An Endangered Species.

The Reason Behind The British State's Institutionalised Prejudice Against Men.

Philip Jones 5th May 2009.

I have written previously and with great foreboding on how government interference in people's lives is increasing at an alarming rate. In the UK this micromanaging of human affairs has over the past decade taken on a very sinister aspect, as the `social engineers` planners and managers, with their army of programmed social workers, invariably armed with a signed and sealed mandate from Brussels via Westminster, intrude into the most private and personal regions of individual liberty and privacy.

The question ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ is a well known rhetorical device to illustrate the impossible situation in which whatever answer someone gives traps them into an admission of guilt.

It now appears that the British Government has updated this snare for the modern era with the question: ‘When did you stop getting beaten by your husband?’ Doctors and midwives are being told to ask all pregnant women if they are being abused by their husbands or boyfriends.

It doesn't take an Einstein to work out the implications of this behemoth of political correction. British Society now presumes that all men are inherently bad? One has to wonder what construct of human government polices pregnancy and seeks to convert doctors and midwives into `state snoopers` in such an inappropriate and intrusive manner, invading and brutalising that which is sacred and private between a man and his wife?

To aggressively probe women about their men's behaviour, without evidence of any wrongdoing, is invasive and oppressive, and breaches our fundamental right to a private life. It tramples over that very presumption of innocence, upon which historically, we British have depended upon to guarantee being able to go about our daily business without state interference and harassment, this being the very essence of a free society.

But it also raises deeper questions. How have we slid so quiescently into such an authoritarian political culture? How has it been so easy to mount such a direct assault on natural justice, men and family life? How have we allowed our values to be turned upside down? And why are we so silent when lies and distortions are presented as facts?

Just consider the premise behind this pregnancy abuse directive. The government seeks to justify it by saying that 30 per cent of domestic violence is triggered by pregnancy. This may indeed be so; and clearly, violence against a pregnant woman is an ill earnestly to be avoided.

But in itself, that statistic is meaningless. For it obviously does not mean there is a risk of violence to pregnant women overall. Only a small minority of women ever suffer violence at the hands of their menfolk. But the number of these cases has been hugely exaggerated by spurious figures compiled by feminist ideologues, claiming that one in every four women suffers from domestic violence.

The idea that a quarter of all women have been assaulted in this way is outrageous. This figure has been taken from deeply unreliable research which does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Some of it has been extrapolated from self-selected samples of individuals in battered women’s hostels. The rest is derived from research of a dubious quality, in which women are interviewed but men are not.

Even worse, the premise that men are the sole perpetrators and women always their victims is simply false. Dozens of studies have shown categorically that in domestic incidents, violence is initiated by men and women equally. Moreover, much male victimisation is hidden because many men are too embarrassed to admit to having been assaulted by a woman to report their injuries.

I accept that women tend to come off worst in such encounters because men are physically stronger. But that’s not the point. The demonising of men as violent aggressors with women merely their passive victims is just not the case.

In the UK, even the Home Office’s own respected research unit reported recently that equal numbers of men and women said they had been assaulted by a current or former partner. Yet the same Home Office chooses to ignore or even deny such findings.

It points instead to the fact that around 100 women a year are killed by men in domestic incidents (along with about 50 men killed by women). But it does not follow that the murder of a woman by her husband or lover results from sustained domestic violence in that household - the assumption behind the question that doctors and midwives must now ask.

Many, if not most, murders of women in the home are one-off episodes of violence in which the man suddenly loses control, often due to jealousy. It is not unusual in such cases for the man to kill not just the woman but the children, and even himself, too.

Moreover, if one is looking at the main perpetrators of violence within the home, it is a fact that most child deaths happen to be caused by women. But if doctors or midwives were accordingly to view all pregnant women with suspicion, we would rightly regard this as intolerable. So why is a similar assumption about male violence justified?

