Those of us now fully mature can recall the great outcry against censorship and well publicized controversy over certain banned books, papers and films. In those days the self styled 'avant-garde' were on the march.
Many then thought the 'reformers' had a point; why should adult people suffer censorship?
So censorship was reduced to a meaningless level for adults and then, of course, children have rights too. Why should any one age group not see what is available to those a year older?
Why not? Well the strange thing about all this liberty is that the 'why not' is censored. While we were all so busy arguing the justice of censorship we failed to notice that while pornography and perversions were being made freely available to one and all, there was being put into place a huge black curtain that would restrict all factual exposure of the socialist/humanist takeover. Eventually this censorship would extend to censorship of history, social concepts, children's books of a wholesome nature, and, as they are now demanding in England, all literature older than ten years removed from school libraries. The under ten-year-old literature would, no doubt, have first to be approved by sex deviates, ghouls and rabid feminists. The liberation of pornography has resulted in the censorship of any writing that may expose the mental deformities porn may cause. The fact is that health and sickness cannot co-exist, whichever becomes dominant must seek to destroy the other.
Censorship; we never eliminated it, we only removed it from the vile literature and handed its enforcement to the villain.
The trouble is that our culture no longer gives us any realistic education in the elements of social order; were this not so we would all appreciate that there can be no freedom without restraint. A social system of total freedom would produce something worse than the situation in Lebanon. We would be free to live in fear and not free to achieve much beyond, with luck, survival.
Many years ago I was told that the first king to organize rules of the road was abused for interfering with civil liberties. Today the most illogical person can surely see that we could not live in a modern culture without organized restraint on road use.
It is a law of life that increased freedom to create goes hand in hand with increased restraints on lesser freedoms. Censorship is a fact of nature! If we do not censor what is evil and destructive then what is evil and destructive will censor that which is good.
So the question now must be: "What is wrong with promiscuity?" If we cannot give a reasonable answer to that question then it hardly matters about the more extreme sexual distortions.
Although this is a very basic question it would surprise no one if a competition to find the best answer failed to produce a reasonable explanation. Unless you consider religious conviction a reasonable explanation who has ever heard a reasonable explanation? Nevertheless there is a reasonable and simple explanation.
The reason why promiscuity and advanced human culture do not mix is because sex is a very conditionable activity. If people are conditioned to learn sex by homosexual practice then many will become homosexual because that is what their subconscious and conscious minds associate with the pleasure of sex. If adolescents become conditioned to promiscuity, then they will accept promiscuity as being in the nature of sexual pleasure.
Once conditioned to promiscuity, a lasting family union becomes almost impossible. Without family stability there comes into being a large percentage of broken homes and a large percentage of maladjusted children. Culture becomes inefficient and the result is a breakdown of social order.
There is a very simple cause and effect relationship between sexual morality and a happy human culture and between promiscuity and violence.
From Law, Light, and Liberty by John Court we obtain the following quotes, the first by J.D. Unwin, anthropologist and author of Sex & Culture:
"Every civilization is established and consolidated by observing a strict sexual moral code, is maintained while this strict code is kept .. and decays when sexual license is allowed.."
Aldous Huxley described Unwin's book as of high importance, saying:
"The evidence for these conclusions is so full, that it is difficult to see how they can be rejected."
Professor Pitrim Sorokin noticed striking parallels in America to what he had seen around the time of the Russian Revolution. Russian leaders made every attempt to destroy morality and the family during the early stages of the revolution and that culture was quickly brought to depths of degradation worse than is now common in the West.
The results were said to be so disastrous that this attitude was declared counter-revolutionary and chastity became the order of the day.
Was that 'experiment' a failure? Hardly! To firmly establish the new socialist state the old had first to be destroyed and, as it did not then suit them to kill everyone, they had to engineer a moral collapse to break down the existing social structure before imposing the new social structure. Had they not done this there would have been a long series of rebellions which would have kept the nation de-stabilized.
It is significant that John Dewey went to Russia in 1921 to be involved in education. Having witnessed a first hand demonstration of the effect of immorality on culture it would seem that he was ready to play a leading role in the subversion of Western education.
Those in control were not ignorant. Obviously our own leaders today are not ignorant of principles well established and recorded in our own literature. These things are known, are established, and have been known for many generations.
When promiscuity is introduced to a culture without resistance from leaders, it is deliberate. The purpose is to break down the existing culture so that it may be reorganized or destroyed.
Promiscuity breaks up family relationships, but that is not the end of it. Despite what feminists promote, the sexes are not equal; this is nowhere more significant than where it relates to sex itself. Why do you hear of very few heterosexual male prostitutes? Answer: for the very simple reason that normally the male of our species has a limited capacity for sex.
There are three quite basic points to take note of in relation to the sex war.
1. Male limitations; we are not herd creatures. A male normally gives something of himself. If he is overworked he becomes exhausted and frustrated. If he tries too hard for too long he may do himself harm and become, to varying degrees, impotent.
2. In nature we do not have a media constantly promoting sex but even ancient cultures failed under the impact of sexual license.
