A Common Letter
to: President James Ryan, University of Virginia
to: Bishop Barry Knestout, Diocese of Richmond
to: Governor Glenn Youngkin, State of Virginia
As leaders of collaborating institutions ("University of Virginia" - "University Parish" -"State University") which have great moral impact, but sometimes flawed historical leaders, I ask you to consider the importance of repairing errors of past leaders and bringing truth to your members. I am aware of ongoing grief amongst students from the episode of August 2017 onwards, and would like to see it addressed in a way that cracks open the truth of the situation, both of race and of eugenics.
.
Racism, slavery, homiletic and Constitutional silence
The problem of racism in America has been acknowledged by this diocese to have been seeded by the (Medici-banked) Pope Nicholas V, with his declaration in "Dum Diversas" (1452) that greenlit "perpetual servitude" for pagan Africans. The proceeding transatlantic slave triangle did not acquire eugenic and therefore true commercial potential until "slave codes" were established by British colonial mercantilists in 1662, which declared that the baby of a black slave woman would also be a slave. The trajectory for the English colony into American antebellum was then to grow slaves eugenically, culminating in a count of 4 million by the Civil War. This eugenic breeding was overlooked by a false Constitutional "apparent promise" that slavery might be obliterated by eliminating slave trade by 1808. (We know that to be a "false" promise because Madison's 1787 notes on the Convention, embargoed for 50 years, reveal knowledge that such a ban would be outpaced by slavebreeding.) The three oblique references to slavery in the Constitution had a South-strengthening political effect, emblematized especially by influence of "3/5 vote" on the fact that four of the first five presidents were Virginia slaveholders). Perhaps church leaders could have been forgiven silence as they anticipated slavery to be going into rearview, but by the time of the 1850s when Dred Scott made his claim, there was no excuse for homiletic silence against slavery in any parish, North or South.
The Democrat Racism/Eugenics after the War
A type of chiasmus caused the eugenics of slavebreeding to be carried over by the Democrats (who were the slaveholders, Confederates and segregationists), into the 20th century institutions of anti-miscegenation, forced sterilization, contraception, abortion, and other aspects of "depopulation" and violation of marriage. After eugenics became a "Nazi" dirty word (which unfortunately derived in part from (Democrat) Virginia and UVA eugenicists!) it went underground for awhile, though its proponents especially the Rockefeller foundation, were busy crafting new projects of disruption to marriage and the family. (Note that Rockefeller gifted Alderman, on his inauguration as UVA President, with 100,000 dollars in 1905 in order to name the Education School for Confederate Curry. Note further that (Democrat) President Alderman (for whom UVA's library was named) was the dedicator of the Robert E Lee Statue in the iconic square in Charlottesville in the 1920s, *and* that Rockefeller was the source of school segregation by its funding of blacks-separate schools in that same turn of the century.
While a convenient fairy tale that Southerners came by their racism naturally through familial hand-me-downs post Civil War, the more logical deduction was that they (and their parents!) were institutionally conditioned to it by externally funded indoctrinating schools and public squares. And if this educational conditioning truly happened, should there not be a reparative "educational malpractice" reckoning against the Democrats for funding the segregated schools and indoctrinating squares?
Rockefeller Infiltration
The GOP (as opposed to its leaders, or as opposed to the Democrat party) has stood as an icon of life and liberty since its inception, as also to the natural family. Though certain eugenics proponents may have infiltrated *after desegregation* into the GOP in order to smear it, the GOP platform (at present) nevertheless stands ready to abolish abortion and preserve true marriage as an institution. At the same time, communist or homosexual priests were alleged to have infiltrated to the Catholic Church (Congressional testimony of Bella Dodd, "Goodbye, Good Men" by Michael Rose) where they, their "progeny", and their advocates at a minumum undercut perennial Catholic teaching by failing to emphasize the essential nuptial quality of marriage in homilies, and the reasons for keeping sexuality within that ambit. In each case, the perennial written teachings of the Church, and the perennial platform of the GOP, should be held as gold standard of identity, rather than certain persons who purport to lead today.
