Chapter 2.

THE U.N.O. v The People (Part 1)

First Witness

Having looked at what they offer let us have a look at where they get it from! This report is based on a talk given by Robert Karolis to the Men's League of the Manly Presbyterian Church; it, along with the Pedophilia report, is a result of Robert's independent investigation. It is lightly edited for brevity and clarity and has attached information from The Proposed Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Final Document of Assembly Session on Disarmament 1978. (Emphasis added throughout as required.)

The U.N.O., Political Feminism and Human Rights

We all know of the existence of child molesters. Few parents, if any, fail to warn their young ones of the 'bad men' who like to interfere with children.

Well, it seems, if we are to gauge from the activities of our respected authorities, that our parents, and we, were wrong. Instead of guarding our children from the 'bad men' we should have been encouraging them, for the good of their 'potentiality', to experience and enjoy the advances of people who are really just 'love-lorn' pedophiles.

This perversion of common sense and decency has been gaining momentum and credibility—being used as it is for political purposes.

The filth littering pedophilia articles is not meant for us, our stance against adult/infant sexual relations goes without saying. So I'm not going to attempt to debate the morality question, to do so would be exactly what they want and we would miss the true purpose for the promotion of this sickness.

'Human Rights'

If we limit ourselves to attacking pedophilia as the issue itself, we will lose in the same way that intelligence, rationality, and humanity, lost to homosexuality, pornography and permissiveness.

I must hasten to point out an irony here. There are influential people in our society today (many of them paid by us)—politicians, public servants, intellectuals and academics—who will openly dispute that statement. They claim it is intelligent, rational and humane to promote what they classify as "basic human rights".

The 'right' to freely express and promote their deviant or anti-social preferences: homosexuality; pedophilia; bestiality. The 'right' of men, women, and children to have access to every form of pornographic perversion that "turns them on" [even at the cost of health or life itself. A.G.]. All these 'rights' have been, or are being, fought on the United Nations organizations' concept of 'human rights'. But, although these issues and many others like them were fought on the UNO concept of human rights, none were ever won in fair debate. In fact, none were ever won at all. They were simply forced on to an unsuspecting public by deceit, by deception and by defiance of majority will.

We have to wake-up to this situation. We need to recognize who is responsible. AND, we need to understand the reasons behind it if we are going to have any chance of preventing pedophilia (and worse) being added to our social sickness.

What's Happening? Who is Responsible, and Why?

Feminism is Used to Outlaw Legal Natural Families.

Let's consider some home truths and basic realities.

One hundred years ago the Australian family lived and functioned as a single autonomous unit in a society composed almost entirely of single autonomous units. The father was the head of the family, and with that authority he bore the responsibility of providing, maintaining, promoting and fighting for family welfare.

Today we have a totally different society.

The attack on the natural and legal family has been open, persistent and progressive. And whatever the political feminists demanded, the paganist, pseudo-intellectual, secular authorities granted. Political feminists now control twenty three federal government agencies, and scores of state government agencies.

Political feminists do not gain their victories because of justice or public demand. They are GIVEN their victories for a political purpose.

And What is that Purpose?

To oversee and promote the secret plan to make illegal the (until now) legally defended, natural family unit.

The family has been weakened by decades of indirect measures from the atheistic secular government authorities; measures deliberately designed to weaken the bonds of marriage. The changes have been many and varied, ranging from prejudicial tax rates to family law reforms. Today however, these indirect measures are being consolidated into policies that outlaw our traditional family concept. Our traditional family is now legally irrelevant.

Typical of the subversive tactics governments have used for decades, in 1978, with subdued fanfare but disastrous implications for all of us, a political feminist policy called 'non-sexism' was introduced into our schools. We now have an official Non-Sexist Unit operating under instruction from the Department of Education.

From the preamble Towards Non-Sexist Education the Director-General of Education, Mr. M.D. Swan, said:

"In February 1979 a Memorandum to Principals was issued making it mandatory for school staffs to move towards non-sexist education ..."