Also significant is the fact that most women victims of domestic violence are assaulted or killed by men to whom they are not married. This is almost certainly because of the greater instability in unmarried relationships. So if the government really wanted to isolate the potential for abuse, it should surely be requiring doctors and midwives to ask pregnant woman whether they are married to the father of their child - and if not, place both woman and child on the ‘at risk’ register.

Just imagine, though, the outcry if anyone were to propose this. The Home Office itself has previously acknowledged that marital breakdown is a ‘key risk factor’ in domestic violence. Yet the government has nevertheless promoted the false belief that all relationships are equal in value. By thus encouraging transient relationships, it has almost certainly helped foster a culture in which domestic violence is more likely to occur. So why is it, on the one hand, apparently encouraging unfettered behaviour which leads to violence, while on the other taking intrusive measures to prevent it?

Ordo Ab Chao (Order Out Of Chaos) And The Hegelian Dialectic.

Ostensibly at least, here lies the key paradox at the heart of the regime's broader social programme. At the same time that it wants to police pregnancy in order to supposedly stamp out the ill of domestic violence, it is licensing a range of behaviour which is socially destructive and which will cause increasing chaos, harm and distress -all under the guise of trying to control it.

Its proposals to deregulate gambling, for example, will turn our cities into tawdry sleaze-pits: magnets for crime and corruption which will increase gambling addiction and in particular the misery of the poor in rising rates of poverty, debt, ill-health and family breakdown. It almost defies belief to hear ministers breezily condoning the fact that casino operators intend to bribe local authorities to grant planning permission for their expanding gambling empires.

The deregulation of gambling is all of a piece with its proposals for all-night drinking, which will merely exacerbate our already rising rates of drunken disorder, violence and crime. Even more extraordinary is the government’s relaxation of controls over soft drugs, despite overwhelming evidence of the harm they do not just to individuals but to society.

In addition, the government is flirting with the idea of ‘zones of tolerance’ for prostitution, despite the fact that these would become magnets for sex tourism and trafficking, creating seedy centres for drug-taking and other associated crimes.

Moreover, all-night drinking, gambling and clubbing - with its attendant culture of drug-taking - are heavily promoted as the basis for the regeneration of our cities. Economic prosperity is thus being pursued through the active and official marketing of vice.

In all this, ministers are systematically taking apart the outstanding social reforms of the late Victorians, who were driven by liberal and religious motives to improve society and thus elevate the human condition. This great movement of conscience to attack moral and social degradation was rooted in the Methodism which gave rise to the Labour party, and which it is now so comprehensively betraying.

For it is licensing, legitimising and promoting behaviour considered socially harmful while actively attacking married family life, the premier institution of social order. This onslaught on the family is far broader than the obsession with domestic violence, or the rigging of rape trials by weighting the burden of proof against the defendant to get more convictions.

It has used the welfare system to redefine the family as woman and child with a man as an optional extra. It undermines parental authority by providing contraceptives and abortions to under-age girls without their parents’ knowledge. And it is using the gay rights agenda to spearhead the movement to give equal rights and recognition to sexual relationships outside marriage and destroy altogether the very idea of norms of behaviour.

This is no accident. It is because ministers - many of whom have never grown out of their sixties attitudes - have absorbed the revolutionary philosophy of that decade first promoted by the Italian communist thinker Antonio Gramsci. He said that the liberal-democratic societies of the west could be overturned through the subversion of their morality and culture, in which the moral beliefs of the majority would be replaced by the free-for-all practised by all those who transgressed those norms.

These would form a ‘coalition of oppositional groups’ which would capture all society’s institutions - schools, universities, churches, the media, the legal profession, the police, voluntary groups -and make sure that this intellectual elite all sang from the same subversive hymn-sheet.

These ideas penetrated intellectual life and shaped a generation of thinkers.The outcome was an assault on morality through a coalition of minorities promoting ‘victim culture’ in which minority demands trump majority values; an assault on the nation through multiculturalism and the wrecking of education; an assault on men and marriage through extreme feminism.