Sexual Revolution and its impact on parental rights
Both Catholic teachings and the GOP stand on slavery (and abortion!), which harks back to the Declaration of Independence, have great utility for the UVA community, if recognized for what they truly are. The Rockefeller fueled sexual revolution made residential colleges complicit in "coverup" to parents from knowledge of their children's use of contraception and abortion, which also allowed rape to be covered up even to the police. By now it should be understood, however, that colleges' putting sexuality truthfully to students as something they *can* save for marriage, is the more honest and healthy route, even in a secular sense, and instances of "rape" could now be handled by the DNA test that could ID/garnish the father for life, unleashing a potentially huge deterrent on premarital sexual activity. Alongside this, however, should be the extinction of alternative platforms for *sterile* sexuality such as homosex/LGBT, which stick a "thumb in the eye" of married couple/aspirants who are trying to be chaste. These libidinal behaviors thrive on UVA campus with the full medico-fascial normalizing propaganda of UVA/Student Health, and in the diocese with the homiletic silence of priests, despite the rich documents of "Humanae Vitae", "Familiaris Consortio", and "Dignitas Personae" and the abysmal counterexample of Obergefell couples whose procured children unfortunately mimic the lot of the slave, or "creatures of the state" that the SCOTUS insisted children could NOT be. These LGBT and feminist identifiers robbed blacks of their unique claim to civil rights protection, wearing "blackface" to gain the privileges of 1964 Civil Rights Act nondiscrimination even though their viewpoint-defined categories were undeserving. Although women shared a "born that way" condition with blacks, one would not have found any unanimity on women's perception of employment discrimination by sex as injustice, considering the interest of many women lay in healthy incomes for their husbands as providers. (In fact, the impact of women flooding the job market meant lower pay prospects for the husbands, and in particular the black would-be husbands who might have helped to shield their families from welfare). And by the time we get to homosexuality/LGBT, the "born that way" no longer applies, making clear the blackface intentions of these adherents. The opportunity for a dystopic "Brave New World" is anticipated by those atomizing mercantilists who fund both academic gown and church gown with respect to these ideologies. Societal welfare, the welfare of "ourselves and our posterity" rests on the preaching of the above-mentioned natural law-wielding documents, also highlighted in the appendix. Surely obedience to the "saints" who penned them and exhorted their preaching should weigh heavily on a priest's mind.
The Democrat Eugenics Legacy
As for the legacy Jefferson leaves UVA, this is less important than UVA acknowledging its debt to "created equal" (the consoling thought to denizens of gulags everywhere), which I fear too few feminist/democrats want to acknowledge because they foresee its promise to abolish abortion as it did slavery. The fact remains that Democrats are still the longest standing monument to slavery/confederacy/segregation. They are an ongoing icon of eugenics. You cannot unname UVA buildings for confederates and Rockefeller-funded eugenicists and then slap modern eugenics names (like Francis Collins, sponsor of "sex change" projects and abortion-dependent stem cell research) in replacement! (See my 9/2017 letter to President Sullivan, never answered, for more background on "renaming" ) The safest naming concept is for such a worthy but unchanging ideal as "Created Equal" or "Declaration".
How to Carry Forward Inalienable Rights
The "honorable" thing to do is for UVA to acknowledge that the GOP platform (not MAGA!) has (for the most part) the *correct* notion of life and liberty, and that the Democrats (and "MAGA Republicans") have erred egregiously in denying those inalienable rights, both in the past and ongoing. The GOP's platform is also the only stand that will uphold the implicit promise to students (and their sponsoring parents) of an "honorable" education, which eschews sexual immorality. The sometime argument that Jefferson's prizing the notion of "religious freedom" as equal in importance to his "created equal" is dismantled by the understanding that certain religions, eg Islam, condone chattel slavery, and some would-be religions (eg satanism) promote offensive-to-most ideas. (Clearly the "religious freedom" idea is a pale competitor to the notion of "inalienable right" in Jefferson's work) It would not be surprising to me that Jefferson's emphasis on "religious freedom" relative to "created equal" was reactive to the burden of his own burgeoning debt in the 1780s and 90s ( for example, "1793 February 3. (John Adams to Abigail Adams). "I wish somebody would pay his debt of seven thousand pounds to Britain and the debts of all his countrymen, and then I believe his passions would subside, his reason return, and the whole man and his whole state become good friends of the Union and its government.")
Nevertheless, as Lincoln made clear, it was Jefferson's writing on inalienable right and created equal that was the treasure. And it was the (Democrat!) Confederacy that showed its determination to be a permanent slave gulag regime by its very contradiction of the meaning of "created equal". While Jefferson Davis said Jefferson didn't mean it, and his VP Alexander Stephens said he meant it, but it wasn't true, these icons of the Confederacy pre-contradicted the "Lost Cause" myth that arose after the Civil War and wrongly justified so much Jim Crow segregation. Again, after the war they were abetted in Lost Cause denialism by the Rockefellers (who ran the "General Education Board" and the "Southern Education Board" and setup the segregated school systems) and other "foundations" so powerful still today in their eugenics plans.
MACEA, not MAGA!
