straight up satanists and are very proactive and intentional about the way that they project Dianic and witchcraft in their music videos. I’m not sure that I’m ready to give them that amount of credibility and intention. But a society that says that the self is the utmost entity that needs to be celebrated in our world, it’s not very difficult to believe that that sort of, embracing of of viewpoint would result in things as we’re seeing in the way that, like, we celebrate paganism and, in in things like the Grammys and really public audiences and public presentations.

I mean, I don’t know if you guys have seen Vanessa Hudgens who I literally grew up with because I watched High School Musical growing up. She claims to be a witch now. She’s a literal witch. She’s pregnant and she’s promoting all this imagery on her Instagram about being a pregnant witch and how this is making her feel closer to her, her fertility as being something that makes her a Didi. I mean, it it’s really not all that surprising, but it is definitely sad because you can see that paganism deifies anything but the true Christ.

Now it’s interesting you mentioned this because one of the things that Wilson mentions in her book is that there is a visible increase in, Wiccan participation, witchcraft, all of these things that are tied into the occult specifically by women. I remember baby, you remember this because I think either you showed it to me or someone sent me a link and then I showed it to you. There are these sessions that are being undertaken now where women are demanding that their husbands, boyfriends, brothers, fathers, kneel before them, worship them, and then ask them forgiveness for simply being men because they carry within them the seeds as it were of oppression over the fact that they’re being men. I think I saw this through Gab not too long ago. I think you saw it as well, where these women stood up in the line.

Men were bowing down before them asking them forgiveness, like paying pennants simply for being men, and that finally these men were bringing about or or or were recognizing the deification. It’s one of the terms that they’re using, the the divinity that lies within all of these women. So Wilson is not wrong, and I think the reason that we’re tying all of these things together for the audience is to demonstrate that there is an underpinning of satanism and occultic practices and paganism in in in what they’re peddling the in other words, folks, there is intentionality behind all of this. Absolutely. And we see it with a lot of Christian authors who call their husbands their, there’s the, the head of the household, which is the husband, and then the wife are calling their spouse, their husbands, the helper.

Oh, that remember the, situation with, what was it? Oh my goodness. What’s her name? Ali Bestocki? I think she was invited recently to a, a conference here in Florida, if I’m not mistaken, where she calls her husband her helper.

I would never state that about you. I I would that would never come out of my mouth because guess what? You’re the head of our household. But going back to the Grammys and going back to pop culture and, artist, Beyonce is the number one person that comes to my mind when it comes to witchcraft, When it comes to dark magic, she has been quoted as dabbling into extreme witchcraft and dark magic, specifically in a 2018 album where the drums in the background were practicing a vindictive witchcraft, beat to that hit song. And a lot of her videos, by the way, have a lot of symbolisms.

I think we can spend here hours just speaking on her in particular. But there is a purpose behind that. And something that Rachel Wilson mentions also in her book is that there are witches that do exist. And a lot of these artists that we’re so used to seeing on screen, specifically woman, not only are feminists, but they are pagan. They are involved in a cult, in witchcraft.

There is the pagan underlying behind, everything that they do, every movie they select to participate in, every song they decide to write or co write. It it’s all intentional. It this is not just happening because they just ended up with a great music producer or a great videographer, and therefore, these ideas stemmed. No. There was a lot of purpose and intentionality within the creation of not only said, movies, but songs as well.

Genesis, if I can ask you because this is the next step I’d like to or the next, topic or sub talk subtopic within the the greater, topic that we’re talking about. You mentioned earlier how there is this misconception among even Christians themselves that, women basically up until around 20th century didn’t have any rights. We’ve all read the the source material as it were. If you can talk to the audience a little bit about how this, misconception is in fact an outright lie promoted by a feminist, and then if you could segue into talking specifically about what standpoint theory is, because I know a lot of the audience has heard that phrase, but they don’t necessarily understand what feminists mean by using the term standpoint theory. Sure.

Yeah. Feminists have this one of their main talking points is the fact that our history is bleached. It’s absolutely, like, written with this overall theme of oppression of women. And I’m not going to sit here and say that that didn’t occur at all. The middle ages didn’t seem to be very fun for anybody.

I think that I wash I wash one towel in my bathtub by hand, and my arms are sore the next day. I’m not going to sit here and say that oppression at a massive level didn’t occur. I think that would be a ridiculous conclusion. However, it wasn’t fun for everyone. I mean, going to war as part of a warrior in the mid 1500, you would be probably ridden with plague, you would probably be exposed to brutality that you could never have imagined before.

I mean, this this understanding that history was easy for men and full of oppression for women is is is false at its best, and then at its worst, it’s intentionally false because they’re trying to lie to you. And, for example, people don’t know that women in Sparta owned property. They were the one ones who handled finances for their homes because men were out doing manly things, being warriors, training for war. Sparta was famously a very war centric society. In Mesopotamia, same thing.

Women were allowed to own property. Women were once again responsible for handling the finances in their homes. They, women in Sparta, specifically girls, were able to play sports with men because Sparta as an entire society was a champion of athleticism, really wanted to excel in general, and so girls were not in any way distanced from that. And I know that I’m jumping around, timelines if you will, but in Japan today, there are some societies in Japan where women are the ones who handle the finances. So once again, even contemporarily, when you contend that women have this this ghoul of patriarchy that they must be scared of, they don’t have the facts to demonstrate that.

And so once once we bleed into this concept that we see Rachel Wilson’s assess forth as standpoint feminist theory, it it essentially presents the fact that because you are a woman and because there’s this argument that women have long been oppressed, All of the arguments that you make that are downstream from that must be valid because you as a woman are are understanding of that. So your standpoint gives validity to your arguments. So unless there is no objective truth. Yeah. No.

It does. There is no objective truth. It’s whatever the person feels that the truth should be, but if that’s the case and we’re all running into each other headlong, immovable objects and, and unstoppable forces. There’s going to be a clash because if suddenly everybody’s truth is valid, then nobody’s truth is valid at one point or another. You have your truth.

I have mine. Genesis has her truth. Everybody has their own separate truth because of that, way of thinking. I’ve stated to various men and women throughout the years whom have brought this objection to Christianity and have I’ve had to use the, what shall I call it, metaphorical slap in the face to bring them out of that stupor. What do I mean by this?

Say, well, if that’s the case, if your truth is valid equally valid as mine, then I can kill you right now, And they look at me puzzled. What do you mean you can kill me right now? Which, by the way, that reaction in and of itself tells me that they don’t believe their own bullcrap. Right? What do I mean by this?