It was a process once memorably dubbed by the American senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as ‘defining deviancy down’. Whereas previously there was intolerance of unmarried mothers or homosexuality and stigma over divorce, there is now ruthless enforcement of the doctrine that all lifestyles are morally equivalent and intolerance instead of anyone who objects.

The obsession in government with ‘equal opportunities’ -which radiates outwards to other establishment institutions like the police or judiciary - is in reality an agenda to enforce minority values over those of the majority and pillory anyone who dissents.

And dissent is stamped upon - not least because, when deviant behaviour becomes viewed as normal, normal behaviour inevitably becomes treated as deviant. So, for example, sexual encounters where a woman may have second thoughts afterwards is suddenly defined as ‘date rape’. And the traditional family, that bastion of security and safety, becomes stigmatised instead as a fetid stew of child abuse, marital rape and violence against women.

As a result of decades of propaganda, intimidation and spinelessness, the ‘long march through the institutions’ urged by revolutionary thinkers has been achieved. The evidence is on display all around us: academics producing crooked research projects, zealot feminist civil servants in the Home Office, or judges whose hearts bleed for burglars rather than their victims and permit the demands of gypsies to ride roughshod over the planning laws that bind the rest of us.

Wittingly or unwittingly, such people are helping promote an agenda for legislating against virtue and in favour of vice; against self-restraint and for irregularity; against domestic order and for disorder. It is a corruption of our traditional values. The demonising of men as potential rapists, child abusers and woman-beaters is a crucial part of that agenda, and the lamentable questioning of pregnant women but its latest manifestation.

There is no doubt in this writer's mind that the UK Government is actively participating in a calamitous and treacherous game of `Hegelian Dialectics` with the lives of it's own citizens and the security and well being of the whole nation. More simply put, create the problem, incite the reaction, impose the solution, and their solution always seems to include elements which erode more of our ancient rights and personal freedoms, and increases government control over our lives. The unfathomable chaos, injustice and the rapid retreat from reason we see everywhere, and which has resulted in the bewilderment and demoralisation of a whole nation has been planned and orchestrated during top secret meetings held under `Chatham House` rules and in the Masonic Lodges from whence came the motto `Order Out Of Chaos`.

Ref: Melanie Phillips : All Must Have Prizes.

Problem Reaction Solution is a term coined by David Icke.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html What is the Hegelian Dialectic by Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml The Frankfurt School
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/ The Royal Institute For International Affairs.

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.

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

Britain Is Sliding Into Fascism.

By Philip Jones January 16th 2008.












Britain is sliding inexorably into Fascism. Of this there can be no doubt. The `land of my father's`, seems today like a foreign country to me . The once friendly `Bobby on the beat` is no more to be seen. In his place are legions of surveillance cameras, many fitted with loudspeakers to terrorize and shame pedestrians and shoppers publicly into abject conformity.

Around the `Mother Of Parliaments`, an area of one square kilometre has been declared a `no protest zone`. This would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Is this really the country of Byron, Shakespeare, Bronte and Charles Dickens ?

I was a teenager in South Wales back in the seventies, when `Coal was King` and Steel it's consort. All our men folk were either Miners or Steelworkers. The family unit was very tight, and communities helped each in good times and bad. The only `surveillance` was Sgt. Evans, our local Cop. Thirty eight years on, I still remember him, as being somehow always there, and usually friendly and helpful, yet with an air of authority and decency sadly lacking in today's Officers.

That country is gone `with the wind` one might say. In it's place is a far more ominous, impersonal `State` where the `regime` has become all powerful and intrusive. I was a Police Officer for fifteen years. I carried no Gun, no Taser, no Pepper Spray and wore no Body Armour. My only protection was a short piece of wood, and my wits.

Britain's Police `Service` has become a politicized paramilitary arm of of the state. They can `gun down` innocent people (as in John Menezes), shoot them eight times in the head at point blank range and go unpunished. Unmanned `Drones` fly over the London skies with intrusive camera equipment and microwave weapons on board. Peaceful protesters are battered with `nightsticks`, and then arrested for their trouble. The ancient right of trial by jury is under constant attack, egged on by the `Code Napoleonists` in Brussels.

