Jon: Is Larry Moffitt Well Rounded?

SOME THOUGHTS ON LARRY MOFFITT SEEING HIMSELF AS BEING “WELL-ROUNDED”

Larry Moffitt writes, “Jon calls himself a traditionalist, but many of us see him as a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, and pity the women under his thumb. I see myself as a fairly well-rounded man, in touch with all aspects of my sexuality, including the masculine and, to a lesser degree, the feminine.”

Larry, many years ago you were there at HH when I came on. I did not have books then. I had a website with my traditional worldview. Since then I have put those thoughts into published books. I spent everyday for one month at Ron Beatteay’s forum battling it out with everyone there. Sydelle Enyeart came on recently here and blasted away at me like she did back then. She hates my guts. Every time I have ever had dialogue with the church for over thirty years on this I have created a firestorm of emotion. My wife and I had 5 articles in the UNews 21 years ago in 1994 on this and there was a firestorm. The articles were titled “The Divine Order for Men and Women.” You can read those articles at Tparents.org.

Cheryl Wetzstein, Marilyn Morris and others wrote against our stand for Ephesians 5 and Tyler Hendricks stopped us after 5 months because there was so much anger against us. We were told by some that we were not true members and we were hurting the movement. When Hyung Jin Nim taught Ephesians 5 at his workshop this year I sobbed. And I have been doing a lot of crying and weeping this year.

Larry Christenson in The Christian Family says about the old-fashioned values in the Bible, “The whole teaching is dismissed as a foolish vaunting of the ‘male ego,’ a Neanderthal vestige which our enlightened age has happily outgrown. The Bible, however, has no desire to exalt any ego, male or female. The Divine Order set forth for the family serves the elemental purpose of protection, spiritual protection. A husband’s authority and a wife’s submissiveness to that authority, is a shield of protection against Satan’s devices. Satan knows this, and that is why he uses every wile to undermine and break down God’s pattern of Divine Order for the family.”

Larry, you and your fellow feminist buddies like Dan Fefferman have to deal with Hyung Jin Nim instead of little ole me. I am a nobody. He is a spiritual giant. He will end up crushing the FFWPU feminist agenda ofAndrew Wilson's unprincipled "co-authoritative subject partner" paradigm for marriage. You are all dupes of Satan and therefore will fade away like Kmart and Hyung Jin Nim will be the Walmart that dominates. Your days are numbered. When I was at HH you said you did not like the idea of women in combat. Maybe I am wrong but that is what I remember you telling me. About women police officers placed in danger you said you were sitting on the fence on that. I challenged you then to see how that was illogical. Cops are in front line combat with bad guys and many female cops have been beaten and died. But the death of these women mean little to feminists. They see this as human advancement. Mankind is finally getting enlightened and rejecting the biblical and common sense values of men protecting the “weaker sex.” So are you passionate like Dan about Second Gen sisters at West Point and support Mother’s praise of women in combat? Do you agree with what I have written in my posts against putting women in harm’s way? If not, give me one sentence I have written that is false and explain why. Oh, and BTW, Ron Beatteay was not “moderately irritated” with me.

This debate over what is godly masculinity is the core difference between Sanctuary and Federation. And it is the difference between the liberal and conservative branches of all religions. Religious conservatives like the Southern Baptists and Mormons are in the minority now but their values were the norm for thousands of years. The four men at Mt. Rushmore are now seen as “knuckle-dragging troglodytes” by the majority in our feminist culture. The truth is that the wives of those four famous men in America history loved their wives. Those men would never have dreamed of putting the women in their lives in harm's way to protect other men. I pity the women in FFWPU. The so-called men there encourage Second Gen sisters to go to West Point where they are trained to lead men into battle. Real men don’t do that. Juvenile delinquent boys do that. You call Hyung Jin a “boy.” You are the boy. He is a real man and he teaches what it means to be a real man. I am a student of his and support his crusade to wake up the FF and the world from its feminist spell.

You are not in touch with your sexuality of being a man. You and all your fellow feminist buddies are girlie men. You are either a real man as Hyung Jin Nim teaches or you are a wimp and coward. In this spiritual war between you and Hyung Jin Nim, he is the one teaching and living the truth. Hyung Jin Nim boldly and correctly says there is no gray. It is black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, God and Satan. And your male bashing Han Mother Queen is no match against the Second King who relishes his true masculinity. Wake up, Larry and do as the Bible says, “Act like a man” (1 Corinthians 16). Do as Hyung Jin Nim teaches and be the priest, the head of your family. Reject the satanic worldview of Andrew Wilson and Dan Fefferman’s unisex, androgynous, egalitarian, weak and unprincipled crusade to denounce the idea of a vertical relationship between a man and wife and then put women in harm’s way. Your criticism of me and traditional values is projection. You are the Neanderthal. You and all the rest of the lost and sexually confused at FFWPU need to humble yourselves to the magnificent couple who are like True Parents on earth. They teach and live the exact opposite of Andrew and Dan. They are anti-feminists.

I remember you agreeing with me at HH those many years ago about the insanity and lunacy of deliberately putting women in combat. Have you changed your mind now that your leader has pushed for women to be in combat and all your friends believe in putting women in harm’s way to defend other men? If you are still sitting on the fence about women cops then be a strong man and get off the fence and take a stand for chivalry. Grow up Larry and humble yourself to Hyung Jin Nim. Here is a video of some of his politically incorrect teachings on the meaning of true masculinity that is 180 degrees opposite of your idea of what it means to be a true man.