Oh, if it’s my truth that I can just go around killing whomever I want and not suffer for the consequences that I’ve been in doubt, let’s say, by God to be, the ultimate, killer as it were. That’s my truth, and I can go ahead and do it. So I’ll just kill you right now and that we’re all be better off for it. I mean, they look at me with a quizzical look saying, but but that’s that’s wrong, and I asked them then, well, where did you get that concept of right and wrong? Because suddenly, now you’re pointing as it were to objective truth, which makes your previous assertion completely bogus.

It’s like that whole, phrase that we’ve used before where we’ve heard people say there is no such thing as absolute truth, and you have to ask rhetorically, including that statement. It makes it makes absolutely no sense. Now to head to the next point, folks, because this is you have to progress through this, tying in as it were how one thing necessarily ties into the other. Because I know some Christians will ask, well, Gio, we can understand. We can see because you’ve all summarized it so excellently, and I know that that’s what you’re all saying that we’ve done such an excellent job until this point.

And I thank you all for for acknowledging our greatness in all of this. Some are asking, well, how did this eventually filtrate itself into Christianity? Because let’s face it. There is a lot of this, girl boss attitude within Christian circles nowadays, and you yourself have mentioned I have mentioned it. Let’s face it.

When you’re talking to certain persons that had religious organizations or churches, they will have to admit to you that they pander specifically to women because women, by far and by huge quantities, are the ones who purchase the music, purchase the Bibles, purchase the literature, purchase the stuff for their husbands, etcetera, etcetera. So if that’s the demographic breakdown, the way that church is administered nowadays, they’ll they run it more as a business than anything else. They’re saying, hey. If that’s our target audience, then even the messaging has to be one that caters to women. And this is why a lot of men this is one of the main reasons why men are no longer finding it, attractive to go to church.

Because if they’re going to go there and listen to this guy or whoever the woman is, the woman cleric pontificate about how great women are and how horrendous men are. They don’t wanna hear that, which at the end of the day is also just downright stupid. Because when you think about it, the Bible points out that both men and women have their peculiar tendencies towards sin. And the Bible does not disguise one thing over another saying, well, men’s sins, as it were, are more egregious than women because of, again, as Genesis mentioning mentioning earlier, the Hegelian dialectic and the one that Marx brings forth with. By the way, let me say this to the audience.

If you remember what I had stated, what I had revealed about Marx himself a couple of weeks ago, Marx has no authority on anything. Marx was a man whom abandoned his family, who was a lazy bum, whom talked grandiose things and then hid depravities about himself, about him having children that he abandoned and things of this nature. Because if not, if those things were to come to light, he himself was worried that his image as the fighting man for the oppressed classes would be absolutely decimated. Marx is not an authority on absolutely anything. So this is another thing that I tell Christians whenever they they ask me.

Well, when talking to other people about Marx, what do I tell them? Tell them that. Tell them the truth about how Marx was he he was a bum. Tell them about how he abandoned his family. He’s no authority on anything.

He can’t be an authority on anything. But to the question, how did these things infiltrate themselves into Christian circles? Wilson gives an idea. It’s one of many, but this gives you, as it were, a tasting of how these things eventually infiltrated themselves into the church. In 18/31, this is in page 35 of her book, In 18/31, a young man named John Humphrey Noyes underwent a religious conversion after listening to sermons by an evangelist of the 2nd Great Awakening.

Noyes heard preaching by flamboyant revivalist Charles Grandes Infini and resolved to join seminary and become a preacher himself. While studying the Bible at Yale Theological Seminary, Noyes became convinced that the second coming of Christ had already occurred in 70 AD. This meant man was living in a new age according to Noyes. At the dismay of his seminary colleagues, Noyes began to believe that man must become free of sin completely to be saved in the new age and had a duty to create heaven on earth by becoming, quote, perfected. He felt that those who were still waiting for the second coming, practically all other Christians except a very few, were not true Christians.

In 18/34, Noyes declared himself free from sin, believing that his own will, because it came from God, was therefore divine and perfect. Side note here. Interesting what Calvinism has sprung. Right? Very interesting.

Because she continues, his his fellow clergy found this crazy even for the times, and his preaching license was revoked. Noyes moved to Vermont and continued preaching without a license. He married in 18/38, and Noyes’ wife gave birth to 5 children in 6 years, and 4 of the infants died due to prematurity. Because of this tragedy, Noyes began studying sexual intercourse and decided to live separately from his wife. Noyes began to develop the theory of male continents, the practice of sexual intercourse without intercourse without ejaculation around this time as a means of both preventing pregnancy and developing self control, which, by the way, we will talk about how the pill, which is probably the most sacrosanct, so to speak, item of feminism, in reality is not only dangerous to women, but something that we believe women ought not be taking, period.

We’ll get to that shortly. He began a commune who followed his preaching and garnered a small following. Noyes’ group began practicing what he called complex marriage. This was the idea that in the pursuit of pertaining perfection, the whole community was married to each other. Noyes believed that the Bible did not say there was marriage between 1 man and 1 woman in heaven, and since they were creating heaven on earth, there should be no such thing within the community either.

Each member of the community was expected to have relations with everyone else as as the I mean, you you know why I laugh. The the biblical advice or not the biblical, not the advice, the command and all those things couldn’t be easier to understand. When it says no fornication, it just says no fornication, period. I mean, that’s pretty simple. A second grader can understand this.

When it says no adultery, again, a a child can understand this. What is so difficult about understanding these things? And it contradicts the idea, the lie, I’m sorry, behind feminism because why get involved if you’re a woman? Why get involved into these practices? I thought you didn’t need man.

I thought you can do it on your own. Why aren’t they excelling on their own? Why are they participating, right, in these practices? Shouldn’t they have opened up their own their own occult? Right.

They don’t do it. There’s always men involved that they have to involve themselves in because guess what? They have the money. They have the power. Yeah.

It it it says here each member of the community was expected to have relations with everyone else, and they did noises credited with coining the term free love. Interesting. So most of us think that free love is a cons or a a verbiage that is used by the secular humanist, and it was actually invented by a guy who’s a a professing Christian. Noyes considered it a sin to wish to be in a mutually exclusive relationship even with the person one was having a child with because this indicated selfishness and possessiveness. Exclusive relationships were frowned upon and at least 1 female member was kicked out of the community for being traditionally married.

This is curious because, and and this is to you, Genesis. It’s a curious thing because one of the things that we hear a lot of feminist talk about is this whole possessiveness thing that men have to free themselves from, and yet it was a man whom actually advanced this, especially within Christian circles, the irony of it all. Yeah. I think it’s certainly ironic especially because study after study. I mean, we don’t need studies.

