To Kill A Tree Part Three : The Delusional State - Severing The Roots.

By Philip Jones 31st May 2009.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell.

Introduction:

In this, the third part in the series, `To Kill A Tree,` we will take a closer look at how through various means and methods, the Illuminati are, in parallel with their depopulation agenda, working towards the deconstruction of the nation states of the West, by disconnecting people from their roots, and diluting the ethnic make-up of countries through mass immigration, thereby weakening the resolve of populations to oppose the trend towards internationalism. We will also examine how the Illuminists and their Marxist, humanist, socialist `lackeys,` have worked towards breaking down Western civilisation and tradition, by the rewriting of history and the defamation of national heroes.

Immigration:

To challenge the concept that large scale immigration is beneficial to the West is to risk being labelled racist, even though the proof is clearly `in the pudding` as it were. In his book, `Do We Need Mass Immigration,` the British author Anthony Browne writes:

“ Immigration at current levels is turning Britain into a country very ill-at-ease with itself. It imports poverty, increases social tensions, crime, public health problems such as TB, and creates parallel communities.”

Large scale immigration from the `Third World` is one of the key tools being used by the Illuminati in order to break down resistance to their plans for a One World State. Immigration on the scale we are now witnessing calls into question the very future and character of the nations that our children will inherit, if indeed, with the relentless drive towards the Federal European State and plans for a North America Union moving forward apace, there will be any such entities left to inherit. Massive immigration from the `developing` world is now adversely affecting all the countries of the West.

Within the European Union, the governing elites in Brussels continue to present the member states as little more than a collection of minorities, ‘multicultural societies’ in which national characteristics are of no greater value or significance than those of any other culture. Furthermore, they clearly believe, and the evidence is supportive, that large scale immigration assists them in achieving their defined goal of a Pan European Superstate, within which any nationalism or patriotism would not only be frowned upon, but outlawed under the auspices of xenophobia.

But their premise is wrong. The UK for instance is not a multicultural society. A mere eight per cent of the population are from an ethnic minority, and even then a number of those are Christians. Nor is it a country of immigrants. Until the 1950s, there had been no large-scale immigration since the Norman Conquest over a 1000 years before. The notion that the UK is a `mongrel nation` is erroneous. Britain is a country with a distinctive and ancient identity and culture founded upon a dominant religion, Christianity, to which most of its citizens still feel at least a nominal attachment.

Denying the Culture:

Immigrants, if they are to lead full and rewarding lives, need to become part of the culture and society of their new home. They need to be able to identify with it's history and traditions. Those who went to Britain early in the last century did so, because they valued and admired the country's national characteristics of fair play, tolerance, and emotional restraint. Without sacrificing their own culture, they adopted British values by learning about Shakespeare, Austen, the Bronte Sisters and Dickens, and by studying the history of parliamentary democracy and the growth of British institutions. But the point I am making here is that these things were actually taught. People were imbued with British values because the British themselves were proud of their nation, identity and culture, and they believed in transmitting what Britain stood for to all the nation's citizens and their children.

But this is no longer the case. These things are no longer being taught. For many decades now, the Marxist controlled UK education system, through it's schools and universities has been doing its best instead to destroy all semblances of national pride. The very idea that a national identity should be transmitted is considered racist, imperialist and exclusionary. The great works of English literature are replaced by books considered to be more ‘relevant’ to a child’s own cultural and ethnic background. British political history has become `persona non grata,` so children are given no sense of any chronological national story to make sense of the society they inhabit.

On the front line of the culture war now raging, and amongst its ideologically driven `foot soldiers,` this fallacious dogma is derived largely from a perhaps well intended, but misplaced excess of tact towards minorities, along with an indoctrinated guilt complex over the British Empire, even though if the history of that Empire was taught properly, it would necessarily include the oft valiant story of the many immigrant groups that fought heroically for Britain. But in truth, at it's core, there lies a desire to create an entirely new kind of society by destroying the old one. That means, among other things, repudiating and denying openly and publicly, loudly and often, the Christian basis of British culture.

Thus, in the UK, a recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research on the teaching of religion in schools, concluded that there was a need to teach a ‘diversity of identities’ to equip children for life in a ‘multicultural society’. Accordingly, it directs teachers to encourage children to question the faith they inherit from their families, and to regard the moral teachings of religion with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Under the cover of promoting ‘diversity,’ this is actually a menu for subversion, explicitly aiming to undermine the family and the moral and religious basis of the nation, severing children from parents and tradition.

Cambridge university amongst others, has banned Christian prayers at graduation ceremonies in order to avoid causing any offence to other religions and atheists, and to avoid legal action under race or religious discrimination laws. Thus we see a national culture, redefined as being intrinsically racist or discriminatory. Because it is embarrassed by its own culture, Britain refuses to defend it in the same way other nations, like the Dutch or the Danes, for example, have done with theirs. The Dutch have recently expelled large numbers of failed asylum-seekers, and Denmark has severely tightened it's policy on immigration, to the point where it struggles to work within the confines of EU legislation. These small countries have belatedly realised, that multiculturalism poses a `clear and present` danger to their culture and identity which they are neither prepared or able to tolerate, and still remain distinct national entities. The Dutch say that their 30-year experiment in multiculturalism has resulted in sink schools, violence, and ethnic ghettos.

Most immigrants are hard-working, honest people, looking to make a good life for themselves and their families, and they bring with them many other admirable ethnic and national characteristics which in time, providing the numbers entering are capable of being assimilated, can add to and enrich the indigenous culture. But if their numbers are too numerous, or if they don’t wish to integrate, it then becomes impossible for the indigenous culture to absorb them. If there simply aren’t enough people who can identify with the country’s history, then it cannot be taught. And since any nation is rooted in its history, the national identity unravels. Being ashamed of our country’s past, no longer becomes a question of any relevance, as there is no longer a sense of any collective ‘we.’

In his `Civitas` pamphlet ‘The Need for Nations,` Roger Scruton insists this situation places democracy itself in mortal danger. He suggests that without national loyalty, there can be no common ground. A democracy works only if its members think of themselves as ‘we’. If there is only ‘them,’ people no longer acknowledge the validity of the laws that bind them, and are no longer prepared to make sacrifices or die for a country inhabited by people they don’t know or trust. The result is that democracy withers, and social disintegration follows.