Hyung Jin Moon - What a Real Man is

Hyung Jin Moon teaches that a "real man" studies scripture and teaches his wife. He uses Ephesians 5 and Emerson Eggerichs to teach that men need to…

YOUTUBE.COM

‎Christen Quinn‎: Fraud Messiah

Han Chongjae Nim is a FRAUD MESSIAH. I have followed and focused on Sun Myung Moon since January 1973. I would say that what Father talked to me/ us about most of the time was THE FALL and HOW to FIX IT. The messiah comes to expose that sin and cleanse it. He told us over and over to STAY PURE. Marriage is for ABSOLUTE SEX. Sex in the right order was his obsession. Families in the right order was an obsession. Han Chongjae Nim NEVER talks about sex. She kept Hyungjin Nim from teaching absolute sex. She says nothing about Homosexuality. She pushes out the pure, chosen, anointed son. She hates what God loves.

TRIPLE OBJECTIVE PURPOSE

DAN’S DEFINITION OF TRIPLE OBJECTIVE PURPOSE

Dan says, “I don't think the triple objective purpose is about authority. It's about who is acting as subject at a given time. When my granddaughter commands me to come to her, she the subject. If that's what you mean by authority then I agree. But the child never has ultimate authority over the parent.”

Hyung Jin teaches that in his parents:

"there is an absolute order. There’s a subject and an object. In our house Father makes the decision and we obey because we’re objects of his love. A grandchild can go up to him and yank on his beard but that’s only because it’s in love. It’s not talking about switching of authority. It’s talking about love. There is an order in the kingdom.
Father has a clear order. I can only go to him in love as his object. I can approach him. Sometimes I could be the subject of love. In that situation I’m a little baby and I’m just loving him so much that he’s overwhelmed by that and he just says. “Wow! This baby is amazing.” In that situation, yes, that baby can be the subject. That doesn’t mean the baby is his king! It doesn’t mean they can switch around. It’s in love. And Mother is equal to Father in love and in value, but in authority there is a clear order."

Is Dan saying the same thing when he says the granddaughter is subject relating in love and in value, but in authority she is not subject? Am I missing something, Dan?

(FB post by Jon Qinn)

HYUNG JIN MOON VS. DAN FEFFERMAN

The difference between Hyung Jin and Dan Fefferman is the difference between black and white, good and evil, God and Satan. I believe Mother, Andrew Wilson, and the rest of the FFWPU are in sync with Dan’s egalitarian philosophy that he pushes everyday at this forum. Dan and company are politically correct. They have the majority of America on their side. Maybe the majority of the world. They definitely have Europe on their side. Hyung Jin is politically incorrect and has a minority of America on his side. He is correct when he says men are called by God to be the Kings of their castles as taught in Ephesians 5 and this“makes people mad.” Traditional family values are deeply offensive to feminist Dan and company.

For thousands of years no one ever thought women would be police officers and soldiers. Mankind may be fallen and Satan is the ruler of this world but God has been able to get some men and women to understand his divine principles for mankind. They have written books and now we even have videos of God’s messengers. We have videos of the Messiah saying that Hyung Jin is his successor. We have videos of Hyung Jin that has transformed my life and the lives of many others. The books, articles, blogs, and videos that Andrew Wilson has are Satan’s lies. Dan and company are Satan’s ambassadors. The forces of darkness. They fight human nature. They fight natural law. They fight common sense. Those who live by their ideology eventually crash and burn. They are on a road paved to hell with good intentions. God’s design for men and women is not only taught by Hyung Jin and Yeonah but they walk their talk. Mankind can see what a true Unificationist couple looks like. I have been doing a lot of crying for the last 10 months since I saw the January 18, 2015 YouTube video of Hyung Jin’s sermon “Breaking the Silence.” I finally have a Unificationist role model for a true man. Mankind has a Constitution from two brothers who have restored Cain and Abel. It is just a matter time now. The FFWPU will eventually fade away like K-Mart and Sanctuary will be like Walmart. K-Mart used to be king but now Walmart is.

Yesterday Hyung Jin gave another outstanding sermon “Good vs. Evil Blood (11/22/15). Mankind has a black and white decision to make. Either he is right or Dan is right. There is no gray. I believe Hyung Jin is right in comparing the two camps in this cultural war to the difference between r-types and K-types. He says, “Feminism. r-types promote hostility towards men. They promote masculine traits amongst women and promote feminine traits amongst men.” Dan is incapable of seeing pictures of dead and wounded women police officers and soldiers and feeling shame. He feels inspired. I have posted another dead woman police officer today. Gail Cobb. She was 24-years-old when she was shot to death. She was an American police officer from Washington, D.C., who was the first female police officer in the United States shot and killed while patrolling in the line of duty. “While walking her beat, she was tipped off that a suspected bank robber had just fled into a nearby underground parking garage. Officer Cobb located the man and instructed him to place his hands on the wall. As she radioed for assistance, the suspect spun around and fired a single shot at point-blank range. The bullet went through her wrist and her police radio and then penetrated her heart. She died at the scene. She is survived by her child.”