The Bible tells us that it’s good and normative for men and women to be holy together in matrimony, and that’s what gives joy and life and goodness. We understand that. But because some people need studies, study after study demonstrates that women who are sad and depressed and feel unfulfilled in society are overwhelmingly single women who are not only unmarried, but unmarried and single mothers. So once again, feminists contend that true fulfillment and true liberation from the shackles of domesticity is found in promiscuity, is found in behaving just as promiscuous men are when ultimately that doesn’t seem to serve it does not serve women at all. And it actually makes you it makes you behave as a brute, honestly.

Yep. Yeah. I I know that you guys are reading f Caroline Grelia, domestic tranquility. She takes a, a scalpel to these feminists who contend essentially to be a good woman, you have to be a man. And it’s like, okay.

How utterly misogynistic is it for you to contend that in order for you to be a true woman, you have to have sex like men, you have to work like men, and you have to behave like men. And who was defending the Me Too movement in its uprise? Beth Moore. And she is a popular woman author, Christian author. And, personally, I don’t call her a Christian if she wants to state that she is.

You know? You have to, see the fruits, and I’ve seen the fruits. And if you call yourself a Bible believing Christian and you are a Christ follower, what are you doing endorsing feminism? What are you doing endorsing the me too movement? Because all of that is anti biblical.

So as a bible believing woman, mother, wife, you cannot call yourself a Christian and in the same sentence claim that you’re a feminist. You know, it’s a curious thing that you mentioned, Beth Moore, because there has been a a shifting by many of these people whom at one point, they publicly called themselves Christian conservatives or conservative Christians. There is a clip, and I encourage the audience to look for it, where Beth Moore years ago stated, and this was public, mind you, she said, women, stop trying to seduce our husbands. Hide your breasts. She actually said that.

Look for it and you will find it, and all of a sudden, we have Beth Moore now stating girl power. Girl power is the way to go. This is what God has for us now, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. It certainly is, something to to behold as it were. Let me mention this because I mentioned to the audience people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan b Anthony, and whatnot.

She mentions these 2 in the book, and I’d like to continue on this theme of how this eventually infiltrated itself into the church. Page 51. Elizabeth Cady Stanton herself was quite keen on attacking the Christian establishment at her time, just as Woodhull did, and this is talking about Victoria Woodhull, which, again, we’re not gonna have any time to get into the Woodhull sisters, but just to give a primer to the audience, these are 2 sisters that from a young age, they were manipulators. They present and their parents present them that presented them as as people whom could get in touch with the spirit world and and talk, through dead people and things of this nature. These these two women got to a point where they got into the Vanderbilt circle, and most people don’t don’t know this.

One of the first people that Vanderbilt bankrolled were these 2 women. Why? Because it was eventually found out that these women were actually getting, as it were, inside the trading from other men who were involved in the stock market and whatnot and were making him a lot of money. They were making him a lot of money, and he then continued to bankroll them. It was it wasn’t anything It wasn’t that they were actually contacting as it were the dead.

They were just using as it were their, let’s call it their powers of seduction to get information from other men that involve themselves in that world and then fed it back to Vanderbilt, and he used that information in the stock market to make himself first to such a point, and Wilson quotes this in the book. They asked Vanderbilt. The press asked Vanderbilt, what what’s the key to your success? He says, consult the spirits. I mean Yep.

Whether or not Vanderbilt was in fact fooled or this is just he knew what was going on and he still said, hey. Let let’s go ahead and, pedal this forward via the money. 1 of the first companies that he actually helped endorse in the stock market was this woman, Victoria Woodhull and her sister. Amazing when you consider this. And this one’s narrative to the as it were the weakling woman whom has been oppressed as it were by men.

This is kind of kind of another irony, right, in all of this. Okay. Continue. Stanton is one of the most powerful and prominent figures in first wave feminism, and the suffrage movement, along with her partner in activism, Susan B. Anthony.

These 2 are probably the best known figures from this time period and with good reason. They had connections with anyone and everyone you’ve heard of in the social reform movements of the later 19th century. What many people don’t know is that Elizabeth Cady Stanton, along with 24 other feminist activists, all women, wrote what they titled The Woman’s Bible, first published in 18/95. This book is essential to the purpose of my own book because it is perhaps the best single piece of evidence which supports my assertion that feminism cannot be separated from its fundamental opposition to Christianity and that no matter how many modern women try to hold feminist views and Christian beliefs at the same time, that they are incompatible and antithetical to each other. Stanton herself agrees with me on this point, although she certainly would not have agreed with my larger points on feminism ultimately being a negative for women in society.

In the introduction to the woman’s bible, she explains her motivations for revising the bible saying that only the only thing holding back women’s liberation was traditional Christianity. She further explains that the Bible, all Christian churches, and the canon law are the basis for the belief that men and women belong to separate to separate divinely ordained spheres and that women’s liberation had to destroy traditional Christianity and canon law in order to achieve its goals. She supports this assertion, citing a quote from Charles Kingsley, quote, this will never be a good world for women until the last remnant of the canon law is swept from the face of the earth, end quote. Charles Kingsley was a socialist church critic and correspondent with both Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley. Nice nice accompaniment here.

Father friends. Yeah. Good friends. Father of Aldous and Julius Huxley, Kingsley blended elements of reformed Protestantism with Norse mythology and Darwinian natural selection to create his own strange Anglo Saxon supremacist religion, believing that the English monarchy was descended from the Norse god Odin and that the Anglo Saxon race was therefore superior to all others. Of the 26 women who were on the revision committee of the Woman’s Bible, 8 were spiritualists or occultists of some kind, 4 were admitted atheist, and 3 Quakers.

All were liberal progressives and feminists, of course. You might wonder what interest such women would have in producing any version of the Bible at all. Stanton answers this herself by saying, quote, so long as tens of thousands of Bibles are printed every year and circulated over the whole habit, habitable globe, The masses and all English speaking nations revere it as the word of God. It is vain to belittle its influence. So notice how Stanton, Anthony, and others are very crafty.

They said, you know, if we can’t destroy it by outright opposition, let’s just subvert it. Well, they knew that. I’m pretty sure they were well informed that the Bible is and continues to be and was the number one best selling book besides William Shakespeare Yep. And all of his writings. So it doesn’t surprise me that this was intentional.

Yes. And it’s still happening now with the many translations of the Bible. Not only do you have feminists on board, you have atheists. And it’s obvious that there’s a motive. There is a reason.

Because why call it a bible? Why couldn’t they have as a unit if they hate God so much and they hate scripture and they hate the purpose of it and they hate patriarchy? Why call it the woman’s bible? Why not call it the woman’s pocket handbook to so and so? Right?