The strong supposition that "MAGA" has been a "bloody flag" to foment screaming matches distracting from technocrat plans, is borne out by Donald Trump's longstanding identity as a serially divorced Democrat friend of Jeffery Epstein (as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton) and LGBT, and most perplexedly, new bagholder for what he calls "beautiful" but in fact were *Democrat* confederate statues. (In fact at least two of the leaders of the Charlottesville protest also had Democrat or Communist linked backgrounds (Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer)). Trump's keystone-copping of the mailin ballot election results was capped off with a call to Proud Boys: "stand by!" and a public invite to J6 as follows: "it will be wild!" These alt-right fake gop postures allowed Biden to cite "Charlottesville" as a dark example at significant junctures (including his campaign kickoff and more recent "soul of the nation" speech, smearing the GOP). The possibility that this has all been a staged distraction *between* Democrats (Trump being a crypto-Democrat) makes it important now to distinguish MAGA from what is the essential dictum: MACEA (replacing "great" with "created equal".) Trump had tried to insert rape exceptions to the GOP platform, something no self-aware MACEA Republican would have tried to do, *because* of the very nature of inalienable right.
Most importantly, Trump's only aspiration against abortion has been to bring it back to states to decide--- which takes the wind of "inalienable" out of the sails of "createdequal" abolition. It is my belief there are many more MACEA Republicans than know it, their ignorance due to the effectiveness of the mass psychological conditioning that planted Democrat Trump. Nevertheless it is a lowlevel logical operation to see that MACEA is what MAGA *should* mean.
I hope these reflections will help UVA students to understand the truth of "created equal", and the basis for the deserts of its recognition. They seem to be unaware of the deep Democrat legacy that must be repented and repaired, and the valiant GOP legacy that must be celebrated (and distinquished from the infiltrated Democrat attempt to smear GOP, such as happened in 2017).
Given the upcoming totalitarian panopticon cashless surveillance state, platformed by the covid program (also a joint Democrat/Rockefeller effort!) it makes sense for each individual to understand how they will shape future society by their capitulation or failure to capitulate.
Our Bodies, Our Selves, Our Souls, and Our Posterity
The 1964 Civil Rights Act should have been passed simply to repair discrimination against the long maligned black people, whose skin color was used against them as a "brand" that would get them efficiently returned to the plantation, but who were continued to be abused after the Civil War to prevent them from eugenic mixing with whites. Real parity in employer hiring was called for for blacks by the 60s, but instead politicians threw in another competing class to be protected, ie women, whose historical claim to be victim was much weaker than that of blacks. (For example, employers may have had legitimate concerns for paying a "living household wage" such that they did not wish to overpay double income households) Later additions to the "protected classes" of the Civil Rights act were extrapolations of sex - sexual orientation and "gender identity" - not only "new" categories but emphatically ones that can be slipped on and off as black skin can not. It seems as though every sexual category is trying to wear blackface at the 1964 Civil Rights ball.
To be fair, each would-be protected category should have its own tailored specifications for civil rights, rather than one-size fits all. Sex discrimination should take into account the very natural split between male and female that in fact generates what the Constitution calls "ourselves and our posterity" (as opposed to ourselves and the state's frankentube conceptions). The political cells representing the natural family are the natural building blocks of our society, and they rest on the natural parents, Mom and Dad. In many cases a division of labor that leaves mother close to the child for a certain time makes sense. This certain time gets stretched to the extent our government schools decay. To the extent that women do embrace home making and educating, they deserve the representative truth that the ratio of women in the workforce should tilt well under 50 percent to match that reality.
On the other hand, sexual orientation and gender identity represent categories *impairing* the fertility that leads to our posterity and should not be conflated with sex. Keep in mind the etymological definition of "posterity" ["a person's offspring, descendants collectively," late 14c., posterite, from Old French posterité (14c.), from Latin posteritatem (nominative posteritas) "future, future time; after-generation, offspring;"] clearly includes one's natural descendents, who themselves could be considered a type of natural monument each to their ancestors. Orphaning and adoption aside, to deliberately create gaps in family trees via artificial reproduction is akin to those odious slavebreeding gaps. (It is interesting that both slavery and homosexuality are the "peculiar/queer" institutions!)
2026 - Mom and Dad Matters!