For most of my career, I watched successive governments do nothing as crime and disorder escalated out of control. Paedophiles, were allowed (perhaps encouraged) to prowl our land with apparent impunity and State sponsored anonymity. Traffic chaos, road rage, the break down of the family, `feral` children, football hooliganism. All out of control. Why did government stand idly by and pay only lip service to `law and order`.

The Masonic Motto is , "Out of Chaos comes order." In other words, create the problem incite the reaction, then offer your solution. One of Blair's solutions was the `Civil Contingencies Act of 2004. This is in spirit a direct descendent of the Nazi Enabling Act of 1936, and a first cousin to the `US Patriot Act`. In effect, it gives `the government` the power to declare a `state of emergency` and impose Martial Law. Of course, the Al Qaeda bogeyman has played it's part further justifying this `necessary restriction of liberties`.

It was only the first of other tyrannical statutes to be introduced subsequently in order `To protect the people.`

Surveillance Cameras, Drones in the sky, Bio ID Cards, `Tooled Up` Police on the Streets, no protest zones, free speech zones, intrusive and invasive Council Tax Inspectors.

It is hard to fathom how this could have happened to that country I loved so much in only half a lifetime. It was Huey long who said:

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of Anti Fascism."

Well Fascism came to Britain in 1997 in the guise of a liberal left wing government, led by a `liberal``child of the sixties` Mr `Phoney` Blair.

My late father fought with Montgomery during WWII. He was a damaged man when he came home, and never realised his own potential. That can be said of a generation of British men who went to war to `fight for freedom`. What a betrayal of millions of lives.

I moved to live in Denmark in 1996, one year prior to the New Labour `coup d'etat` but in truth, in my heart, I never left Britain, it left me and all my generation. Blair's `Cool Britannia` was and is something very different. A nation of TV addicts, sports crazies and hedonists, mixed into a cocktail with multiculturalism, anti social behaviour and ruthlessness.

This essay could be entitled `Problem Reaction Solution versus The Hidden Threat`. Here in Denmark, things are done differently. It is my thesis that the Utopian Danish Social State is actually something other from that which on face value at least, it appears to be. Denmark is not about Welfare, nor has it ever been. Welfare was the `Carrot` and now `the Stick` is being used to beat the Danish people down economically, having installed over five decades, deep within their national character, a complete dependency on the State apparatus.

The nearest example to this is Huxley's nightmare novel, `Brave New World`. Denmark' apparent prosperity, comprehensive social welfare, and corporate efficiency, are I would suggest products not of enlightenment, but of a profound insecurity and uniformity in the Danish character. The political system here, has not only successfully undermined the role of the Danish Parliament and substituted a vast bureaucracy that has contrived a firm pact between labour and the establishment, it has also presided over a process by which the Dane has become the obedient and malleable item in a `town planners` or sociologist's dream.

A friend, the Danish Political Commentator Kjeld Heising (www.heising.dk) (site is unfortunately closed down) wrote recently on the Danish condition:

"Danes live within narrow margins. Inside these margins, we can live normally, as part of the labour force, as consumers and as members of a `thought community`. Outside of this is a steep slope to poverty, social isolation and deroute. The slope is vertical, there are no `in betweens`. Constants heaps of legislation ensure that no Dane understands his conditions and therefore no Dane can operate in them. Consequently, the middle class Dane lives under a constant threat of bills, fines, penalties, duties, charges, fees, loss of income and esteem. These `narrow margins` ensure that even minor sanctions can tip the scales. That's why he can be controlled with a smile, a raised finger and a subtle reminder of small sanctions. A `Silent Threat`."

For the moment, there seems no reason for the more obvious, draconian and overt measures here in Denmark that we see being put in place across the North Sea. The `Silent threat` is enough for the present. The incessant economic turning of the screw is doing its job well enough for now. But, I just wonder how many turns are left before Danes wake up and `smell the coffee` or should I say `Kaffe`.