This single mom died a violent death in 1974. To Dan and company she is a pioneer feminist who we should applaud. This was the time when Father had come to America and started speaking on his Day of Hope tours. Satan made sure that America was a feminist nation that would reject a strong man who had a wife that looked like the epitome of the biblical Ephesians 5 marriage. Father often chastised American women for being tom boys and criticized men for being weak. This was the time of the women’s liberation movement that is a misnomer. Satan takes good words and deceives everyone. It was the women’s enslavement movement. It was a movement of death. It is the reason Gail Cobb met a violent death while her baby was being taken care of by someone else so she could take a job away from a man for some insane principle of gender equality. Father tried to educate American sisters to stop being so subjective. He said the brothers want more feminine women like Japanese. Sadly his followers embraced feminism and Andrew even says Father is a feminist and the ideology of the women’s federation movement is the basic thought of the Completed Testament Age.

Hyung Jin says the men at FF are feminized. They try to get women into the Army Rangers. They live, he says, in a world of fantasy. Hyung Jin lives in a world of reality.

This is getting long but if you are in the mood to do some more reading here is an article by the brilliant Ann Coulter about the little grandmother who was severely brain damaged while being a police officer that I wrote about yesterday in my post titled “Dan Fefferman is wrong about women cops.” I guess we have to understand that Dan is unable to see her logic and truth because he is an r-type person. What Ann says will make sense to K-type people.

FREEZE! I JUST HAD MY NAILS DONE!
How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room — who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-à-vis her negative body image.
The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security (“Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses”). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.
Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters.
I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.
Of course, it’s suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops.
Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with “other” abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.
There are lots of passing references to “studies” of uncertain provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from the Feminist Majority Foundation.
The anonymous “studies” about female officers invariably demonstrate that women make excellent cops — even better cops than men! One such study cited an episode of “She’s the Sheriff,” starring Suzanne Somers.
A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to a “study” — cited by an ACLU attorney — allegedly proving that “female officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with suspects.” No, you can’t see the study or have the name of the organization that performed it, and why would you ask?
The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies, collected in volumes called “Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics.”
The inestimable economist John Lott Jr. has looked at the actual data. (And I’ll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., “Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime,” Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)
It turns out that, far from “de-escalating force” through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts.
Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott’s analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.
Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings.
In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers — as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: “Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent.”
In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people — such as that our society encourages girls to play with dolls — there is also the fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.
In a study of public safety officers — not even the general population — female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers — although their outfits were 43 percent more coordinated. (Here’s the cite! Frank J. Landy, “Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs,” Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)
Another study I’ve devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of pickles.
There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It’s one thing to waste everyone’s time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It’s quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren’t as strong as men.
Acknowledging reality wouldn’t be all bad for women. For one thing, they won’t have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. (3-16-¬05)

(FB post by Jon Quinn)

IS THE BIBLE WRITTEN BY MEN WHO THINK WOMEN ARE NOT VERY IMPORTANT?

Andrew Wilson is Hak Ja Han’s spokesperson. He says: “Scriptures like the Bible were written by men so the women are disadvantaged. What was Noah’s wife’s name? How about Lot’s wife? So why don’t we know these important women’s names? Because the Bible was written by men and women weren’t very important.” "Women have been suffering for the last 6000 years because men have been denigrating women throughout history ever since the Fall."

Father teaches that Noah’s wife was a monumental failure for not supporting her husband. We don’t need to know her name. Wilson is a Unificationist feminist who hates the Bible because he sees it as written by sexist misogynist men who want to "denigrate" women. The term “Unificationist feminist” is an oxymoron but that is how he sees himself and therefore 7 billion people will think he represents the FFWPU because he is their official, public voice. Wilson agrees with the pioneer feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton who said: “The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation.”

Here is an example of a Christian feminist. (another oxymoron). What she writes is what Andrew believes. If you are a member of FFWPU and do not like what you going to read here then you should jump ship.

Feminist theologian — Rosemary Radford Ruether
One of the most outspoken and influential feminist theologians in the late 20th century was Rosemary Radford Ruether. She writes that men are absolutely evil because of patriarchy and women are absolute victims of all men. Women are so wonderful that they should be in charge instead of men who have shown themselves to be monsters. In her book, Women-Church, she bashes men by saying they all have “flashing eyes and smoking nostrils.” She repeats this phrase over and over. There is no gray area. Men are simply the scum of the earth who have raped and pillaged until there is little left to women. Ruether is coming to the rescue of all women who are all victims of the absolute viciousness of men. She writes book after book pounding away at patriarchy.

She writes that women are “the excluded half of the human race, the excluded gender from the tradition of the Church.” Churches are “temples of patriarchy” who worship the “idol of masculinity, the idol of father-rule.” Men have made God a “King, Warrior, God of Power and Might” who crushes the “lowly” and “teaches the little ones of the earth to cower in fear and self-hatred.”

If God were seen as feminine, “as Mother, as Helper, as Friend, as Liberator” then men would stop being “rulers who command, warriors who kill, judges who punish.” She says “women, children and the poor” are “the timid and gentle creatures of the earth” who are “degraded, disgraced” and “ruled over.” They are “crushed and reduced to silence so that men can be as God.” Patriarchy is a blasphemy: “the blasphemies and lies of this great idol of patriarchy with its flashing eyes and smoking nostrils.” Men are “inhuman” who have a “mechanical voice.” Men are obsessed with the idea that only leaders can have “balls, male genitalia.” Men build churches to worship the “phallic power” of God and Christ: “Only the male can rise in the phallic pulpit to bring down the seminal word upon the prone body of the people, the women and children waiting passively below to receive it ... Women are impotent, castrated, lacking in seminal power. They cannot act; they can only receive and should be grateful for what they receive.”