David Goodhart, editor of the liberal magazine `Prospect,` makes a similar point. He says:

“We are linked by a set of common values and assumptions. But as Britain becomes more diverse, that common culture becomes eroded. And if we feel we no longer have anything in common with our fellow citizens, we will no longer be prepared to pay for common welfare provision.”

Following his considered and thoughtful discussion of an important issue of national significance, Mr Goodhart found himself in the `gun sights` of no less a `grandee,` than the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, who labelled him a racist, and likened him to Enoch Powell and the British National Party. It is sometimes difficult to grasp how on earth have we reached the point, where a clearly decent man is smeared a racist simply for wishing to preserve his national identity? Why is Britain so much less attached to its own culture and traditions than the Dutch and the Danes, who have achieved far less, or other Europeans like the French who have their own colonial history to contend with? And why has education unraveled the culture in Britain to an extent not seen elsewhere?

Home To Roost:

The prime suspects in this sorry saga are the radicalised, `baby-boomers` of the sixties and seventies, who having been indoctrinated with the insidious ideologies of Cultural Marxism in university, set out to infiltrate and destabilise western society. They had much less impact in Europe, where institutions remained robust enough to mount a solid defence, and language provided a bulwark against the `new` ideas coming across the Atlantic from America. Schools still transmitted their traditional values, the family held up, and the churches were strong. In Britain, however, these institutions simply collapsed. The welfare state, in promoting a culture of rights, had eroded responsibility and duty and encouraged instead a culture of narcissism. This created fertile ground for the cult of personal choice promoted by the radicals.

In addition, the shared language and close cultural ties with America made Britain particularly susceptible to the Neo Marxist programmes of child-centred education, extreme feminism and minority ‘victim’ rights coming across the `pond.` In Britain, a State monopoly over schools and universities meant there was no challenge to these ideas, which aimed to disconnect citizens from the traditions and established values of the nation. When faced with this rout, the established church merely wrung its hands and screamed, “No Mas,” then dutifully followed suit. As a result, the three pillars of national identity; family, education and church crumbled.

Internationalism:

Britain and the other English speaking nations may be in the vanguard of this process, but it is part of a global trend, carefully planned and orchestrated by the `Hidden Power.` The immigration issue is only the most visible symptom of the ailment afflicting Western Civilisation, which now finds itself at a most perilous juncture in it's history. The idea that a people’s principal duties are to family, community and nation is being challenged at every turn by a new vision in which people are expected to feel a form of `global responsibility.` In this new trans-national order, the powers of individual nations are being progressively transferred to institutions that cross national boundaries.

The European Union, the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and the proposed NAU will increasingly impose laws and obligations on once proud sovereign nations where they are not accountable to the people. Much of this energy is being provided by insider human rights activists promoting ‘international law,’ which has no democratic legitimacy but is increasingly being used to bring democracies to heel. Bit by bit as the nation state is superseded, democracy is being eroded. The ultimate goal, a One World State.

It is no accident that the trend towards trans-nationalism has been accelerating ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is nothing less than the `Neo-Communist` means by which Western Civilisation is systematically destabilised. There has been a counter reaction against this trend, mostly by small countries, such as the Denmark and Holland, who have adopted what can only be termed a `siege mentality,` as the world at large closes in around them, and waves of immigrants breach the walls of their once homogeneous citadels.

In the US, the `war` rages between rival camps supporting either trans-nationalism or democracy. Amazingly, the British haven’t even grasped there is a battle to be fought. According to Philosopher Roger Scruton, the British are sleep walking into the likely to be European Federal State “in which national loyalty will be no more significant than support for a local football team.” The outcome, he says, will be despotism and anarchy.

We can see the writing on the wall already. In 1996, Greenwich council in London, produced a report in response to the murders of Stephen Lawrence and two other local black boys. One of the principal reasons for the murderous rage of white youths, it said, was that they had no national identity to be proud of and to give their lives meaning. White children, in the UK, it said, ’seem like cultural ghosts, haunting as mere absences the richly decorated corridors of multicultural society.’

In her article, `Britain's' Social Suicide,` the journalist Melanie Phillips writes:

“People may also have several identities, like Russian dolls stacked inside each other. But ultimately, they have to have common bonds; and these depend on a common culture, which requires controlled migration.”

Reconstructing the Past:

"History is the lie commonly agreed upon." Voltaire.

To sever a people's roots, it is necessary to destroy it's memory. By denying a people true knowledge of who they are and where they came from, and those aspects of their history and tradition which defines them as a separate identifiable nation, with a common language, common faith and common mission, it is possible to create a sense of hopelessness and futility, which in time will eventually kill the collective psyche and love of country and enable that once distinct people to be swallowed up by any would be Supranational state.

George Orwell in his book `1984,` argued that by destroying the record of a people's past, thereby leaving it ignorant of it's forbears and their achievements, one can fill the vacuum with a brand new history. The primary weapon devised to create the academic circumstances needed to implement the pernicious and destructive agenda to achieve such a condition is a little something known as `Critical Theory.` Developed by the Marxist `thinkers` of the Frankfurt School, (see reference section) Critical Theory has been defined as the “essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.” Raehn.

In practice, Critical Theory works like this; The Marxist repeats the charge that the West is responsible for injuring and harming every civilisation and culture it has come into contact with. That Western Societies are intrinsically racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic and fascist. The almost universal use of this method of cultural degradation since the sixties, has induced a form of `collective pessimism` throughout Western nations. This manifests itself, particularly in the young, as a sense of alienation from the native culture, of hopelessness and despair, where a people come to view their own land as oppressive, evil and unworthy of loyalty.

Critical Theory does to nations what `attack politics` does to opposing candidates in elections, only on a much larger and more destructive scale. Pat Buchanan in his book, `Death Of The West,` calls it “The moral equivalent of vandalising graves and desecrating corpses.”