PS. The book `The New Totalitarians` by Roland Huntford written in the 1970's was an ominously correct analysis of the Swedish Social Model. Denmark, Sweden, potato, potaato. It's well worth a read.

Mathematics : The Final Frontier In The Feminist War Against Boys: Part One.

By Philip Jones 26th July 2008.

Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests."

This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking "What is the `Femi` Brigade's` Endgame?" Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?

Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let's examine this business with maths and education more closely. As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.

In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject. They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.

Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.

The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and increasingly degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.Boys tend to like ’sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds.Nor is it surprising that girls are taking more exams than boys. For the curriculum has expanded in ways that suit girls rather than boys, with a proliferation of discursive, ’soft’ subjects like general studies, sociology or drama.

The evidence suggests that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research has found that girls gain more satisfaction than boys from understanding the work they are doing. Boys are more ‘ego-related’, gaining more satisfaction from competing with each other.

Nevertheless, education policy denies such differences and imposes instead an agenda of ‘equality’. For at least twenty years, feminist teachers have made a determined attempt to change a school system they held to be hostile to girls. The assumption was that since boys tended to opt for science, maths and technology and girls for languages, humanities and domestic science, this proved discrimination against girls.

It never occurred to them that this pattern had evolved because each sex naturally gravitated towards these subjects. The view was that boys and girls were identical, and these differences therefore had to be corrected. The result was active discrimination against boys. As James Tooley comments in his book, the Mis-education of Women, girls began to be privileged over boys at school. Teachers gave priority to girls in classroom discussions, playground space and sporting fixtures.

The ‘masculine content and orientation’ of textbooks, topics and tests was obliterated in favour of female references; teachers were forbidden to use ’sexist’ language; and male teachers’ bonding with boys through jokes or shared allusions to football had to be reprogrammed out of the system.

During the 1980s, moreover, one project followed another to get girls into studying maths, science and technology.But it wasn’t sexism that was keeping girls away from such subjects - it was their choice. For time and again it has been shown that wherever they have the opportunity, boys gravitate naturally to mechanical sciences and girls to discursive or domestic subjects.

Clearly, if any prejudice existed it would be right to address it. But this was not prejudice. It was rather that boys and girls behaved in different ways. This was never an issue in single sex schools. But once co-educational schools became the norm, the differences became striking - and feminism assumed that to be different meant inferiority and discrimination.This was not only wrong in itself. It was also disastrous for boys. For rather than men being masters of the universe as feminists contend, their sense of what they are is fragile. Unless their particular male characteristics are acknowledged and supported, they start sliding downhill and some go off the rails altogether.

In school, boys find girls intrinsically threatening, a fact generally masked at the top of the ability range but in often violent evidence at the bottom. Girls mature earlier than boys, so unless boys are exceptionally able they tend to be outclassed by girls. And if they don’t dominate, they tend to give up or drop out.

Because doing well in school involves no manual or physical activity but requires instead sitting quietly, reading and writing, the most vulnerable boys view learning as feminine and `uncool`. And being feminine is their deepest dread.

This is because men’s sense of their masculinity is far more vulnerable than women’s sense of their femininity. Biology reminds girls what they are every month. Boys, by contrast, need to prove their identity and role, particularly among those with poor prospects and few confidence-boosting attributes.

But rather than celebrating male characteristics, society tells boys at every turn that its values have turned female, and that if boys want any place in it they must do so too.Thus, male characteristics are derided. Warfare is said to be obscene. Authority is oppressive. Chivalry is a joke. Competition creates losers - taboo in education, where everyone must be a winner. Stoicism is despised; instead, tears must flow and hearts be worn on sleeves at all times.Men, however, define masculinity by being different from women. So this unisex culture has resulted in two things. More men are driven into stereotypical macho behaviour to prove their masculinity. And they simply withdraw from any sphere which becomes identified with women.