No. They have to do it this way because, like, many of us are, many humans are, we don’t inform ourselves. And because something is labeled a Christian, henceforth, a woman’s bible, we automatically assume that it’s biblically sound, that it has to be right, that everybody that partook in creating it had a biblical fair mindedness that, you know, they were biblically grounded in God’s word, and we’re able to create something that will benefit spiritually and edify women spiritually. No. It’s obvious that this was created for the destruction of the woman, knowing that many woman were bible bible believing women.

Right. So how do you infiltrate, and how do you start attacking the idea of patriot, of patriarchy by creating now a so called woman’s bible, knowing that women are gonna all of a sudden accept it for what it is, not examining it, and start reading it and now saying, well, if this is the Bible, it has to be true. Instead of stating, who wrote this bible? Where did these translations come from? Who formed the board?

Because we should still be doing that now. Well, I’m glad you mentioned that. And before I I go to Genesis on this, I’d like to read this. Stanton then spent some time pointing, out what she believes to be inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible, which she says are proof that, quote, the canon law, the scriptures, the creeds, and codes, and church discipline of the leading religions bear the impress of fallible man, not the ideal of our great first cause, the spirit of all good. In the last few words, quote, the spirit of all good sounds a bit more occultic than you think it does, Christian.

That’s because it is. Tang refers to the occult in her introduction to the woman’s Bible saying, quote, those who have the divine insight to translate, transpose, and transfigure this mournful object of pity, referring to her interpretation of the biblical woman, into an exalted dignified personage worthy are of our worship as the mother of the race are to be congratulated as having share of the occult mystic power of the eastern Mahatmas, end quote. Now Wilson writes, I realize this passage is sarcastic, but Stanton’s religious views as well as those of a revision committee had a cult leanings. I would like to give you a brief synopsis of some of the noble women on the revision committee of the woman’s bible. Reverend Phoebe Hannaford, the first woman to be ordained a universalist minister in New England.

Universalism is distinctly not Christian as its own central doctrine is universal salvation. She was kicked out of her own church for living with her lesbian lover, so she started her own. Reverend Augusta Jane Chapin, another or Chapin, another universalist minister who attended the World Parliament of Religions, Chicago’s World Fair in 18/93 recognized that he has the birth of formal inter religious dialogue. Reverend Olympia Brown, universalist Unitarian minister who kept her maiden name after being married. Ursula n Jesterfeldt became a Christian scientist, another religion that is not at all Christian, but borrows his name anyways.

But after conflicts with the founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, she started her own religion called the Science of Being, which evolved into the Church of New Thought, which dissolved after her death. Genesis, it appears to me that when you consider these persons and their contributions, if we can call them that, we’re we’re finding just evil intent. Left, right, left, right, left, right. Yep. Absolutely.

And if anyone needs any further justification or just assertion that feminism is downstream from evil and not from good. You can flip to page 58, and if you wanna borrow my book just let me know and I’ll give it to you. She says Wilson contends that all of these, movements, she’s talking about theosophy and spiritualism, are Luciferian in nature. In the first wave, feminist, spiritualist, and theosophists all united under the idea of Christianity as oppressor of women, which naturally led to the idea of Lucifer being a liberator of women. Obviously, they’ve never read Ephesians.

Yet another author who agrees with my assessment here is author Per Faxmeld, doctor Faxmeld, associate professor in history of religion at Stockholm University. He authored an award winning doctoral dissertation, which was later published as a book called Satanic Feminism, Lucifer as a Liberator of Woman in the 19th Century Culture. In it, he explained how the feminists of this time period rebelled against the patriarchal structure of Christianity, embracing Satan as the symbol of women’s liberation and calls Theosophy the period’s most influential new religion. Yep. Genesis, if we can just speak for a few minutes on how there were, in fact, people, more specifically women, whom opposed women’s suffrage because and I’m glad that Wilson did this through her book.

She actually details how the anti suffragette movement, if we can call it that. That seems a bit euphemistic to me, but, nevertheless, I think we understand why, the, so called suffragettes were calling them anti suffragettes. Again, these euphemisms are great for the opposition to try to frame their opposition as necessarily evil. It’s curious to me how the sources that she pulls are actually numerous and quite, filled with a great amount of women who said we we don’t we don’t want suffrage because we essentially see the what underpins as it were this movement. For example, in in page 60, I know you’re collecting some things that you’d like to share with the audience, but I’ll just give a couple of examples.

In the page 60 of Wilson’s book, she quotes, in 1914, the Nebraska Association of Post Women’s Suffrage Group published a pamphlet in response to a ballot initiative petition campaigning proposed by the Nebraska Women’s Suffrage Group. They would cause the breakdown of the family, division in marriages, and a lack of effort and focus on children and community, which had always been the main work of women until that point. That’s something that standpoint theory feminist and queer theorist and feminist in in universities just do not tell their students. No. They do not.

And I think Wilson early in the in the book also contends that women have also always been influential whether that is through being the wives of kings or being the counselors of powerful men in societies. I think it’s even more poignant to point out that these Nebraska women who oppose suffrage, I think they were so prescient because many of the reasons that they give are so well thought out. I mean, on page 61, you see the reasons why they would oppose suffrage include because when women realize that when they become voters, they’ll be in consequence, have to serve as jurors and be compelled to hear all the repugnant details, incidents, and murder trials, as having been intimately acquainted with the legal field. This is totally true. Not as it pertains to murder trials, but as it pertains to trials in general.

They’re not necessarily, conducive to rest and relaxation and just bringing about a good, I don’t know, just a stable home. She goes on to say that because in political activities there’s constant strife, turmoil, contention and bitterness producing conditions from which every normal woman naturally shrinks. I’m not sure I would agree with that last part. I quite like, confrontation, but I realize that that’s not something that many women share in because the primary object of government is protect persons and property. I think this is especially telling.

This duty is imposed by nature on man. The woman being by nature absolved from assuming a task to them impossible. Then the very last one, because Nebraska women are already enjoying a greater measure of protection and privilege under the law than do women of any state or women vote. And this goes contrary to what many feminists have been trying to promulgate from the beginning, all of these points with these women in Nebraska were trying to do. I applaud them.

Yep. Because we’re not seeing that now. We’re seeing the opposite. And many of these specifically, Betty Ferdan, Margaret Sanger Man, Betty Fordan. We can spend hours talking about her.