Can anyone reading this article argue that to date, the `agents of change` by the use of this cultural weapon, have been diabolically successful in their systematic application of Critical Theory towards achieving their nefarious ends?

Out With The Old, In With The New:

Not so long ago, our children were taught the names of the great heroes of Western History. In the UK, amongst many others, it was Nelson, Wellington and Churchill, whilst children in the US learned about the exploits of Columbus, Washington, and Jefferson. National holidays and public buildings were named after them. But those days are gone forever, or so it seems. State schools were once proud national institutions where our children were taught how to be good citizens, patriots even.

In his book, `The Disuniting Of America,` Arthur Schlesinger writes:

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have someone write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long, the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.”

Since the 1960's, Christianity has been removed from the classroom. The old books by the great writers are gone and new more `relevant` politically correct titles put in their place. The stories of our national heroes are no longer taught in schools, and are noticeably absent from schoolbooks, and have been largely forgotten, except by those of fifty years and upwards who still remember different times. Public buildings and holidays have been given new names, the achievements of our forebears slandered, and our people made to feel embarrassed for a supposedly evil and malevolent past.

The degradation and dethroning of past heroes appears to be pandemic throughout the great nations of the developed world. In the US, amongst a very long list of similar measures taken by the `thought police,` George Washington day has been replaced by `Presidents Day` and in Richmond Virginia, General Robert E. Lee's portrait was removed from a public display and then vandalised. In the UK, former Mayor of London `Red` Ken Livingstone spent much of his two terms in office, albeit unsuccessfully, plotting the destruction of statues honouring the `Great men` of Empire, such as Admiral Sir Charles Napier, Sir Henry Havelock and most notably, Maj. Gen. Charles Gordon, the man who played such a large part in ending the slave trade. In France, plans to celebrate the baptism of Clovis, the fifth century King of the Franks, were `scuppered` by Marxists who bitterly resented any commemoration of the year France became a Christian nation.

In the `Death of The West, Patrick Buchanan reviews how successful the agents of change have been in reshaping the way Americans view their country. In the 1950's around 89% of American men and 94% of American women believed their country to be the finest on earth. In a poll conducted in 2000, only 58% of American men and 51% of American women felt that way. I am well aware that my own countrymen and women are in the main deeply demoralised by what is left of Tony Blair's superficially manufactured `Cool Britannia,` and across Europe, it seems paradoxically, that it is only the Danes who espouse any sense of satisfaction and contentment with their nation, and as I have written at length previously, there is much more to that than meets the eye (see reference section).

The Change Agents:

In the UK, there has been a collective `swoon` over the election of Barrack Obama. Media superlatives have exhausted the full lexicon of clichés. Journalists, grown men amongst them, wept with joy over his acceptance speech. There’s been nothing like it seen in the `old country` since Britain’s former prime minister, Tony Blair was elected back in 1997.

Like Obama, Blair took Britain by storm when he won the first of his three general elections in 1997 and threw the Conservative party a `curve ball` it's still trying to catch. Like Obama, Blair was charismatic, eloquent, cool, and laid back. Like Obama, Blair was seen as a saviour figure, who would lay his hands upon a tired and broken nation and bring healing where there was discord. And like Obama, Blair also had an agenda of change, which unknown to all but the conspiratorial `inner sanctum,` was ready and prepared for him come election day by his Illuminati puppet masters.

Tony Blair was widely considered, by a politically inept and ignorant public, to be something of a conservative in comparison with other Labour Party Ministers. Indeed, it could be said that he came to power because he symbolically threw off the party's commitment to state-control socialism, thus establishing his credentials as a centrist. What few realized at the time was that in fact he was a radical of a different kind. Throughout his term in office, he would follow an agenda to remake Britain according to the `Illuminists` strategy, as outlined to him at the Bilderberg meeting which he had attended the year prior to his election.

A strategy to guide Britain towards full absorption into the European Superstate and change forever the very nature of the British national character. The public façade; the `drama` to be played out before the masses, was to create a more inclusive, kind and just society, ostensibly by eradicating prejudice, reshaping the country in his own image, whilst in reality, he worked tirelessly and treacherously towards the ushering in of a New World Order.

Accordingly, `his` government either directly promoted or did nothing to stop the long march through Britain’s institutions, the systematic undermining of the country’s fundamental values and traditions, in line with the `Cultural Marxism` strategy of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. It tore up Britain’s (unwritten) constitution, devolved power to Scotland and Wales, and changed the composition of the the House of Lords, thereby destroying the delicate equilibrium of the balance of power.

It also set about changing the identity of the country. Promoting the doctrine of multiculturalism, it opened Britain’s doors to mass immigration. In the state-controlled schools, teachers no longer saw their role as the transmission of Britain’s historic culture, which was deemed `racist`; accordingly, children were no longer taught the history of their country, but instead a concept of ‘citizenship’ which was all about changing the values of the country. It undermined marriage, promoting instead `lifestyle choice` by giving incentives to single mothers and morally legitimizing single parenthood.

Barrack Obama has spoken about remedying what he sees as those failings in the U.S. Constitution which promote only `negative liberties,` or put another way, freedom from something, rather than having positive rights to something. Through it's adoption of human-rights legislation, Britain has exchanged its historic concept of `negative” liberty,` that everything is permitted unless it is actively prohibited, for the ‘positive’ European idea that only what is codified is to be permitted. As a result, freedom has shrunk to what ideology permits.

Equality legislation has created a `victim culture` under which the interests of all groups deemed to be powerless (minorities, women, homosexuals etc.) take precedence over those deemed to be powerful (white Christian men). Since this doctrine holds that the `powerless` can do no wrong while the `powerful` can do no right, injustice is thus institutionalized, and anyone who queries the preferential treatment afforded such groups finds his or herself vilified as being a racist or a bigot, or both.

All this constitutes a fundamentally illiberal culture in which dissent is disallowed, and where divide and rule and intellectual intimidation become the order of the day. In the US, not surprisingly, this also happens to be the culture of ACORN, one of the radical groups funded by the Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund, and the ‘educational’ or criminal justice ideas of William Ayers, naturally endorsed by President Barrack Obama.