Because girls’ success is now such a regular feature of the league table carnival, disadvantaged boys identify school failure with being macho and worthwhile. So more give up or drop out.It is not good for either sex to be placed at a disadvantage by the other. The aim must be to make opportunity as fair as possible. But that cannot be done by confusing equality of opportunity with identical experience, the fundamental error of our age.Boys and girls are different. It would be far better if they were educated in single-sex schools. Neither sex is well served by co-education. Neither sex benefits from coercion by the educational gender police.

Many girls resent the pressure to do science subjects. Feminists fear that if girls don’t study science in the same number as boys, they won’t have the same career opportunities later on. But girls make different choices from boys because they have different impulses and interests and calculate their life prospects very differently.

This is not an argument against girls studying engineering, or women becoming train drivers or particle physicists. It is rather that the system has become unfair and discriminatory against boys - the outcome of a philosophy that, despite its feminist credentials, does not allow girls the freedom to make their own choices, for fear that the dogma of unisex behaviour will be exposed once and for all as a big lie.

In conclusion, I would suggest that this superficial levelling of the Mathematics `playing field` has long been considered one of the goals in the endless march towards that miserable, androgynous Utopia so longed for by the Freidans, Sontags, and Gurley Browns. I would also suggest that in reality, the Exam Results are in many cases more to do with politically motivated marking and preferential treatment, rather than any increase in the aptitude of girls in the field of Calculus, Geometry et al.

Ref: All Must Have Prizes by Melanie Phillips

Sodom And Denmark!

Danes Told Anal Sex 'Healthy' For Men!

By Philip Jones - 4/7-2008.

The `Ekstra Bladet,` a daily `News` Paper here in Denmark ran an article in Sundays edition entitled 'Anal Sex is healthy for men.' The author, a Danish `Sexologist` Mr Robert Lubarski, writes that `men should surrender themselves to their sexuality, and that it was time that the social spotlight was shone on the `Male Orgasm.` He continues that 'Men who allow the accepted male role to dictate their habits in the bedroom are negatively affecting themselves' and that some men who have experienced Anal Sex worry that they might be Homosexual (a fair bet I think).

He is concerned that today's man focus's too much on what he believes is his expected part to play sexually, instead of simply enjoying himself. This self proclaimed Sexual Guru, has his wife to bugger him with a strap on dildo. He doesn't believe that a man who allows his girlfriend to sodomise him with said `strap on` is any less of a man, quite the contrary. He believes that if a woman is so repulsed by such a request from her `lover` that she leaves him, then she wasn't worthy of the man's affections anyway.

In the article, he recommends that all men experience the joys of Anal Sex, particularly the `receptacle` part in the `play`. According to Mr Lubarski, the Anus is a very important part of a man's sexuality, and likens it's sensitivity to a woman's clitoris. He advises that men `massage` their prostate gland through the Anus, and suggests that either the owner of the gland, or his girlfriend/wife might do so.

The `News` paper then smugly states that six months ago, in a `poll`, 60% of male readers stated they enjoyed anal stimulation, and 62% of female readers answered that they enjoyed giving their male partners the afore mentioned stimulation.

Zany, indeed! Of course, if a woman is `buggering` her man, thereby taking on the male role, then she effectively becomes the dominant partner. Don't tell me this `Freakzoid` Lubarski isn't aware of this fact. Feminism is the ultra poison of our age. So much of the evil flows from it, it is one the Illuminati's premier vehicles for dispersal, and this latest piece of bile, if adopted/accepted by all those idiot men who can't see the wood for the trees, will be the final nail in the coffin of male patriarchy, soundly hammered in.

This article was printed in a Daily, where children and teenagers would have had easy access to this poison. Danish society along with most others in Western Europe is so far past the point of no return now, that for any decent minded person, the situation is intolerable. How on earth are parents expected to raise their children to be adults with a sound moral base, in a society which openly promotes and flaunts perversion and degradation as being `healthy` practice ?