They all made it seem that all women were upset, that they were all promiscuous, that they all wanted free love and free sex, and they didn’t want to be held down at home. But when you read this and you find this out that this took place in 1914, it brings another light to the equation, and now you’re starting to see that. Guess what? Not everybody was biting into these into the lies and into the feministic ideology of we’re all oppressed and we all need rights. When you have these group of women that were trying to fight, They were on the battleground.

They were right there in the front row trying to fight this out and trying to duke it out. I applaud them for doing that. Yeah. There’s a couple of other things that I’d like to mention to the audience that Wilson mentions here, which, again, staggering when one considers, for example, page 64. The overall number of US children under 5 with mothers working outside the home in 1900 was less than 6%.

By 2012, that number had jumped to 58%. The anti suffragists were also right about what the future of marriage and family would look like if we instituted such sweeping societal change. In 1900, the rate of births outside of marriage was 4%. By 2010, not quite a century after the passage of the 19th amendment, the rate of out of wedlock births had reached 41%. There are numerous other statistics I could cite here, but I don’t want to repeat too too much material that is already covered in the book.

And most of you can look around at society and see that the results of the work of women’s suffragists. But most women in favor of this massive up but were most women in favor of this massive upheaval to the the social order as is often implied by educators, politicians, and feminists of today? The answer might surprise you. Suffrage was so unpopular with women in 18/95 that the state of Massachusetts asked women of voting age whether they wanted suffrage. Of the 575,000 eligible women voters, only 22,200 4 voted yes.

That’s only 3.8%. So it’s obvious, ladies, that women in the past could see what this was all about. No doubt. I think there was and and maybe I’m wrong on this, and if you ladies see it differently, please, let me know what your thoughts are in the matter. But I happen to think that since the country was a lot smaller back then and was more community based than the, what’s the term I’m looking for here?

The isolated, way that we live nowadays. I know it sounds that sounds ridiculous because some will say, well, I live in a community and and I know who my neighbors are. Let’s face it. Community was thriving and more vivid back then than what it is now. That’s just a matter of fact.

There is a balkanization within the United States that we’ve never seen before. But I think one of the reasons that many of these women oppose this is because they intimately knew some of these women that were forwarding these ideas, and they knew what could come of it. And that’s why they were trying to warn other people about adopting their ideas. What do you think? Absolutely.

And you could it seems that these women were seeing the writing on the wall, and they can foresee the dire effects that this would not only come to them as women, but that society as a whole can suffer from this, which was what they what they were trying to protect. They didn’t wanna give their kids to the state or the government. They didn’t want their health care via through the state and the government. All of these things had dire effects, And, again, they could see the writings on the wall and say, we need to do something now as a whole. Let’s try and gather, and let’s try and fight this because if not, this will have dire effects, and that’s why you mentioned Genesis mentioned the different points where they stated this is the reason why we’ve come up with this, and let’s try and fight this.

Genesis, we mentioned earlier that we’d like to talk about birth control because if there is an abortion, because if there is one man, I hate to use this word, but I think the audience will understand it in the context in which I’m using it. If there’s one sacrament that feminists are all in favor of it, it is like the epitome of their religion, so to speak. It is this of birth control or sacraments rather birth control and infanticide and abortion. Let’s talk a little bit about Margaret Sanger. I think most people or or rather a lot of Christians have come to understand that Margaret Sanger was evil.

I don’t necessarily think that a lot of people know the depths as it were for depravity, but let’s tie her in into what she wanted to deploy upon society and also talk about how many Christian families have unfortunately adopted a lot of the baselines that she advanced to the point where now this has caused issues with women’s health and even more so, I would have to say the death of women because that’s that’s that’s part of her legacy, so to speak. Yeah. I totally agree with the the fact that her intention was essentially to denigrate the essence of women. And I’m not saying that I mean, for example, I work. I’m a paralegal to a very busy litigator.

I find being productive and the entire legal field fascinating. But I think we understand that we’re not being reductionistic when we say that the essence of women is that of nurture, is that of, loving children, and I will although not all women do, of being the spearheads, the incubators of homes so that children can be prepared to go out into a real world. And, for example, as Christians, battle for our savior, battle to battle for souls. So Sanger’s intention to create her primary intention was to create a pill that would impede women from ovulating. And I can’t see that as anything other than as an attack on women physio women’s physiology and women’s overall well-being.

I mean, I’m sure that you and Sarai if you’d like to split it this way, you guys can talk about the history of Sanger and of the birth control pill and primarily that as a sacrament to feminism. But I think it would it would behoove us to just point out the negative effects of the birth control pill specifically. I know that I have, for example, a lot of friends, and family who have either been on it or are presently on it, but our present OBGYN paradigm does not tell us what the consequences of this pill that Sanger initiated and that she came about with, what the negative effects are. It depletes all of the essential amino acids and minerals and vitamins that you need for reproduction, for nervous system health, for overall fertility. And the fact that we’re not told that you’re going to be put at a higher risk of migraines of obviously, if there are children around, please get away, but of vaginal dryness, of low libido, of lack of arousal, of, cancer, osteoporosis.

The fact that we’re not told all these things, plus the fact that we’re not educated about the fact that the history of the birth control pill is actually a very ugly history, I think does a disservice to modern women. I agree. If I could, indulge the audience, or or rather the audience indulge me for a couple of minutes here, I’d like to give a brief background of who Margaret Sanger is because I think the basic understanding that a lot of people have about her is that she is the founder of Planned Parenthood International. But what most people do not know about Margaret Sanger is that her descent to that place where she founds this organization that in essence is the outpouring or the manifestation of her views about society. What do I mean by this?

Well, Wilson covers this to an extent. Page 84 of her book, quote, perhaps the most famous example is planned parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger. Sanger was born the 6th child out of 11 as Margaret Higgins in 18/79. Her parents were Irish immigrants who had settled in New York, and Sanger’s mothers died at the age of 49. I’ve seen numerous biographies on the Internet, which say the cause of her death was her 18 pregnancies and 11 births, but this is not true.

Miss Higgins died of tuberculosis, but many feminist writers and bloggers have a vested interest in justifying some of Margaret Sanger’s most controversial views. So they try to attribute her mother’s death to, quote, having too many children, end quote, in order to stoke sympathy for Sanger’s cause when the truth is that miss Higgins died or missus Higgins died of one of the most common scourges of the time. They also try to overplay the hardships of Sanger coming from a large family, which seems so foreign to us today, but was not at all uncommon at the time. Margaret Sanger certainly did have a negative view of being the middle child of a large family. But, of course, there are great many people from such families who don’t see it that way at all.