In the same way that British `Liberals and Fabians promote the `powerless` as being incapable of doing wrong at home, they do likewise with regards to the third world. These self appointed agents of change recognize Obama as one of their own. That is because Britain's Fabian intelligentsia and political class has `signed up` to `transnational progressivism` which holds that the nation state is the source of all the ills in the world because it is inherently fascist and racist (for an in depth study of the source of this nonsense, read `The Authoritarian Personality` by Theodore Adorno). Obama believes America has its own sins to expiate, and Britain's treacherous internationalist political class likes the sound of that. It wants and needs America to be humbled. The message they want to promulgate is that nations cause wars, and that the sooner we get a World Government, the better!

By contrast transnational institutions such as the sacred UN or EU, are held to promote civilised `engagement` with an enemy, to discuss grievances and then reach compromises (Hegelian-ism). Of course transnational progressivism, multiculturalism, victim culture, pacifism and all the rest of it amount to little more than cultural and national suicide. The reason Britain has embraced these dogmas is because, since the end of WWII, and the ostensible loss of Empire, it has lost belief in itself as a nation and so has been systematically de-constructing its values and breaking down its own defences.

In recent years, because of what they see as the terminal decline in their nation, hundreds of thousands of Britons have moved to live overseas, whilst millions at home are in a state of desperation, and appalled by the implosion of British culture, identity, and values. But they find themselves politically impotent, in part because the Conservative party will not accept or acknowledge that British values are under attack. It should be said that true Conservative Republicans, as opposed to the `Neo Cons` in America should take careful note of this in order to recognize a similar danger and dilemma facing them following their defeat.

In Britain, Conservatives believe that in order to regain power, they have to show the people that they have broken with cultural conservatism and move with the `flow` instead, adapting their policies to the changes in society with regard to such issues as gay rights, green politics, anti-racism, whatever. What they have failed to understand is that such change has turned values such as right and wrong, good and bad on their heads and has produced a sentimentalist, cruel, oppressive and perverse society, one where burglars go unpunished, but householders are prosecuted for putting the wrong kind of garbage in the trash can, and where people are too frightened to protest at the erosion of British, Christian, or Western values because of the inevitable and virulent verbal or written slander that will follow.

True Conservatives whether in America, Britain or elsewhere in the West seem to have abandoned their own cause, `given up the ghost` and capitulated. They just don’t seem to realise that by embracing `change,` they are furthering the severing of national roots, and endorsing a form of enslavement. They don’t appreciate or grasp that as Conservatives, their primary duty is to conserve national culture, values and traditions and protect them against attack. The result has been that millions feel betrayed and abandoned by the absence of conservatism, and many now see the Conservative parties as nothing more, than a bunch of unprincipled opportunists. The challenge for conservatives on both sides of the pond and elsewhere, is to find a way of conserving the essential values of Western Civilization and then defend them against the onslaught being mounted against them both from within and from without. Unless they take up the gauntlet which has been thrown down and soon, there will be nothing left to conserve.

"Those who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

Ref:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVHV49xFdhM Must See Video 3 Mins.
`The Death Of The West` by Patrick J. Buchanan.
`Do We Need Mass Immigration` by Anthony Browne
`Britain' Social Suicide` by Melanie Phillips
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml Frankfurt School
http://www.nylonmanden.dk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=159&Itemid=43
http://www.nylonmanden.dk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=43

As You Sow So Shall You Reap : The Rant!!

By Philip Jones 19th May 2009.

In my original article You Sow So Shall You Reap` first posted here on 28th April this year, I told of the sad and very unfortunate story of two children, `Alfie and Chantelle` who hit the UK headlines when it was reported that 12 year old Chantelle Steadman was pregnant supposedly by a 13 year old boy whom she named tentatively as being Alfie Patten. It now transpires that young Alfie is not the father after all, and today, the morning papers throughout the UK ran the headline `Alfie Patten 'not father of baby.'

We now know that Alfie was told he was not the baby's father back in March of this year. Alfie, who lives with his mother in Eastbourne, had upon originally discovering that he might be the father told The Sun `Newspaper` "I thought it would be good to have a baby". If schoolboy Alfie had been the father he would have made Chantelle pregnant at the tender age of 12.

The various UK `daily's` told how Teenager Alfie Patten was "extremely distressed" to discover that baby Masie was not his. It appears that after all the trauma and publicity, a paternity test had showed that it was in fact another local boy, 15 year old, Tyler Barker, who was in fact the father.

Apparently young Tyler had told the Daily Mirror that he had had sex with Chantelle during a one-night stand last May after spending the evening drinking at her home?

He said: "I did not use any contraception but Chantelle told me she would take the morning-after pill. I thought she would take care of it. Her mother knew I was going to sleep with Chantelle. The next morning she even asked 'Did you have a good night?' It was routine for boys to stay over with her in her bed."

I am sure that I am not the only one wincing and cringing at that last statement. What sort of society (or mother) allows, nay, encourages such depraved behaviour? Well actually most Western lands have their own Alfie's and Chantelles to deal with, but the situation in not so `Great Britain` is clearly past the point of rescue. Can there be any doubt in the mind of the reader that Lucifer is the God of that system of things?

I am able to reveal the test result here only after East Sussex County Council had failed in an attempt to ban reports of the case. Why would they want to have such a ban in place? Because they are ashamed or embarrassed at their own professional ineptitude? I doubt it. It is much more likely that they want to just keep things ticking along as they are at present, with the whole of UK society imploding into utter chaos, from which they, the Masonic Masters can impose their own version of order.

A judgment, made last month by Mrs Justice Eleanor King, said the girl had been called a "slut" by four people she did not know. The teenager said: "I was crying a lot every day" and feared that the insults would "go on forever."

Now here's where we see Lucifer at work and play. Contrary to all the evidence (and there's lots of it) that Sex Education in Schools has actually increased promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease, and unwanted pregnancy amongst teens, this sorry tale has `surprise surprise` renewed calls for better sex education in England, which has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe, along with all the accompanying social and moral ills such as abortion and the interconnected physical and psychological trauma which goes with it.