A worthy goal for 2026, the 250th birthday of "Created Equal", would be a human life amendment that affirms what every child deserves to know: "Mom and Dad matters - My conception matters!" Given the long history of eugenic oppression to the black family, from polygamy in Africa (which could have used the light of true Catholic teaching *instead* of Dum Diversas!), to slavebreeding on American plantations, to Jim Crow eugenic segregation, to welfare state single parent denial of fathers, to the present Brave New World transhumanist trajectory, deserves instead the firm storybook ending of the true natural family. This is the true legacy of "Created Equal" and of perennial Catholic teaching. I will go one step farther and put that Jefferson's "happiness" should refer to that of (one man one woman) which links it to the Constitution ("ourselves and our posterity") No matter which way you look at it, the natural parent dyad is pivotal to the child, and in fact that concept was what abolished slavery in the early Church - Christian pressure on the natural father to "pick up the baby" - instead of leaving it to be exposed to death (or perhaps captured into slavery). Such infanticide pressures were socially de-conditioned by the Christians, and similar pressures today to abort or to genitally mutilate could also be de-conditioned if *led* from church and school.
So many point to common solidarity of lgbt and feminists with blacks in civil rights, not realizing that only the blacks, truly persecuted, deserve such radical protection. But what about the rights of natural parents (who gestated, labored, and sacrifice for their children), now being gaslit and targeted as "domestic extremists" today but having the more natural basis for standing as parents (vis a vis lgbt) in the public square? What about the natural parents' right to secure the blessings of fertility to their own children, even against a massive technological complex of indoctrination and manufactured consent. "In Loco Parentis" used to mean just that, that residential college should protect students in the same way their natural parents would. Instead, colleges issue exhorbitant ed-mortgages ("deadly embrace") to students only to stealth indoctrinate the student against his own natural family. (Not unlike the saddling of Jefferson with slave-mortgages and other illgotten debt which made it increasingly difficult over his life to speak up for "created equal"). If anyone is to be "forgiven" student loan debt, however, it is the mother who foregoes the profits of a career to homeschool (and who should never have been encouraged to have taken on such debt).
Arguably the best novel of the twentieth century pivoted on a Ring which itself derived from Plato's Republic. The Ring of Gyges allowed men to disappear and , undiscovered, work woe which they would never have done if their face had been exposed. Such Gygian ring is the practice of contraception, of homosexuality and transgender sterility (where one's face is never exposed to the counterfactual children who would have been generated). However, in the case of abortion, there *will* nevertheless be a meeting of such faces (argues another 20thc Christian novel) in the afterlife *above the Cave*. Until "we have faces", we are bound to educate those in the cave to this higher reality.
Perhaps if the rights of parents in college education of their children are denied by stealth and from afar, there may have to be a restructuring away from the "residential college", and an "evolution" towards (parish based?) collegial societies, that provide socialization for students attending local (non-residential) colleges. With the advent of AI (and its own "Ring of Gyges" temptations for students), local college-neutral testing and proctoring centers whose transparency is guaranteed like the paper ballot could be developed. There is nothing inherent in residential college-level training which should call for such abasement of morals as we find buttressing the propagandizing of students to the eugenics agenda. But it is important to note that those who wave the flag of "parental rights" should first take care that the definition of "parent" excludes Obergefellian fifth columnists, lest parents be defeated from within.
Obergefell must be overturned, abortion must be abolished, and young men must be exhorted to preserve sex within marriage to support each soul they generate. Women and children must be protected from rape by garnishing the reluctant father, but otherwise the lifelong marriage as exclusive sexual (and procreative) domain must be preserved to ensure parental transparency. Yes, abolition can be botched like the Democrats who designed Jim Crow segregation after slavery, but if handled with the truth that sex belongs in lifelong marriage, abolition of abortion should greatly diminish even those instances when abortion is even considered. LGBT identifiers must be warned to the reality that their (retractable) stance means never being eligible for lifelong marriage (because then who can trust the wedding vow of one who holds that sex/gender can change and thereby transform the partner into a "transgender widow"?) These must be the homilies that only chaste priests can deliver in words and action and that even the philosopher king can get behind.
My reparative suggestion for the replacement icon in Charlottesville's "Emancipation Square" (the former "Lee Square" (inaugurated as such by Rockefeller-funded Democrat eugenicist UVA's Alderman)) is therefore a modest image of the "imago dei" that is marriage and its posterity. What about the community building a flower garden configured in the shape of a heart (the 2d shape itself visible mainly from above). The colors of the garden will be only two (red and blue?), forming each half of the heart.
Within the heart, will be placed two horizontal bars, one having one color and the other the second color. This represents the genetic and anthropological truth of "created equal". While the "heart" in this garden is mainly visible from above(!), it can be also represented readily on a flag, and indeed it can be chalked easily on any type of walk with the colors red and blue. Created Equal 2026! Mom and Dad matters!
Sincerely,
Abortion regretter//first week post-freshman (Rockefeller-funded) orientation//Chemical "shoot in bush" abortion//Dr Frieda Woodruff, Bryn Mawr College "Student Health", perpetrator//September, 1974//Pride goeth before Regret