She thinks that men have never believed women have ever groveled enough and so need to be constantly punished: “If women are not grateful, they shall be punished. Indeed, they have never been grateful, but have always been rebellious. In the very beginning woman was the cause of all our troubles. It was she who brought sin and death into the world; she who caused us to lose paradise and to be forced to earn our living by the sweat of our brow. For this reason woman is to be punished through all of history. She is to be silent and to serve us in all meekness, shamed, and ridiculed into silence. If she will not be shamed and silenced, she will be taught by force.”

She then lists a few of the many tortures women have suffered from men: “A million women, twisted on the racks of Christian torture chambers, were bound in sacks and tossed into rivers, hung on gibbets or thrown into fires to teach them this lesson of shame and silence. In every minute of the day and night, women scream and stifle sobs of pain as they are beaten, stabbed, and raped in back alleys and in their own homes, to teach them this lesson, this lesson of shame and silence.”

She says men think they own their woman’s body and think that she “should be ever sexually available.” Men see women as slaves whose “wombs and ovaries belong to the husbands who impregnate them” and “to priests and doctors who make the rules of birth and death.”

Ruether says that women are rising up in their defense and denouncing men’s inhumanity. God, she writes, is really a “Goddess” who did not create the “idol” of patriarchy. Jesus is “our brother” who “did not come to this earth to manufacture this idol.” He came to “put down the mighty from their thrones” and replace them with women who are last that shall be first. Jesus came to “uplift the lowly.” Men have incorrectly seen Christ as approving of “rape, genocide, and war.”

Women “cry out: Horror, blasphemy, deceit, foul deed!” to men who have twisted Jesus into a warrior who delights in hurting women and children. Men have created a “nightmare salvation.” Women are now making an exodus from this sick world men have created: “we flee from the smoking altars where women’s bodies are sacrificed.” Women are beginning to “cover our ears to blot out the inhuman voice” coming from the man in the pulpit.

Women now “flee the thundering armies of Pharaoh. We are not waiting for a call to return to the land of slavery to serve as altar girls in the temple of patriarchy. No! We call our brothers also to flee from the temples of patriarchy. ... We call our brothers to join us in exodus from the land of patriarchy, to join in our common quest for that promised land, where there will be no more war, no more burning children, no more violated women, no more discarded elderly, no more rape of the earth.”

Patriarchy must be eradicated: “Let us break up that great idol and grind it into powder; dismantle the great Leviathan of violence and misery who threatens to destroy the earth.” When we finally get rid of men leading then we can “transform” the earth into a paradise of “peace and plenty” where “all the children of earth can sit down together at the banquet of life.”

I don’t think Rosemary Reuther and Andrew Wilson see Bible, men and human history (especially Christian history) correctly.

(FB post by Jon Quinn)

WHY THERE IS NOT AN AGE OF WOMEN IN THE FFWPU

WHY THERE ARE SO FEW WOMEN LEADERS

On Sunday, September 27, 2015, Andrew Wilson preached to the New Jersey FFWPU. He said, “Scriptures like the Bible were written by men so the women are disadvantaged. Religions that privilege men as closer to God. How many women priests are there in the Catholic church? Behind the times. How many women leaders are there in the Unification Church? There are a few. Not enough. Maybe 80 or 90 percent Unification leaders are men. The heart of my concern and why I am enthusiastic the issue of gender equality. That women have been suffering for the last 6000 years because men have been denigrating women throughout history ever since the Fall.”

For 2000 years the Catholic Church has been patriarchal. Only men can be the Pope and only men can be priests. In conservative Christian protestant denominations like the Southern Baptists, the largest denomination, and in the Mormon church only men can hold positions of authority. Wilson says they are “behind the times.” It looks to me that Hyung Jin does not believe in taking that stand at his Sanctuary church. So I guess Andrew would agree he is not “behind the times.” Hyung Jin is clearly for men being the heads of their homes and therefore for patriarchy in the home. Andrew and everyone I have ever talked to at FF find that offensive and therefore view Hyung Jin and Yeonah as being "behind the times."

Andrew is critical of his own church for having so few women leaders. One prominent elder brother I know in the FF is critical of Father for not putting more women in leader positions. Andrew says that it could be as high as 90 percent male leaders in the FF. In several pictures at the FF website over the last three years Mother has been in charge I have seen 100% men leaders at some leader’s meeting with her. So maybe it is closer to 99% percent male leaders at FF. It took Mother 3 years to appoint a woman leader for a top position and then she chose her daughter, Sun Jin, to be the International president.

Why has human history been so patriarchal? Why is it so patriarchal at FF when their core value is feminism? The Women’s Federation for World Peace makes a strong statement for matriarchy at its website saying there will be world peace when women lead in every “sector” of society. Alexa Ward gave an interview shown on YouTube saying that there would be world peace if 50% of nation’s presidents were women. The FF often interprets Father mentioning an “age of women” to be the end of patriarchy that has caused all the misery in the world from domestic violence to bloody wars. Hyung Jin and Yeonah disagree with the FF and often put down the feminist power agenda.