It is an incredible fact of life now, that as the Socialists, Secularists, Feminists, Humanists and other assorted `enlightened` types, watch their inept, perverse and degrading ideas fail constantly to do anything but make all matters worse, their `default` response is to force ever more of the same insidious and pernicious bile ridden ideology and dogma down the collective throats of the bewildered masses. It seems clear to this writer that the only hope left for those dwindling numbers of humanity, who still have any moral decency and integrity left, is to rise up and throw these `creatures from hell` back where they came from, wherever that may be, and sooner rather than later.

As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: Part Three

Philip Jones 1st May 2009

After writing my article `As You Sow, So Shall You Reap` posted earlier this week on 29th April, it seems as if everywhere I turn, highly concerning reports of how the British government is actively and deliberately sexualising and corrupting the nation's children, are simply falling into my proverbial lap.

I have just read that a UK government-funded sex education program is training teachers to tell 15 year-old schoolchildren about anal and oral sex. A Doncaster teacher Lynda Brine, who was trained for the course, says she was amazed to be asked to advise as to semen tasted, or as to whether women should have anal intercourse.

The program, entitled ‘A Pause’, was devised by researchers at Exeter university and instructs `educators` to respond to pupils’ questions about all and every manner of sexual experience. The assumption is that young children are already sexually active, and the so called `educational` benchmark in this `field of learning` is that ignorance is to be avoided at all costs, and all questions and orientations are to be treated as equally valid.

But this philosophy transforms sex education into little more than a semi-pornographic encounter in which children receive the implicit message that sexual taboos are worthless, and that all forms of human coupling, no matter how perverse and unnatural are worthy of consideration.

One would imagine that such an irresponsible and morally inappropriate approach had been devised by someone who subscribed to a permissive belief in a sexual `jamboree`. The paradox in this case however, is that the very opposite appears to be true.

The man behind the course, paediatrician Dr John Tripp, is on record as stating himself deeply concerned not only with regard to sexual activity amongst children, but also about the highly destructive effects of family breakdown. Indeed, for years he fought a heroic battle almost single handedly against a concerted attempt by the social science establishment to first censor and then belittle research he published in 1994 showing the damage parental separation did to children.

‘A Pause’ is intended to delay schoolchildren indulging in sexual intercourse by making it easier for them to resist pressure from their friends and the media. Much of this programme is uncontroversial and has gained widespread respect. But in as much as the above ideals are laudable, a difficulty has arisen over the contention that in order to avoid sexual intercourse, pupils should be advised that there are other ways of achieving sexual intimacy, ranging from hand-holding and kissing to oral and even anal sex.

Dr Tripp insists that he is not encouraging them to pursue these activities, merely advising that they are less dangerous than sexual intercourse which he hopes they will help avoid. And anyway, he says, his course advises pupils how to resist pressure to indulge in the whole range of sexual behaviour.

His anxiety to avoid sexual intercourse among children is entirely honourable. But the distinction he draws between sexual intercourse and what he calls ‘outercourse’ is, in practice, spurious.

He claims his approach has reduced the number of pupils having sexual intercourse by between 13 and 15 per cent. One might think that providing children with a menu of sexual experiences to sample would make full sex rather more likely. But even if Dr Tripp’s claim is true, the aim of responsible sex education should surely not be so limited.

Teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are not the only reasons why sexual activity among schoolchildren is deeply undesirable. The main reason is that, in the absence of both emotional maturity and spiritual meaning, such inappropriate behaviour harms children’s development.

Holding hands or kissing are simply in a different league from intimate genital activity. That is because this involves areas of our body that we guard as our most private and protected. Revealing them is therefore a very special act. Doing so too casually strips that act of its significance and can harm our own sense of ourselves. If the idea that sex should be reserved for a special relationship becomes meaningless, it becomes much more difficult to sustain a permanent committed sexual union.

It is not puritanical to say this. It is rather to recognise that spiritual and emotional meaning distinguishes human sexual activity from animal behaviour. Genital gratification separated from a permanent loving commitment is a form of degradation. When emotionally immature children behave in this way, it becomes akin to abuse.
The Exeter program has produced something which appears to contradict its own founding beliefs because it has fallen into a common trap. It assumes that because many young people are sexually active, any sex education program has to limit itself to minimising the damage.

The government and virtually the entire health and sex education establishment intend us to think that it is simply ridiculous to imagine that young people can be persuaded away from sexual activity. Of course, the young have always experimented with sex. But what we are facing now is something quite different - the normalisation of sex as a recreational sport, the fracturing of self-restraint and commitment, and the smashing of every sexual and moral taboo.

This sexual anarchy can be halted, if only there is the will to do so. As I have mentioned in parts one and two, successful American schemes show it is possible to challenge all premature sexual activity through programmes aimed at sexual abstinence — a word which in Britain causes apoplexy among policy makers.
They caricature the abstinence approach as an authoritarian, self-defeating ‘just say no’ exercise. But this is not so. The most high-profile of these American projects, the Washington-based Best Friends programme, is a brilliant, shrewdly targeted club that girls love to join.

Crucially, it recognises the nexus between adolescent sex, drinking, drug taking and academic performance. Starting when the girls are nine and going through to high school graduation, it builds up their self-respect and gives them the self-confidence to deal with the pressures on them to drink, take drugs and have sex, which they are taught to view as a potential threat to themselves.

It provides weekly fitness sessions where the girls discuss diet and nutrition, takes them out on trips and matches each girl with a mentor teacher whom they meet once a week to talk about anything. Crucially, it builds a corps d’esprit [ital] which provides peer and adult support to say no sex till after they have left school, no alcohol until the legal age of 21 and no drugs ever.

And it works. Compared with national figures, only a tiny number of Best Friends girls have had sex or become pregnant by the time they leave school, and very few take drugs. Moreover, among these mainly highly disadvantaged pupils - who would normally be expected to drop out of education - the majority on the program stay at school until they are 18 and many go on to college.

Of course, the cultural pressures on our children to indulge in harmful adult behaviour are immense. The driver behind their premature sexual activity is the sexualisation of the culture and the breakdown of the traditional family. But the belief that all we can do is go with the flow is a self-fulfilling counsel of despair.