Now non-sexism may seem a reasonable proposition and given reasonable context could well be. BUT, let me read to you a few definitions of UNO inspired sexism:

McGraw Hill Book Company, the New York publishing house that supplies all our local feminists and education departments with their non-sexist inspiration, has this to say in its Guidelines For Equal Treatment Of The Sexes:

"In its original sense, sexism referred to prejudices against the female sex. In a broader sense, the term now indicates an arbitrary stereotyping of males and females on the basis of their gender."

From An Object Lesson in Women's History by Anne Summers, (feminist head of the Office of the Status of Women):

"This arbitrary categorization of individuals on the basis of their genital sex has been identified as sexism, ..."

Our Education Department:

"The main idea contained in these definitions is that sexism exists when, "Males and Females are assumed to be different (in their behaviour, attitudes, personality, status, etc.) and males and females are treated differently on the basis of their biological sex rather than on their individual differences. Stereotyping occurs." (Contemporary Issues No. 15. Dept. of Education.)

What they want to say, in diplomatic style, so as not to offend (awaken) us, is that the Christian patriarchal system, where the man is head of the family, is wrong. But they can't escape the consequences of the truth even in their own definitions, which say: if you are a woman and regarded as a woman that's sexism, and, if you are a man and regarded as a man that too is sexism. In other words: if males and females are assumed to be different—that's sexism and illegal.

What they did successfully with the term racism in regard to racial issues, they are doing successfully with the term sexism to every private, social and economic aspect of our lives. In co-ordination with the media and entertainment industries the term is being applied disparagingly to every legal, moral and ethical distinction to do with sex. They classify as 'discrimination against women' any distinction of difference between the sexes.

A Christian society does not discriminate against women. It discriminates in favour of the Christian family unit. This is something the general public has known and appreciated for nearly 2000 years and is something the pagan authorities are determined to destroy as quickly as they can.

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, the Non-Sexist Policy of 1978 and the Sex-Discrimination Act of 1984 are all introduced to enforce, not cater for but ENFORCE, a new social attitude. One that is based on the presumption that men and women [are not naturally different and] are free to choose their role in life. That there must not exist a social climate that encourages, what they call 'stereotyped' or 'traditional' roles. That all areas of society that assist or promote natural roles, be eliminated.

This is fully covered in Article 2, paragraph (f) of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Australia is a party to this convention, and Senator Susan Ryan's Sex-Discrimination Act is a result. The paragraph obligates ratifying countries to, "take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women."

Consequently all laws, regulations, customs or practices that support the natural family have to be abolished because, according to the official non-sexist policy, stereotyped i.e; natural family 'roles' are discriminatory against women.

The Christian family is outlawed. Illegal. So too is Christianity, the Holy Bible, you and I, because, through our beliefs and understandings, we are contravening sex discrimination laws.

Neither man nor woman chooses his duty within the Christian family (or in the natural world). They are defined through the natural laws of life, as the only possible way to develop a lasting, creative and intelligent civilization.

But we shall see that the authorities controlling the world want neither intelligence nor progress from the people they rule. We are a continuing and ever-increasing threat to their power; a threat they have to suppress.

State Wants Absolute Control of our Children.

As things stand today we can no longer legally defend our heritage. Officially we don't have it any more. It has been, through our own default, taken from us. We have been deceived by church and state alike into believing that we can neither change nor affect the course of destiny; that we are all either subordinate to a pre-ordained plan or are a meaningless result of chance evolutionary process. But while we have been taken in by this teaching, they have been busy doing what they teach us we cannot do—manipulating our destiny.

So today, at this grave stage of the atheist plan, many Christians find solace in the fact that they can still practice their faith and, if nowhere else, at least be of influence in the family. This failure to project our responsibility beyond the family has enabled the secular movement to gain control of the infrastructure in which we and our families live. They now have such control over us that they are in a position to prevent us effectively influencing our families.

They want control of our children and then all the responsibilities we parents cherish to perform as our God-given duty—education, moral guidance, ethics, purpose, values, religion etc.,—will be usurped by the State in the disguise of protecting what they call, 'children's rights'.