Why isn’t there an “age of women leaders” at Familyfed when Father before he passed and Mother for the last three years did not and have not appointed women leaders en masse? Mother could make Familyfed a matriarchy with 100% women leaders at any moment. Why hasn’t she? Why doesn’t she do it today? It doesn’t seem she is ever going to do it. Also, why is it that men like Andrew who speak so glowingly for women in leadership as a core value voluntarily step down and why do all the feminist men in the FF who are offered a leadership position decline and push for a woman to take the position? Why didn’t Mike Balcomb, the president of the U.S. Familyfed not take the position and beg Mother to appoint a woman? Why doesn’t everyone at FF demand Mike step down and put a woman in charge such as he vice-president Alexa Ward? The tiny few members of FF have zero power or influence to change what they see as a sexist world where men dominate in all leadership positions in every “sector” of life. But the FF has total power of its own organization. Why is there such a disconnect between their strong feminist rhetoric and lack of action to live their values by demanding and getting Andrew fired and replaced by a woman at the seminary?

A distinguished sociologist explains why. Steven Goldberg wrote a powerful book in 1973 titled "The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Why the Biological Difference Between Men and Women Always Produces Male Domination." Twenty years later he updated the book and his publisher insisted he change his title to "Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance." Goldberg says he likes the original title better but went along with the publisher. I believe what he writes. It makes sense to me. It also makes sense to many other people. Some very respected thinkers have praised his book. Margaret Mead said, “persuasive and accurate. It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so glibly made for societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed….men everywhere have been in charge of running the show….men have always been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home.” Murray Rothbard says of his book, “The most significant work on sex differences in decades.” Daniel Seligman, Ernest van den Haag and George Gilder each call it “A Classic.” A well-known professor is Morton Kaplan, a personal friend to Sun Myung Moon, says, “coolly, tightly, cogently, even brilliantly reasoned.”

Goldberg is not religious. He writes as a social scientist saying it is biologically innate for men to lead women in the home and to lead other men in society. He says Feminists are wrong when they “view that differences between men and women” are “environmental” and “cultural”. He says that we have to take into account the hormones that drive men to be more aggressive to achieve dominance than women. Feminism “requires denial of truth.”

Conservative religious people know that God created men to be in the subject position. Hyung Jin and Yeonah use the vivid, graphic example of Head coach and Assistant coach to help everyone understand the God’s design for the family. They also teach God is a patriarch, the subject, who is the head of the universe and all mankind are His objects. Many people would call this conjecture: “an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information; speculation, guesswork.” I think it will be difficult for Andrew and Tyler Hendricks, the two main public supporters of Mother’s changes, to deny scientific facts. I would like to know what their arguments would be against Goldberg’s absolute belief that to fight patriarchy is to fight human nature, to fight reality itself. The campaign by FF to get women to get majority leadership in every “sector” of life is quixotic. He would tell FF, “you will lose.”

Goldberg posits there will always be patriarchy. “Goldberg proposes that if patriarchy is indeed biologically based, it will prove to be inevitable; unless a society is willing to intervene biologically on the male physiology.” (Wikipedia.com).

Goldberg writes:
What is crucial here is that men and women differ in their hormonal systems and that every society demonstrates patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment. The thesis put forth here is that the hormonal renders the social inevitable.

We are what we are, and there is not the slightest shred of evidence that our most basic elements, the biologically based emotions that flow from our male and female physiologies and that guide our behavior, have changed significantly since man first walked the earth.

Anatomy sets limits on destiny.

The biological element of male aggression will manifest itself in any economic system. It is useless for the Marxist to attempt to disprove the inevitability of male attainment of authority and status positions by demonstrating that males attain such positions in a capitalist society. They do so in societies with primitive, feudal and socialist economies also.

At the bottom of it all man’s job is to protect woman and woman’s is to protect her infant; in nature all else is luxury.

In every society it is women who are responsible for the care and rearing of the young, the single most important function served in any society or in nature itself.

The physiological factors that underlie women’s life-sustaining abilities — the qualities most vital to the survival of our species — preclude them from ever manifesting the psychological predisposition, the obsessive need of power, or the abilities necessary for the attainment of the significant amounts of political power that men have.

One cannot transcend one’s fate until one has accepted it. Women who deny their natures, who accept men's secondhand definitions and covet a state of second-rate manhood, are forever condemned. Sex is the single most decisive determinant of personal identity; it is the first thing we notice about another person and the last thing we forget. It is terribly self-destructive to refuse to accept one’s own nature and the joys and powers it invests.

The experience of men is that there are few women who can outfight them and few who can out-argue them, but that when a women uses feminine means she can command a loyalty that no amount of dominance behavior ever could. … Women follow their own psychophysiological imperatives and don’t choose to compete for the goals that men devote their lives to attaining. Women have more important things to do. Men are aware of this and that is why in this and every other society they look to women for gentleness, kindness, and love, for refuge from a world of pain and force, for safety from their own excesses. In every society a basic male motivation is the feeling that the women and children must be protected. But a woman cannot have it both ways: if she wishes to sacrifice all this, all that she will get in return is the right to meet men on male terms. She will lose."