My great grandfather was one of 14 children, none of whom counted this as a burden as far as I know. This is quite obviously a matter of perspective. But in feminist academia, it is always portrayed as a negative and a hardship mostly in order to justify abortion. Margaret married German Jewish architect William Sanger in 1902, but her political activism began in 1911 when she joined the women’s committee of the New York Socialist Party. This began her association with the Bohemian circle of artists and intellectuals in New York at the time, and she soon she soon became interested in feminism.

Sanger had a background in nursing, and this combined with her new radical politics in the form of writing pieces on sex education. These were called, quote, what every mother should know, unquote, unquote, what every girl should know, unquote. These columns appeared in the socialist magazine, The New York Call. One of Sanger’s most famous quotes is, quote, no woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother, end quote. But something most people didn’t know at the time and many people still don’t know today is that Sanger likely fabricated her most famous personal account of tending to a patient suffering the effects of botched self induced abortion during this time in an apparent effort to propagandize the subject.

She often publicly told the story of a woman she treated in her nursing days who died after 2 attempts at abortion named Sadie Sachs. The story include a male doctor who unsympathetically laughed at the woman and told her to make her husband sleep on the roof and that she could not have her cake and eat it too. Sanger biographer Ellen Chasler made an effort to corroborate the story and found no evidence of Sanger ever having met or treated such a person. She couldn’t even find any record that the patient even existed, which should be possible given the very detailed account including the general time and place. Other fans of Sanger have also tried to find evidence supporting Sanger’s tale and failed.

Therefore, it is accepted among several Sanger biographers that Sanger made this up and possibly other similar stories to propagandize the issue. Now among the other things that she mentions about Sanger, because this can get a bit, more detailed, is that Sanger, in essence, abandoned her husband and her children. She flees to Europe and engages in free sex with other radicals of the time, And when she returns to the United States by the way, the reason that she flees the United States is because she’s putting out pamphlets that the authorities had deemed to be, basically, risque at the time and ran a follow of the local laws. And when they were looking for her, she re she runs to Europe, abandons her husband, abandons her children, and after some time living abroad, she comes back. When she comes back, she tries to visit as it were her daughter.

Her daughter had committed suicide because she just couldn’t stand the fact that her mother had abandoned her. Her son, as it were, didn’t have a a a a better childhood. That was also another, bad situation. But the curious thing is is that Sanger hides this from public view. She never tells anyone about how she and, like other people, like Marx, in essence, were all cut from the same cloth.

These were persons that couldn’t care less for a family. They couldn’t care less as they were for the health of other people or well-being of other people. It was all about just, freeing as it were her inhibitions. Lo and behold, she starts presenting herself as a warrior for women’s causes, but what actually inspires this is her associations and her adoption of beliefs by people like Havelock Ellis and others, whom advanced the theory known as Eugenics. Eugenics at its very core is the world is overpopulated and we need to institute systems that will reduce the global population for health.

If this sounds strangely eerie to you, dear listener, it’s because you’ve heard people like Bill Gates state this, which, by the way, most people don’t know that Bill Gates’s father was on the board of Planned Parenthood International. A lot of people don’t know this. Bill Gates has gone on record stating, and I’ve showed this video before, that if we can somehow provide more women access to birth control and to abortion, then health will necessarily increase, and the way that you increase health is by decreasing the world population. What? That sounds to me like an attempt at genocide, which is exactly what Margaret Sanger proposed in books such as women in the new race and other things.

I’ve read her books. I’ve read the source material. She ended up calling certain portions of society weeds and rags that need to be eliminated. Sanger believed in believed in secretly administering sterilizers to women so that they could not procreate, specifically among minorities. She actually engaged in this practice with certain black pastors in those communities so as to sterilize black women that way they wouldn’t reproduce.

She spoke frequently to the Ku Klux Klan meetings and and whatnot. This is stuff that most people don’t know about Margaret Sanger. Genesis was mentioning earlier how she was in essence, the very cause for the bringing about of the birth control pill, which is part of the main sacrament as it were or sacraments of of feminism. Now, ladies, if we can just take some time towards the end of this to talk about the dangers, and Genesis already began to cover this somewhat, about the dangers of the birth control pill and how this directly ties in to Sanger’s ideas of reducing population because when you consider natural what do we call this? Just nature in and of itself.

You begin to see that there’s more nefarious things afoot. Absolutely. Because as a woman, you’re trained to believe from an early age that the contraceptive that the pill, the contraceptive pill, or any form of contraceptive is not only safe, but is the ultimate solution. And I hearken back on the point that I mentioned earlier in the podcast that feminism in and of itself gives you 2 options. It’s the contraceptive pill or the abortion.

And, unfortunately, we’re at that point where many women are doing both. And the contraceptive pill, Margaret Sanger, I believe, after reading so many of of books regarding her or books that she has written, her purpose behind the contraceptive pill was to give a different, option besides the condom. It was to have access for a woman to drink poison because that’s what it is and prevent her prevent the woman from having a child and becoming pregnant and to be able to have free sex. But women have been trained early on, especially if you were in the educational system. You were trained early on.

I was trained early on through the educational system that this is normal, that this is okay, that this option is healthy. But then when I hearken to, Genesis point, it does have dire effects. There’s a reason why women are experiencing blood clots. There’s a reason why on many of the ad campaigns, you see it all the time if you’re experiencing experiencing, pimples or blemishes. Guess what?

Get on the pill because it’ll remove that. The problem is once you get off of it, those things come back. And women never actually inform themselves to see, hey. What is this that I’m ingesting? What dire effects does this have?

Because Genesis, yes, she mentioned the vaginal dryness. This can produce cervical cancer. This can lead to to cancer. It has all of these dire effects that women have not taken the time to analyze, to really research what is behind the pill. And now that you have options and now that you’ve educated yourself, what options out there because there are the options.

The problem is the pharmaceutical companies are so embedded with this. And like you said earlier, we are trained. Society our society is trained now to say the doctor is right. My physician is right. But guess what?

COVID came, and now many of us are doubting our own doctors because of COVID. And, by the way, COVID, because of the vaccine going back to, sterilization, COVID, the vaccine did produce sterilization in women. Many women who were pregnant and were given the vaccination or chose to have, to get vaccinated, guess what? Many of them gave birth to stillborns. Yep.

And that hasn’t been reported. And they’ve also reported a a a serious issues with their periods now. Absolutely. And many of them were experiencing heavy blood clots because of the vaccine. Now I only mentioned that because that’s something that as a whole, as a society, as a whole, we went through that a few years ago.