What’s needed instead is an explicit challenge to this cultural slide, tailored to young people’s sense of their own self-interest. The current prevailing brutalisation of sexuality and relationships is not in anyone’s interest.
Young people need to be taught about love and self-restraint, trust and commitment, acts and consequences, and the human dignity embodied in the link between sex and marriage.

Can anyone here in the UK see this current government funding such a programme? Not a chance. It would rather teach the young about oral and anal sex - and then shed crocodile tears over our lost and abandoned children.

As You Sow, So Shall You Reap : Part Two.

Philip Jones 1st May 2009.

Infertility and Loneliness: The price we are now paying for treating sex as a recreational sport.

It is a modern article of faith that sexual freedom spells greater happiness. Repression is bad for your health. Modesty is for dinosaurs. Anyone who dares suggest a downside to sexual incontinence is more or less accused of wanting to introduce Taliban-style morals police into the bedrooms of Britain.

Instead, as the British Government gears up to produce yet more initiatives to combat teenage pregnancy, we are told that there’s nothing wrong with the sexual free-for-all. Promiscuity soaring upwards? Welcome evidence of greater openness, tolerance and honesty, says a Lancet study.

More and more people who don’t think marriage is a necessary prelude to having children? Proof that cohabitants should get the same rights as married couples, say researchers for the British Social Attitudes survey. An increase in under-age sex? No problem, say government advisers on teenage pregnancy. Just dish out the condoms.

Sex is now Britain’s major recreational sport. The message is, have fun but be careful - a bit like telling people to avoid going off-piste on the ski slopes. The Labour government insists that every relationship is just another lifestyle choice. Sex is approved of as long as it happens within the context of a ‘loving relationship’, a concept as elastic as it is fragile.

The trouble is that this sexual freedom is being bought at severe cost to individuals and to society. Far from the Brave New World heralded by the Lancet’s authors, their study suggests a rather more troubled landscape.

‘Openness’ and ‘Honesty’? On the contrary: the new promiscuity has meant more two-timing and betrayals. The Lancet says one in seven men and one in eleven women had overlapping or concurrent relationships in the past year.

‘Tolerance’ - but what are we all tolerating? One in ten adults now has a sexually transmitted disease, risking their lives and their fertility. New cases of gonorrhoea, syphilis and chlamydia more than doubled between 1995 and 2008. Last year there were more than 3,600 cases of HIV, the highest ever annual figure.

To the official mind, though, the main danger from the sexual free-for-all is teenage pregnancy — which is, of course, nothing to do with sexual freedom, perish the thought. The reason we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, apparently, is the unavailability of contraception and the lack of sex education.
So the great and the good who advise the government’s Teenage Pregnancy Unit are suggesting that children below the legal age of consent should get the Pill and condoms at school, and that sex lessons should become a compulsory part of the national curriculum.

So much for respect for the law; so much for the idealism that invented the age of consent to protect children from sexual harm. There’s an unshakable belief that more contraception and sex education mean less pregnancy. But they don’t. The British Medical Journal reported last year that most pregnant teenagers had previously obtained contraceptive advice; they even visited their GP more frequently than other young people to get it.

Young people hardly lack sex education or access to contraception. The more these have been made available, the more sexual activity has increased among the young. Government advisers serve up the old chestnut that the Netherlands has an open attitude to sex and few teenage pregnancies. But the Dutch are in fact highly responsible about family life, and many of their Calvinist schools put across the very opposite of a free-wheeling approach to sex.

Sex education and contraception are beside the point. It’s our culture which produces young women who, inadequately parented - often in broken families — and left in huge emotional need, think a baby is a passport to a life of independence and emotional fulfilment.

The terrible irony is that the people who kidded themselves they had most to gain from sexual freedom, women, are the ones who have lost out the most. It’s not just the wretched teenage mums trapped in their council flat with a couple of toddlers and a packet of Prozac.

As the Lancet study revealed, the vast majority of women who have had early sexual experiences regret it. Even among those who lost their virginity between the ages of 18 and 24, as many as one in five regretted it. Is it any wonder? For they have thrown away their trump card.

Women, including those who are promiscuous, overwhelmingly look for faithfulness, commitment and marriage. But men increasingly fail to see what’s in it for them. Women used to hook men into permanent commitment by their sexual unavailability. Now they behave sexually in the same way as men and then they wonder why men aren’t interested in sticking around.

Instead, more men look for sex with no commitment. Twice as many men now pay for sex as they did ten years ago. This may seem odd, since so many women are now sexually available. But paying a prostitute frees men from the commitment which women crave and which is now so lacking in our society. The result is a huge increase in solitariness and loneliness and the progressive destruction of our social ecology.

Our governing class assumes that nothing can be done to turn this tide. But that’s not true. Young people often want to be helped to resist the enormous pressure for early sexual activity. In the United States, abstinence education programmes have had extraordinary success in bringing down teenage pregnancy rates.

These are far from joyless, finger-jabbing schemes. The Washington-based Best Friends programme, for example, creates a club that girls love to join because they do fun activities around the notion of respect for their bodies. In that context, they learn three things: no sex till the end of high school, no alcohol till the lawful age for drinking and no drugs ever. And they are taught ways of resisting the peer pressure. The result is not only minimal rates of teenage pregnancy and alcohol or drug use, but their educational achievements soar.

Mention abstinence programmes to British government advisers, however, and they run screaming from the room. Instead, our local authorities are dreaming up more goodies to bestow upon unmarried mothers, thus giving girls every encouragement to join their ranks.

Of course, sexual license is a huge cultural shift. There can scarcely be a family in the land that isn’t touched by its ramifications. But as America shows, it is possible to change the national conversation. People there are slowly coming to realise that the sexual free-for-all may not be in their best interests.

Politicians shouldn’t preach or hector. But they can educate people to realise that their own best interests lie in behaving differently. Signals from the top are crucial. At the moment, these are all pointing in precisely the wrong direction. It would take courage and leadership to turn them round - qualities which, when it comes to our governing class, somehow don’t quite spring to mind.