And that's what those wretched pedophilia articles are really all about. Do you suppose for a moment that when a cheap pervert, who gets his thrills molesting little children, mentions children's rights twice in the same article, he does so with a traditional family concept in mind? And then when he says in the same article, "The real abusers of children are heterosexual men, mostly fathers and brothers", that he is supporting the legitimate family?

Obviously not!

Now let's get one thing clear. Pedophilia, the term, is a euphemism for child molestation. The word is a derivative of two Greek words combined to mean, literally, 'child-friend'. It is used by them in an attempt to distinguish their activity from the criminal one of child molestation on the nonsense grounds that their perversion is with the consent of the unfortunate little victim.

Feminists - Stooges to the UNO.

In Leahy's article, Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolves (not included in this computer transcript of the book) you will notice repeated references to children's rights; repression of children's sexuality; power relations and law. One has to wonder what these references have to do with the perversions of a child molester, ostensibly the subject of the article. Clearly the article is a political statement to assist, as she says on page three, "the development of alternatives to the nuclear family".

The following introduction to a book review appeared in The Australian newspaper, (Monday October 31st, 1983) headed, "Violence That Shatters Even The Best Of Homes". I quote:

"While organized crime receives political attention, a more insidious crime wave continues within that most revered institution, the family: the beating and sexual assault of women and children by husbands and fathers. In the first of two articles based on her new book Jocelyne Scutt presents the disturbing findings of nationwide research into violence in the family."

The newspaper then goes on to fill half a page with a review of her book. This is the familiar feminist solution to a problem that they themselves were instrumental in causing—they create problems of morality and use them as excuse for enforcing humanist philosophy. She says:

"The crimes of child beating and sexual molestation of infants, young children and teenagers in the home could not take place if children were not seen as being owned by their parents, if their most suitable place of living was not seen as the family." [Presumably they would be safer in the care of pedophiles and zealots in a State institution? A.G.]

Political feminists make no attempt to suggest a return to family stability. That's not what the feminist movement is about. The objectives of the feminist movement are made abundantly clear throughout feminist material. Take for example, this extract from a summary of the political feminist program which was unanimously agreed to by the Third Congress of ANORG (Anarchist Federation of Norway) 1st-7th June 1982. "The traditional patriarchal nuclear family [must] be replaced by free association of men and women..." Or take this example from a letter of praise to Ms. Scutt that appeared in WEL-Informed, the monthly newsletter of the Women's Electoral Lobby:

"Our battle is indeed with the patriarchal power structure of our society.".

The general impression of a feminist is that of a woman lobbying for the 'good' of women. Not true! They are an unsavoury bunch of misguided people caught up in a movement that is far more powerful than even they imagine. They neither control its direction or purpose. The movement controls them. We can only presume they have not the intelligence to foresee the consequences of their actions. If they did they would know that, by playing into the hands of the small group of atheist international elite who control the financial systems of the world, they hasten not only our demise but their own as well.

U.N. Fosters the Renaissance of Paganism.

There is purpose in everything that is happening. The separation of church and state did not just happen. It was brought about by pagan authorities who ruled the world before and at the time of Christ, and have been re-establishing their power ever since Christ. The danger to them posed by the Revelation of Jesus was very real. Their strategy to re-establish control was to work within the religious power base that Christians were inspired to follow. From within they proceeded to lay the foundations for capturing all those who could not, or would not, accept the responsibilities of the new theistic religion.

By misrepresenting intelligence and rationality they demanded release from the constraints of religious dogma and doctrine.

The result was the emergence of the powerful secular movement to facilitate the re-establishment and expression of pagan religion.

It is little wonder that this period is heralded throughout the secular records of history as the Renaissance (literally: "re-birth")—the re-birth of pre-Christian paganism. And far from providing a non-religious forum for developing truth, secularism has been used for educating the people towards paganism and establishing all of paganism's many varied religions: nihilism, humanism, agnosticism, heathenism, secularism, existentialism, Marxism, socialism, etc., etc., but never, never, truth!

Understand this and then you will understand why all the pseudo-intellectuals that have been given prominence over the last 500 years by the establishment, from Erasmus to Karl Marx to Bob Hawke, have assisted the establishment of state supremacy over the people.