So my point is, as a woman, you have to be able and even as a man, by the way, even as married couples, you need to investigate and really ponder, really investigate what is behind the pill and what options are out there because these aren’t healthy, whether it’s, a a contraceptive that is injected on you, whether it’s a pill, whether it’s something that you ingest, something that you place in your body, all of these have dire effects. And in the name of not getting pregnant, you’re still allowing toxins to enter into your body, and therefore, now allow your body to get used to these toxins that your body in essence is saying, hey. I need to reject this, but you keep putting it into into your body. And, you know, as women, I don’t think we’ve not all of us have made that pause and say, you know what? Maybe I should investigate this.

And maybe I should investigate it not only for me, but for your children, for your daughters because guess what? Even women my age or older, if you’re experiencing the you know, a crazy menstrual period, they’re gonna refer you. If you go see an OB GYN, if you go see your gynecologist, guess what? Nine times out of 10, they’re gonna tell you go on the pill even though you were operated, so, therefore, you wouldn’t have any more children. But going back to your point, I wish I would have known the information that I know now because I would have never have gotten a pill.

It’s I’ve I’ve said this before that, had we known all of this information back then, I would’ve I would’ve disallowed you from, taking the the birth control pill. And I know that many other Christian couples, when they found out about this later on, they said also the same thing. They said, but we we’d we’d never, would have allowed this. Was that a shortcoming on my end? Absolutely.

And I I am more than readily to to admit that. But, thankfully, we found out the truth where we can share this with other people and let them know don’t don’t participate in this, and we’ve also educated our children on on all of this. The fact of the matter is is that when you think about it naturally speaking, women are technically fertile 1 week out of the month. So when you consider that they’re giving you pills, a supply as it were for the entire month, you’re asking yourself, if women are technically fertile for only 1 week out of the month, then why are they giving the pills for all of these things? Obviously, they’re pumping them with synthetic hormones that are causing any I have a list here, by the way, which is, rather dire.

When you think about it, the International Agency For Research on Cancer has classified birth control pills as a class 1 carcinogen. That in and of itself should be that should be that should send out alarm bells. Absolutely. That should send out alarm bells. But what is it that your typical OBGYN says, no.

It’s safe. And then the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago says, this, because I if I’m not mistaken no. Do you guys know? I’m sorry for my ignorance on the matter here. Maybe, you and and Genesis can inform me on this.

Who is this woman called Nicole Bendayan or Bendayan? Does anybody know? I don’t. I don’t, but it appears that she runs in the circle of really, famous naturopathic doctor influencers. Oh, because then what what ends up happening, she some people have called her an influencer.

I’m reading this article from The Federalist. She says she was, she felt ignored by doctors who continued to advise her to use breath control even though she had a lot of really bad symptoms. Instead, the authors, quote, a male OB GYN, which is from The Washington Post, who recited the same old safe and effective speech, our cultural medical establishment and media talk about chemical contraception that, can put women on synthetic hormones for up to a third of their lives, and this is written by Jordan Boyd under an article titled Washington Post Mashes Women For Disliking Birth Control Side Effects. And then in the list that she puts here listen to this. This is, I mean, I’m just, amazed at the list here.

The side effects of the birth control pill include bleeding, headaches, weight gain, nausea, increased blood pressure, breast tenderness, low libido, acne, mood swings, heightened stroke, and heart attack risk, blood clots, liver disorders, vaginal discomfort, depression, abdominal swelling, dizziness, vomiting, exhaustion, body hair changes, loss of vision, numbness in the extremities, increased vulnerability to sunlight, increased risk of suicide. What? Increased risk of suicide, increased risk of cancer death, and more. How can anyone in their right mind advocate for this? How can anyone how can any medical professional in their right mind actually advocate for this?

And then when you consider the way that we got to that point folks, let me give you a little more, and then I’ll bring in Genesis on this so you can see the the reprobate version or or not the version, but rather the the reprobate nature of all of these things. I mentioned earlier that Sanger travels to Europe to evade the authorities in the United States. One of her boyfriends, because she was experiencing as it were fornication or she was involved in fornicate mass rampant fornication when she’s in, when she’s in Europe, was a man by the name of Havilock Ellis. Listen to this. Look look look at this character.

When he was 32, Havilock Ellis married Edith Lees, an openly lesbian feminist woman with whom he had an open marriage. The couple maintained separate residences and never had children. Lees had numerous lesbian affairs of which Ellis was aware. The Sophia Smith collection of women’s history has a large archive of Sanger’s personal correspondence, and the description of the contents includes personal letters revealing a long affair between Ellis and Sanger as well as affairs both had with others while still married. An interesting side note I found in this archive says that Sanger’s collection also includes material collected on her, by her on Theosophy and writings of Annie Besant, who was the first woman to publicly endorse birth control in 18/77.

Ellis apparently suffered from frequent trouble with impotence until his sixties when he apparently and I this is a children’s advisory, by the way, with what I’m about to mention here. When he apparently somehow discovered that the sight of a woman urinating cured the problem. That is called this particular fetish undonation. This is the only strong personal sexual proclivity he ever spoke of having personally and seemed otherwise asexual. Indeed, Havelock Ellis was an early pioneer of human sexual behavior research as well as psychedelic drug use.

He was among the first to suggest that homosexuality was not a disease, but a natural harmless quirk of sorts. Sound familiar? He preferred to use the term sexual inversion to describe it. Ellis coauthored the book sexual inversion with John Addington Simmons, who was a proponent of homosexuality as well as pederasty. Simmons, like Ellis, was married to a woman, but Simmons also had affairs with men whereas it is unclear whether Ellis ever did.

Ellis also studied transgenderism along with his contemporary, the infamous Magnus Hirschfeld. We’ve talked about him before. Ellis preferred a separate term, sexual aesthetic inversion, but later called the phenomenon eonism. Ellis also had extremely controversial reviews on sexuality in children, and the book Psychology of Sex wrote of case studies involving masturbation in children as young as 3 or 4. Tell me the company you keep, and I will tell you who you are is the old phrase.

Right? And then here’s this little tidbit for the audience. In 1951, Sanger met with physiologist Gregory Pincus, who was a leading researcher on synthesizing human hormones. Pincus was born into a Russian Jewish family who came to the United States at the turn of the century. Pincus was a genius who had an Ivy League education.

He studied reproduction in animals. And in 1951, Sanger met with Pincus to discuss formation of a hormone pill that could stop ovulation or birth control pill. They needed funding for such an endeavor, so Sanger went to her very wealthy friend and fellow feminist, Catherine McCormick, for help. McCormick was a former suffragette who married Stanley McCormick, heir to the International Harvester fortune. Not long after the couple were married, Stanley began to show signs of worsening mental illness.