Goldberg says that “The vast majority of women” can’t “imagine why any woman would want to deny the biological basis of the enormous powers inherent in women’s role as directors of society’s emotional resources” and compete with men for power and position. At his websitewww.goldberg-patriarchy.com Goldberg has a long statement about why societies have always been patriarchal. Here a few quotes:

Should a non-patriarchal, hierarchical society be found to have existed, presently exist, or come to exist, I will be the first to jettison the theory I present.

“Why in every society is it males who dominate the hierarchies? Why has there never been a matriarchy or “equiarchy”?” … Much of my career has been devoted to discovering, demonstrating, and explaining the universality of—the presence in every society that has ever existed—certain sexually-differentiated institutions.

A. (Patriarchy) The upper positions of the hierarchies of every one of the thousands of societies on which we have any significant evidence are overwhelmingly filled by men (patriarchy). A Queen Victoria or a Golda Meir is always an exception in her society and is always surrounded by a government of men. (There were more female heads-of-state, queens when no royal male was available, in the first two-thirds of the sixteenth century than the first two-thirds of the twentieth. There has never been a “matriarchy” or “Amazonian society.”(There have been a very few, tiny societies with relatively little hierarchy, but in all such societies an informal male dominance played a role similar to that of patriarchy.)

B. (Male Status Attainment) The highest-status (non-maternal) roles are occupied primarily by males. The high-status roles are high-status not primarily because they are male (ditch-digging is male), but because they have high status. This high status elicits from males, more strongly than from females, the behavior required to attain the status.

There is not a scintilla of evidence that modernization renders likely the demise of the universals. To be sure, no modern society could preclude women’s playing any suprafamilial role as some non-modern societies did. But it is also true that no modern society is likely to give women the high status some other (matrilineal-matrilocal, but patriarchal) non-modern societies gave the woman’s maternal roles. In any case, even the Scandinavian societies often claimed to be “non-patriarchal”—called this despite the fact that they feel the need of cabinet departments to deal with the “inequality of women”—are, in fact, overwhelmingly patriarchal. An interesting fact about the Scandinavian countries is that, some political scientists argue, the political plays a less-important role than does the corporate, relative to other countries. While female membership of parliament is the highest in the world (though still far from equal), male control of the corporate world is absolute; there is no corporate “glass ceiling” issue because hardly any women rise high enough to see the “glass ceiling”.

(FB post by Jon Quinn)

GENDER EQUALITY - THE INHUMAN CRUSADE OF FFWPU (by Jon Quinn)

Andrew Wilson says, “Cutting edge of the providence is the liberation and elevation of women. All throughout the world women are struggling for their rights. … The heart of my concern and why I am enthusiastic the issue of gender equality. That women have been suffering for the last 6000 years because men have been denigrating women throughout history ever since the Fall.”

“Gender equality, also known as sex equality, gender egalitarianism, sexual equality or equality of the genders, is the view that men and women should receive equal treatment, and should not be discriminated against based on gender.”

Not long ago I was visiting my son who lives in a regular, average neighborhood. I went for a walk. It was in the middle of the day around lunch time and it was on a Wednesday. It was a quiet neighborhood. I didn’t see any kids playing because they were in school. The only activity on the street was 5 men with hardhats sweating in the heat as they worked on a sewer line. They had heavy equipment digging huge holes and some of the men were in the holes digging with shovels and pickaxes. I walked two blocks to a park that had big trees shading a playground. There were 5 women in their early twenties. Each had a stroller and a toddler. They were talking to each other. These were the only people I saw on my walk.

To Andrew Wilson and the FFWPU this is an abomination - "feeling of disgust, hatred, loathing." Multiply this by every neighborhood in America and you have massive gender inequality. The FF will not rest on its quixotic (exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical) crusade to get half of the road crew to be women and half of those stay-at-moms to be stay-at-home dads. Andrew says he follows his leader, Hak Ja Han. (I can’t say Hak Ja Han Moon because she has taken her married name off of her wedding ring). Who does Hak Ja Han praise as liberated women? Women in combat. Her granddaughter, Arianna Moon, the daughter of her feminist mother, In Jin Moon, praises a Second Gen sister at West Point at the Familyfed website for all the world to read. For hundreds of years this premier college, some say the most prestigious college in the world, discriminated against women. When Father came to America to live in the 1970s feminism had become the ruling ideology and Congress allowed women to enter West Point. West Point is still far too patriarchal and backward because women are still a minority but Andrew Wilson can have a dream, right? Someday, in Andrew’s insane world of gender equality there will be 50% women (or more) at West Point and there will be 50% women coming home in body bags from leading men on the brutal bloody battlefield. The last time I looked battlefields did not have bathrooms. I’ll let you fill in the imagery here.

But America is progressing in its progressive agenda and at least some women are coming home without legs, arms, and without life itself. Here are pictures of Andrew’s gender equality. For 6000 thousand years thousands men denigrated women by not allowing them to fight their wars but more and more men have stopped discriminating against women and are giving up their disgusting chivalry. Here are pictures of Emily Perez who died a violent death leading men in battle and her grave site. She was 23 years old and the first female graduate of West Point to die in Afghanistan.