As You Sow, So Shall You Reap.

Philip Jones 28th April 2009.

“Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.” Job 4 KJV.

In the UK recently, a headline story told of a 13-year-old boy named `Alfie` who fathered a child with `Chantelle`, a 15-year old girl of a reportedly promiscuous nature? It is indeed a sad indictment on British Society that there was no great public outcry, no outraged calls that `something must be done`, no questions raised in Parliament. In fact, the two juveniles were treated in some quarters like mini-celebrities, and let us be clear about this, Alfie and Chantelle are in no way isolated cases in today's Britain.

Incredibly, young Chantelle was unable to identify with any certainty the actual father of the child, although she says she `thinks` it's Alfie? The sadly tragic truth is that throughout the UK now, there are many `Chantelles`, having sex and getting pregnant whilst under the age of legal consent and what is the government doing about it? Apparently very little. In fact, in the opinion of this writer, the U K's sex-ed program appears to be designed to actively encourage teenage sexual promiscuity, not curb it. Britain’s rate of teenage pregnancy is now the highest in Western Europe. Each one of these cases is a personal tragedy, and not just for the babies who are conceived, but for their undeveloped and immature `parents` also.

The high numbers of underage teenage boys and girls who are engaging in sexual activity today, and not only in the UK, but throughout the `west` is indicative of a degenerate civilisation whose leaders in politics, banking, industry, science, education and any other field which influences human affairs, appear to be in thrall to Lucifer himself. There can be no other explanation as to why this pitiful downward trend in morality and basic human decency has been allowed to persist for so long.

In the New Testament Second Book Of Timothy, we read:

3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

As I have commented in previous articles, does not the above Bible verse describe much of our world today?

The likes of Alfie and Chantelle are only doing what they are being encouraged to do so at school, during `sex-ed` classes, in movies, on television, and in pop songs. I am simply unable to think of any of today's so called celebrity `role models` advocating chastity, abstinence, marriage and family as worthwhile life choices. The message is being broadcast loud and clear throughout the entertainment media and in the state controlled `education` system; “Sex is cool, sex is trendy, be sexy, if you're not, you are a loser.”

Very young girls who conceive and give birth to babies (along with the young father's) are condemned to a miserable and unfulfilled semi-life, whereby their childhood vanishes and in consequence their adulthood becomes severely arrested, all due to this catastrophic disruption of their normal development into maturity.
The rate of family breakdown is now reaching epidemic levels, and plays a crucial part in this destructive and maladaptive pattern. Premature sexual activity, creates a vicious cycle of family fracture and childhood promiscuity. Increasing numbers of young people are being trapped into this cycle of abandonment, emotional chaos and harm. But even this is only part of a wider and deeper breakdown of the fundamental moral understanding that once kept our society together.

It is not very popular and not at all trendy these days to advocate Christian Morality, especially not in the UK. But only the most willfully ignorant and virulent humanist, feminist or `New Ager` would deny the obvious fact, that as belief in the Christian faith has declined, immorality, and all lack of self restraint has escalated accordingly.

We have over the past forty or so years seen a profound degradation in that very necessary element of self-restraint mentioned above, and in the observance of those Christian boundaries of social behaviour, which gave our civilisation it's moral and spiritual `anchor`. During this same period, we have witnessed an increase in every imaginable form of vice and licentious conduct. This has been eagerly advocated and promoted from the top, by treacherous opportunist politicians, narcissistic liberals, humanists, new agers and `closet` communists, whilst being funded at the bottom by a system of welfare state benefits.

The modern socialist welfare state has done much to aid in the destruction of morality in our societies. It's promise of a `cradle to grave` social security `net` creates a form of pathetic dependency on the system, which slowly erodes the ability of people to think independently. Furthermore, this parasitic organism insidiously encourages the abdication of individual responsibility, even in the upbringing of our children, and eventually causes a degradation in the ability of the individual to make even the most rudimentary decisions for himself and his family.

It is the Marxist Socialist equivalent of `selling one's soul` to the devil. Dependence = Control.

With the dependency achieved, the secular humanists then foisted the idea on society that the concepts of stigma and shame were discriminatory and `exclusive`. Illegitimacy was accordingly abolished, single mothers given welfare benefits and any mention that marriage and the traditional family unit were in any way beneficial to children was labelled as being ‘judgmental’ and irrelevant. With all constraints on behaviour thus vilified as ‘moralising’, and the teachings of Christianity considered `persona non grata` in the public forum, sex was transformed from it's traditional role as the means by which humanity reproduced itself, through the coupling of man and wife, to being treated by secular society as a recreation, a pleasurable pastime and an end in itself.

In a modern political context, the most recent historical precedent for the kind of immoral licentious behaviour we are now seeing on an almost pandemic scale is to be found in the post WWI Hungarian regime of Bela Kun. In his book, `The Death Of The West,` Patrick Buchanan writes:

“The first dissenting Marxist disciple was the Hungarian Georg Lukacs, an agent of the Comintern, whose `History and Class Consciousness` had brought him recognition as a Marxist theorist to rival Marx himself. “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. As Deputy commissar for culture in Bela Kun's regime, Lukacs put his self described demonic ideas into action in what came to be known as cultural terrorism. As part of this terrorism, he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle class family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women too were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lucacs purpose in promoting licentiousness among women and children was to destroy the family, the core institution of Christianity and western culture.”

Children thrive and prosper when given clear and consistent borders, limits and a moral code for life. Christianity taught them that sex was an activity sanctified by God for married couples who were committing their lives to each other. Instead, they were now taught that sex should be seen as a form of recreation pursuit, or in some cases, a `New Age` means of achieving spiritual realisation. Either way, the fruit has proved poisonous, and children have been placed in harm's way because of it.

"For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Luke 6.

It is sadly indicative of the perverse nature of our modern lifestyles that the only aspect of the sexual `jamboree` we are now witnessing in society, which the humanists, feminists and `new agers‘ consider harmful is teenage pregnancy. Children are told in school that sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented by the use of `safe sex` using condoms, or if the worse comes to the worse, belatedly treated, and all of this is accompanied by a complete absence of acknowledgement with regard to the emotional harm caused to children, due to their involvement in premature sexual activity.