Stanley suffered from many bizarre compulsive behaviors, such as washing and drying his hands until they shaved and obsessive compulsive masturbation, which came so severe that Stanley slept in a self made harness, which strapped his wrists to his ankles. Again, tell me who you hang around with. Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are. Ladies, I think and I think fantastically so by the grace of God, we’ve been able to cover a lot of information in this livestream and information, I hope, and I know it will help various people who have not heard of this information and other information that they need to hear, which will change the paradigm of their thinking on these matters. Starting with Genesis.

Genesis, if I could ask you to, give us a a summation of of your advice to women of your age as it were now that you’re, you know, getting a little older. I’m not saying that you’re old by any stretch of the imagination, but, you know, you’re already married. You’re on this side of life starting a family, etcetera, etcetera. If you could talk to women that are your age or younger, than what you are now, what would be your advice to these women that are being pontificated constantly, onto the virtues of feminism? Sure.

I’d say that being married and starting a family has been one of the most life giving and fulfilling endeavors I’ve ever undertaken, and that’s coming from someone who is very academically driven. I loved school. I love working. I’m very productive, but there is nothing that gives me the fulfillment that coming home to my family, coming home to my husband, and creating a home that’s, ultimately honorable unto god. There’s nothing that compares to something like that.

And feminism at its core is destructive towards feet, women in the sense that you have to ask yourself who stands to gain from an ideology that has to be pushed from the top down onto women and has contributed to the massive societal effects and just negative consequences that feminism has. There is nothing positive that has been downstream from this ideology. And if you have any questions about that, just open up domestic tranquility by f Carolyn Garelia, open up Rachel Wilson’s book, and open up Proverbs 31 because you’ll see that they are absolutely not in consonance with one another. Babe, what about you? I’m gonna leave by a quote from You’re leaving?

Well, no. I’m not gonna leave, but Not literally leave. I’m gonna end by just quoting a little nugget from the book called the right kind of confidence by Mary Kayson. It’s a Christian book, and it talks about a lot of this too and the right kind of strong as well. Proverbs 123 says, the root of the righteous will never be moved.

Yes. The drought is severe, but faith has not died. Though blistered by heat and withered, the leaves remain green. If you’re rooted in God’s word and your foundation is biblically sound, nothing will move you and your faith will not die. It won’t wither.

Why? Because regardless of what ideology might come to creep into your life and into your household, knowing that biblically speaking, you are sound, you will be able to to be just like the word of God says, to be vigilant. You will be able to detect night and day what lies trying to come into your life and destroy not only your heart, your husband’s heart, your children’s heart. How? By the poisons and the many techno, tentacles of this humongous octopus that feminism has brought upon our culture, around over many societies.

And this is why as women, as wives, as moms, we need to be vigilant and guard your hearts and remember that God’s word is eternal. Just because it was written years ago, that doesn’t mean that it was applied for that generation. You could still adhere yourself to God’s word and not be shaken by this by this very, destructive ideology that has crept into the church because the church, many churches, not all churches, have allowed feminism to come in. So I would urge you as a woman, as a man, as a bible believing and to be able to construct a very healthy, a very sturdy arc for your family because the time is the time is around. It’s coming.

I think the way that I’d like to end this, transmission is by stating the following. The inversions that we have seen, peddled by the very people that, by their own admission, hate god, should lead a believer to reject automatically from the very onset what these people are peddling. I understand. This history has been hidden from us, and thereby, I think Rachel Wilson’s, the title of her book is absolutely fantastic, Occult Feminism. It’s it’s, when she explains it, she states it’s not only pointing to the pagan underpinnings of feminism, but also the things that have been hidden about feminism, and I I think her explanation on that is excellent, and very creative.

But I would I would encourage Christians that we were to see things again biblically first and foremost, and that even though you may not have access, let’s say, to all of this information that we have shared and much other things, many other things that we’ve shared with the audience this evening. If you embrace wholeheartedly the biblical advice for your life, you will automatically detect a fraud and a subversive automatically. Because now I’m speaking here as a person whom attempts to preach the word of God for the aiding as it were of souls and to be more like Christ. I know, many many of us, we have as it were day jobs and it becomes difficult to do this sort of investigation, with the time that we have left and whatnot, but I would encourage people take the time that you have at your availability. Use it to investigate these things and always let the word of God guide you.

If you see that even people that call themselves Christians, they advocate for things that are coming from places that are poison to wells, that are poison to trees as it were like Jesus says. A tree that is is corrupt as it were it’s going to give poison fruit, then don’t accept it. No matter what the title is at the end of their name, no matter the popularity that they have, be very careful with these things because at the end of the day, we’re talking about people and organizations that want to overturn and inverse as it were God’s order for very existence. And this could very well mean as it were, including healthy living or, a life that is plagued as it were by, sickness and and plague and things of this nature. That’s that’s the extent of these things.

I wanna thank Genesis for joining us. I wanna thank my wife for for joining us this evening also. I think it’s been very lively conversation and and one that is very enlightening hopefully for our audience. If I could encourage the audience for just a couple of things, I would certainly be very appreciative. Our podcast, these live streams, they will get replayed through Telegram.

They will also get replayed through Spotify and also through Apple Podcast. If you have access to one of those apps, please give us a 5 star rating. That way, the algorithms pick up that it is growing in popularity and then begin to, spread it to other people as a recommended podcast so that others will listen to this. So we would encourage you to do that. Visit our website, atapodcast.org.

We’re placing all of the episodes there as well as, writings and other things, that I’m perusing as it were and then other thoughts that I’d like to place on there. So, again, through Telegram, ATA Truth is a username. You can find this on Apple Podcasts through, Absolute Truth Semicolon. Absolutely. The same goes with Spotify.

If you have access to any of those platforms, we would ask you to give us a 5 star rating so that, again, it will promote it to others, on these on those platforms. What I’d like to do is next week, I would like to talk about this issue, but not specifically feminism. I would like to talk about the man’s role within the family because that’s also another misconception that we tend to have. We we tend to get caught up as it were criticizing feminism. Well deserved, by the way.

I’m not, abandoning or or or, putting aside what we said this evening. We completely stand by it. But a lot of times what gets lost in these discussions is the men’s role within the family and how the Bible directs us as it were to be men within the family because there’s also a lot of misconception about men and their roles within family as caretakers, as protectors, as head of the household. So that’s something that I’m going to take up during the next edition of the livestream, and I hope that you’ll all join us for that. So, again, we thank each and every one of you for listening.

Again, we thank Genesys for joining us, and we thank, Sarai for joining us for this edition of the livestream. Until the next occasion that we gather, folks, hopefully, you have a blessed week, and may the Lord shine his face upon you.