And you will also understand what the UNO means when it says:

"The roots of this concern [of the UNO] may be traced to the humanist traditions of the Renaissance, ... to the philosophical concepts of such men as John Lo of England, Jean Jacques Rousseau of France, Thomas Jefferson of the United States of America, Karl Marx of Germany, and V.I. Lenin of Russia, ..." (Quoted from the UNO book, United Nations and Human Rights 1978.)

They do make it quite clear which side they are on and what they are about.

The UNO - Secular Headquarters.

The UNO is the most powerful secular authority today; it is one hundred percent atheistic and was formed for the sole purpose of destroying and removing all traces of Christianity from the face of the earth. It is the culmination of unceasing efforts by the elitists to establish a world secular authority. Its power lies, not in its military might, but in its capacity as a 'world authority' to influence and promote atheism on all the unsuspecting citizens of countries whose governments ratify UNO international covenants and conventions.

So it is hardly surprising that, throughout the one hundred and eleven articles of the UN Charter, there is not a single mention of God or the Gospels.

Their gospel is: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From this flows every significant covenant and convention that their agent in Australia, the Australian Government, has signed to bring us under the jurisdiction of the UN's International Court of Justice.

I will elaborate on that last point about the Australian Government.

Our country has changed from a predominantly Christian nation 40 years ago to one of a confused mixture of Christian and atheist culture today.

It did not just happen. We have been betrayed. Deliberately betrayed by the pseudo-intellectual, trendy liberals and lefties who, for decades, have dominated the universities and from there the media, judiciary, government bureaucracy and parliament. These respected individuals of 'higher' learning (brainwashing) sold the Australian public out to a vision of the UNO's One World Government.

BUT at no time had they a mandate to form an unholy alliance with the UNO. The public, in their innocence, believed their elected governments were a democratic representation of the people, and because of that, failed to realize the sinister implications of the close affiliation between their elected representatives and the UNO. In any case few people were aware, 40 years ago, of the nature and purpose of the UNO, and not many more people realize it even today. It has obviously been in the interests of the establishment to keep us 'in the dark'.

The implications of all this are horrific. We, the citizens of this country, do not have a representative government.

Any Government, elected by Christian people, that joins the UNO and proceeds to sign and ratify every significant treaty, covenant and convention put out by that organization, and then passes legislation forcing its own people to submit to the policies of atheism/paganism, is not representative of the electorate.

Betrayed by our own Governments.

In Australia and all the free world, atheistic dictatorships are achieved, not by internal or external military takeover, but by subversion and default.

The party political system, federal and state elections and referenda, are all a charade to fool the people into believing that their vote counts. All our vote counts for is deciding which political party will be given the honour to serve the UNO. It was the Labor Party that ratified the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1975, and passed the Racial Discrimination Act immediately. This Act is now under review for amendments that will make it illegal for white Australians to defend their heritage from racist attacks.

The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women was signed by the Fraser Government and then ratified by the Hawke Government to bring it into law. Senator Susan Ryan's Sex Discrimination Act, that outlaws the natural family concept, was a direct result.

The two major covenants that embody the text of the atheistic gospel (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) namely, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, were both signed and ratified by the treacherous Fraser Liberal/National Party coalition government. Thanks to Malcolm for paving the way, Senator Gareth Evans of the Federal Labor Party was able to go ahead and bring forward a comprehensive set of laws based on atheism. However he was afraid to reveal his threatened 'Bill of Rights' before the '84 election. Apparently because these changes were going too far ahead of public opinion Evans was moved to a new post after the election.

[NOTE: The seeming random interchangeability of terms such as atheism, paganism, humanism, is not accidental. The first step to introducing a new 'god' is to dismiss the existing God by promoting atheism. Fabian policy is simply a hand-me-down of the ancient principle of the elite; i.e. ".. an outer worship effective but imperfect for the profane." The behaviour they now teach in the guise of atheism is various forms of paganism. This means that when they go to the third stage of introducing the new 'god' religion, appropriate behaviour will already be established.

Naturally this does not represent the true religion of the slavemasters themselves other than to reveal that their 'god' is anti-Christ. [A.G.] avoid15.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page