(FB post by Jon Quinn)

ANDREW WILSON’S GIBBERISH ON SUBJECT AND OBJECT (by Jon Quinn)

REBUTTAL TO WILSON’S INANE SERMON – PART 20

In his speech to the New Jersey FFWPU Andrew Wilson give these fatuous thoughts:

"We talk about subject and object all the time. Women are object. Men are subject. Is that true? Not exactly. In a marriage, yes. In a marriage the husband is the subject. The wife is the object but as Rev. Ahn used to talk about Margaret Thatcher was the subject over Great Britain and when it came to the government her husband was object. So when it came to ruling it was her position was subject. When she was back home with her husband she was object. When she was out in public she was subject. So it depends on the relationship.”

This is nonsensical. The meaning of Subject and Object relationships is extremely important in the Divine Principle and in Father’s teachings. He often used the terms in his speeches. Wilson’s words on this topic are pure gibberish. What he writes is unintelligible and meaningless. He asks if men are subject and women are object and then answers by saying, “not exactly.” What on earth does that mean? Then he says men are subject and women are object in marriage. So, which is it? Men are subject and women are object “not exactly” or “yes”? Then he says a married woman is object to her husband only in the home like Margaret Thatcher was. Wilson teaches that Thatcher was subject by day and object by night. While she was away from home she was her husband’s subject because as Prime Minister of England she was every man’s subject. Did Margaret Thatcher stop being the Prime Minister of England when she walked into her home? Did the people of England know that their Prime Minister became object to her husband—that she became his follower when she was in their home? If she got a call at home from someone in the government that England was being attacked and they needed her immediate command for the military was she to say that in her home she was no longer in the subject position and her husband would have to make the decision?

Or was she supposed to assign someone like the Deputy Prime Minister to take over being the subject of Thatcher’s husband by taking her position as Prime Minister when she was at home and she didn’t need to be called? And if she was called, then she would have to stand outside of her home while she was on the phone making executive decisions because she couldn’t make them when she was in her home and under the authority of her husband. All of this is nonsense. Margaret Thatcher was the subject of her husband every second of every day just like she was subject to everyone in England 24/7. She was the final decision maker to mobilize the armed forces and it didn’t matter if she was in her home or not.

Then Andrew says some cryptic haphazard line that subject/object “depends on the relationships.” That’s all. What does he mean? No one has the slightest idea what he is talking about. Everything he says begs questions. He doesn’t throw any light on anything. When you finish listening to his blather you are worse off than you were before you were subjected to his vacuity.

He goes on to talk about the relationship of mother and son. He says the mother is in the subject position and the son is in the object position. To him this means Hyung Jin is supposed to follow his mother no matter what she does. This is nonsense because we are supposed to follow God before we follow anyone else. Andrew did not follow his mother and leave the Unification Movement when she had him kidnapped and deprogrammed. It is ludicrous to think Hyung Jin should follow his mother when she desecrates Father’s words and traditions after she has usurped his position as Second King.

Wilson goes on to say, “To children the father and mother are co-authoritative subject partners.” He does not explain what in the world this means. This is Andrew’s new theology for the world that is all brand new from the teeming mind of a feminist on a power trip. All by himself he comes up with some cockamamie idea that fathers and mothers are co-leaders to their children. How is that supposed to work? How do children relate to parents that have equal authority? They are going to side with the parent that gives cake and ice cream for breakfast. In every sector, every area of life there is leader/follower relationships. In business, in government, in churches, in sports, in clubs, in everything there is hierarchy so they can function. To exempt the family from this is to make the family dysfunctional. Yeonah uses the terms “Head Coach” and “Assistant Coach” for the husband and wife. There is no such thing as co-authoritative coaches.

My wife and I recently went to a see a St. Louis Cardinals baseball game. Each team had a head coach, several assistant coaches and the players. All of these men are multimillionaires. They are all professional. They are all equal in value but they do not have equal roles. They have different roles. When an assistant coach gives the head coach some advice or he gives a command to a player no one feels abused or insulted. There is structure. There is order. And it is beautiful to watch. No one in a so-called inferior position gives an order to someone above them in rank. And everyone obeys those commands from someone above them in authority, and in the words of Ephesians 5, they obey “in everything”. The only time someone would not obey is if they are asked or commanded to do something immoral, illegal, or in some way deserving of not being followed. That did not happen in the game we saw. The same goes for the family.

Wilson then says, “We shouldn’t get sidetracked by this subject/object issue.” Thanks Andrew. Now we all know exactly what subject-object relationships mean. The FFFWPU should be ashamed to have Wilson as their spokesperson. When Wilson explains something the only reaction a normal person thinks to themselves is— WTF? When coaches fail to create a winning team they are fired. Wilson should have been fired long before Hyung Jin fired him. He has been writing and blabbering for years.

I’ll continue next time to show how brainless Andrew is on this topic of subject/object.

(FB post by Jon Quinn)

ANDREW WILSON IS DISUNITED WITH MOTHER (by Jon Quinn)

REBUTTAL TO WILSON’S APPALLING SERMON - PART 19

Andrew Wilson gave a pathetic sermon to the New Jersey Familyfed in which he tries to discount Sanctuary Church. It was an incoherent mess. Incoherent is defined as “not able to talk or express yourself in a clear way that can be easily understood. Not logical or well-organized, not easy to understand.” His speech will go down in history as one of the most uneducated, uninformed rants in the history of the Unification Movement. Wilson accomplishes the exact opposite of what he wants to do. He shows himself as being an empty-headed, scatterbrained so-called Unificationist who totally fails as an apologist for Hak Ja Han. I can’t say Hak Ja Han Moon because she left her married name off her illegitimate Blessing rings.