This paltry attitude was accompanied by a deliberate and concerted attempt to destroy the very idea of respectability. The notion of `respectability` here in the west is unarguably based on Christian moral principals, and it was these principals that all the forces of Lucifer were mustered against. Whether we call them the Illuminati, Communists, Secular Humanists, or The New Age Movement, all have been dedicated to destroying and replacing the fundamental teachings of Christianity with another completely adversary code of immoral behaviour.

In order to make wretched and dehumanise our children, governments, law enforcement officials and the social services have turned a very `blind eye` to breaches of the legal age of consent, while sex educationists have targeted teenagers and minors with a direct attack on society’s traditional mores, by promoting the `Illuminist New Age Libertarian Agenda` to society's innocents, whilst at the same time doing everything possible, including the use of legislation, to keep parents out of the `loop` and therefore basically ignorant as to the pernicious concepts and ideas their children were being indoctrinated with.

School sex education manuals graphically depict the full range of sexual positions, sexual orientation `choices` along with many of the available perversions. These manuals are nothing more than government directed ideological propaganda booklets, encouraging extreme sexual license in our children and much of it is so perverse and exploitative, it verges on the predatory. What we are dealing with here has nothing to do with education and everything to do with indoctrination, and in this case indoctrination into those ideas which underly the global family planning movement and the Illuminati New World Order Depopulation Agenda. The International Planned Parenthood Federation promotes sexual pleasure as a “valid sexual and reproductive health need for all young people.” For their purposes, the term young people is defined as being between the ages of ten to twenty four years of age. That's right, they include prepubescent minors within their target group for systematic demoralisation and corruption..

The first director of the World Health Organisation, Dr Brock Chisholm, believed the barrier to his idea of what a civilised life should be, was the Biblical standard of right and wrong. Chisholm wanted children to be `freed` from such prejudices through the introduction of sex education from the age of nine. He strongly promoted the idea that children should be raised in as `intellectually free` an environment as possible, independent of the prejudices and biases - political, moral and religious - of their parents (but not the secular state's). This man's ideas are entirely Luciferian and compliment those of Marxist Lukacs very nicely. Furthermore they mirror the story of Eve's temptation in the Garden of Eden as Lucifer in the guise of a serpent explains that eating of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would open her eyes and at that moment, all would be revealed:

Genesis3:4 :And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 3:6

Much of the sex education being pushed on our children today, some no older than nine years of age or even less, originates from destructive and nihilistic anti Christian ideas. The whole `sex ed` facade has nothing to do with reducing teenage pregnancy, and everything to do with the depraving of innocents and the deconstruction of family life in particular and society in general, by the advocating of a debauched and perverse sexual free-for-all: A `New Age` Sodom and Gomorrah.

The `educators` began by marginalising the traditional role of parents with regard to sex education and then delivered the `Coup d' Grace` by excluding that influence altogether. So nowadays, very immature children are provided not just with contraceptives and state sponsored sexual programming, but also with abortion counseling without their parents’ knowledge. It was recently reported that family doctors in the UK will even be paid bonuses, bribes in effect, to persuade teenagers to have long-lasting contraceptive implants and jabs, again without any consultation with their parents..

Our political and professional elites wish us to believe that the escalating rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are the result of ignorance among young people of the facts of life. But even a casual look at the statistics shows that cannot be the case because there has never been a time when so much sex education has been on offer. In fact it seems that the more sex education and contraception provided to children and teenagers, the more young girls fall pregnant.

Great Britain, the land of my birth where I spent the majority of my life has lost completely it's historical, traditional and spiritual moral compass. The planned and designed denigration and deconstruction of the Christian faith in the hearts and minds of British people, has resulted in a complete breakdown in the basic codes of decorum. This has led to scenes such as were described in a British Sunday newspaper, of children in Chantelle’s neighborhood having sex openly in the street like rutting animals. I myself witnessed a similar scene back in 2004 whilst living in a small village in the South Wales Valleys, when one Saturday afternoon at around 2pm, two young teenagers could be seen from our living room window fornicating like animals in full public view. By the time the Police arrived, an hour later, they had of course left the scene and moved on to `pastures` new.

Unless we are prepared to allow our civilisation to implode completely, teenage promiscuity must be discouraged through the promotion of abstinence. Young women must again be taught to value themselves and their bodies, and refrain from allowing their vagina's to be used like public toilet basins.

Some North American schemes, have shown that when such abstinence is taught, it restores sexual restraint by instilling in young people a sense of self respect and self-worth. But in the UK, some years ago, sex education advisers in East Sussex told head teachers who booked a youth theater group to deliver a message of sexual abstinence in their schools, not to repeat the invitation because it was considered ‘unsuitable’ for pupils??

We again see the dictatorial `Luciferian` nature of the closet communists and their utter contempt for ‘informed choice’. British society has abandoned its children by treating them prematurely as adults because it considers looking after and protecting them an outmoded concept, and far too akin to traditional Christian values to be acceptable in the `new` society.

So let us consider the `Alfies and Chantelles` and their like, who have been taught by society that life is about sex for the sake of sex, and that sex is an end in itself, and who as a result, have descended into a downward spiral of debauchery and degradation. Why is it that our `elite` and their lackey's are so determined that the most innocent and vulnerable members of society be so filled with the `knowledge of good and evil`, to be so defiled and corrupted at such an early stage in their lives?

Revelations 12:12 "Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

I believe that all the evil, vice, perversion and turmoil we are now witnessing is the work of Satan/Lucifer, who knowing well his time is short, is intent on causing, with the devotion and assistance of his disciples in the Illuminati and New Age movement, the most terrible carnage and corruption in our sad and tragic world, and can anyone reading this article think of a greater evil, than the corruption of young children?

Ref:

The Death Of The West by Sen Patrick J Buchanan

New Age Lies To Women by Wanda Marrs.

The Holy Bible King James Version

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1146072/Mother-baby-faced-father-Alfie-facing-court-letting-play-truant.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2233878.ece