Listen to this bumbling, inept statement of Andrew:

Mother says we should address God as Heavenly Parent. Up until then we were mostly addressing God as Heavenly Father. Mother openly declared we have to call God “Heavenly Parent.” If you don’t like the word Heavenly Parent you can say “Father Mother God.” Parent is a little impersonal in English. A kid doesn’t go running up to his parents and say “Parents! Parents! I love you! He says, “Mommy! Daddy! I love you.” You may not like the word “parents” for prayer. You don’t need to use the word “parent”. You could use father and mother. The word Parent includes Father and Mother.”

Andrew is paid big bucks to travel around the world to meet with members of Familyfed as the premier spokesperson for Mother. And what does he do? He puts down Mother. Mother changed the name of God to fit her feminist agenda. To me, this is the greatest mistake by any female Central Figure in providential history. To make this change is huge. She gives absolutely no thoughtful reasoning for doing so. Apparently that job is up to Andrew. And what does he say? If you don’t like her name for God he has invented a name for God you can use. And he implies that everyone can be arrogant like Mother and make up their own names for God.

He goes on to talk about how hard it is to find the right pronouns now that we can’t use “he” and “him” anymore but doesn’t give a dogmatic, strong direction of what pronoun or pronouns to use. He just leaves everyone hanging and then goes on to give another drive-by potshot: “a critical remark made in a random or sporadic manner.”

I feel sorry for anyone who sits through this moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

(FB post by John Quinn)

WILSON’S EGALITARIANISM IS SATANIC

(Jon Quinn) REBUTTAL TO ANDREW WILSON'S SICKENING SERMON – PART 18

Andrew Wilson criticizes the brothers in FFWPU and all men for the last 6000 years for not being very good listeners to their wives. He abhors the traditional biblical model of marriage where the man is the head of the household and the wife respects his leadership by submitting to his final decisions. He says no family at FFWPU lives like that and those at Sanctuary who live by the outdated, behind the times Bible are to be laughed at. He makes fun of Ephesians 5 and gets the brothers and sisters of the New Jersey church to laugh at the Neanderthals in Pennsylvania.

In my research and study of conservative Christians who organize their marriages by Ephesians 5, Wayne Grudem has had a huge influence on my understanding of what a godly husband is supposed to be like. He has books (such as Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism) and YouTube videos of lectures on men/women relationships. He is one of the most noted theologians in America.

Liberal Christian churches and denominations are rejecting traditional masculinity just as FFWPU is doing. Like the FF many Christians are attacking the masculine Heavenly Father. This is a key strategy of Satan to weaken the church. Grudem writes in his book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? that the “egalitarian agenda will not stop simply with the rejection of male headship in marriage….There is something much deeper at stake. At the foundation of egalitarianism is a dislike and a rejection of anything uniquely masculine. It is a dislike of manhood itself.” “Following the denial of male headship in marriage, and the denial of ‘manhood’ and anything uniquely masculine other than the physical differences among human beings, it is to be expected that egalitarians would blur and then deny God’s identity as our Father. This is exactly what has recently happened in egalitarian writings.”

And then he proceeds to quote from books pushing to call God “Heavenly Mother”: “What is the doctrinal direction to which egalitarianism leads? To an abolition of anything distinctly masculine. An androgynous Adam. A God who is both Father and Mother, and then a God who is Mother…feminists are revising our understanding of God our Father as revealed in the Bible. They are thus changing the doctrine of God as revealed in Scripture to make people think of God as ‘Our Mother in Heaven’.” They are undermining the authority of the Bible in its very description of God himself. Changing our idea of God is nearly the final step on the path toward liberalism.” And that step is approval of homosexuality.

Wilson knows nothing about the millions of conservative Christians like Wayne Grudem who teach and live by Ephesians 5 which is the cornerstone belief for marriage at Sanctuary. Wilson not only blasts Sanctuary but all brothers at FFWPU because they are like all men who since the beginning of time have disparaged and denigrated women. Men, basically, don’t give a damn what any woman thinks. They are slave masters.

Does Yeonah looked like she is oppressed and never listened to? She says repeatedly that Hyung Jin and her talk things over and they are one in thought. Wayne Grudem’s wife, Margaret, says she is listened to and respected. Watch the 5 minute below of a video of them talking about their marriage.

In his book “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” he writes, “Margaret and I have been married now for 43 years, and some readers might be interested in how the Bible’s teachings work in our own marriage. I think we would both say that we have never been happier together than we are now, for God has given much blessing to our marriage.”

The sisters at the New Jersey Familyfed cheered when Andrew asked them if their husband’s didn’t care for their thoughts and feelings. I suggest to those sisters and to their husbands who Andrew thinks so little of that you might want to consider jumping ship and being in a church where women are respected even though they are in the politically incorrect position of “assistant coach” to their husband who is the “head coach” that our feminist culture thinks is demeaning.

I know you are busy but I hope you take 5 minutes to see Ephesians 5 in action in the following video. Maybe someday Andrew will give book titles and videos of egalitarian marriages.