3. A female can perform as often as desired, neither enjoyment nor excitement is necessary; nothing need be given except availability. If social image demands frenzied activity she can please her ego to the limit of partners.
(NOTE: On ABC Radio (10/10/'85) a Doctor was heard to remark that impotence was rapidly spreading among younger men.)
So how do these different abilities, needs and responses affect the social situation when the social environment promotes an artificial stimulation to aggression and promiscuity most directly aimed at the female? As we may well imagine (and should know) the reversal of the sex roles has more than humorous consequences.
The very obvious first result of unlimited female availability meeting limited male capacity is that the youngest or the most attractive females will have a wonderful time but the majority, the older or the less attractive females, will have to do without or be forced to accept the more obnoxious males.
Unlike older females the older male has a lot going for him with the bright young female because it is in the nature of things that young females turn to mature males for security and comfort.
So far so bad. As the young woman is in nature the childbearer and homemaker, it is also in the nature of things that males of all ages prefer younger women.
Assuming a fairly extreme situation, soon something like half the females are getting little or no affection; but many young men are also not happy.
Men are not biologically or emotionally adjusted to coping with promoted sex; the most attractive young men are over-worked, arrogant and contemptuous all at the same time; while the less attractive may be even more annoyed to find themselves coming third to older men.
So young men quickly come to despise the female and, rather than accept her easy availability, may prefer to satisfy their desire by force; in this way they again become master of the situation. It is not surprising that rape today has become so common that it is rarely reported. Many young men now see the female as a public convenience even though they may adopt the approved attitude in public.
But cut through the artificial stimulation and the female nature craves security and respect. When she is ignored and then raped (which is now the fate of many) she becomes depressed and bitter, a radical feminist. There is a rapid build-up of both female-despising males and male- despising females.
As promiscuity continues, lasting relationships become almost impossible and violence becomes normal.
A timely item appeared in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph (18/8/1985). After years of promoting the 'sexual equality myth' an English school teacher "was shocked" by answers given by a class of 14/15 year-old pupils to the question, What is a woman?
Among printable responses were: "an object of ridicule", "a thing to use in cleaning away the empty beer cans", "scum that paints her face", "a thing to kick when you are drunk", "a moaner, a slave".
The boys maintained that these were "genuine opinions" and "reasonable points for discussion". The teacher said: They honestly thought this was a true assessment. I don't know what to do about it.
This is a school of some 500 pupils in the English West Midlands which follows the now common 'mixed sex' attitude where girls take part in things like carpentry/engineering and boys cooking/needle-work. The teacher also says of them: "These are not unpleasant children. They're clean, nice, sensible ... and what is more they are the brighter ones in their age group."
In natural circumstance a war between the sexes can only end in one way; when it comes to brute force the male has all the advantage. Brute force means just that. Given a generation of broken families and confused/undisciplined children it is going to end in a very brutal way if left to nature.
But our present social disruption is not a natural breakdown, it is artificially contrived. Therefore nature will not be allowed time to work through to its normal corrective mechanism.
Organization cannot be taken out of harmony. Sexual responsibility goes hand in hand with social order.
Humanity cannot achieve a high degree of social order unless there is a high degree of personal responsibility.
We could not have advanced to our present level of social organization without the family security made possible by a large body of people accepting Christian ethics.
It is no coincidence that the breakdown of the family comes soon after the breakdown of Christian sexual morality. Likewise it is no coincidence that social disintegration follows hard on the heels of family disintegration.
Family disintegration follows naturally when sexual license and false social concepts are introduced to education and promoted in the general social environment. In this orchestrated scheme of war each corrosive process is planned.
Social disharmony, economic instability and misgovernment - this increasing breakdown will, if we allow it, end in such massive extermination of life as the world has never known.
Let us return to that earlier mentioned thesis of Ms. Sargeant as reported by Dan O'Donnell. She says:
".. human sexuality is education in the skills of relationships and should be viewed as much a right as is skill in one's own language ..
".. such education is not exclusive to school education, but should be seen as a life-long process. To enable such a process will require competent educators in human sexuality who may practice in diverse occupations so contributing to the skills ... among people who are their students, their patients or their clients." (Emphasis added).
Students, patients, clients! Apparently she imagines that the old handshake or pat on the back will be replaced by sex. Such are the dreams of delusion.
For a generation or so a significant percentage of irresponsibles can live on the energies stored by past generations, but reserves soon become exhausted and the sins of those who live on others have to be paid for.
We see in operation a self-serving social cancer which (in its lower order) is too adolescent to appreciate that it can only continue to exist so long as the body it lives off remains healthy enough to support it.
We do not have to look far to find a massive array of literature produced by a multitude of groups such as:
N.S.W. Drug and Alcohol Authority.
Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol.
Health Education Unit (CAE).
Health Education Centre (STC)
Personal Development Unit; Etc etc.
There are literally dozens of 'authorities', 'units', 'studies', 'assessment teams', 'committees', all being paid for by you and me through taxes. Teams of young, unworldly and poorly educated people who have 'learned' only one thing during their years of schooling; the belief that their 'opinion' is valuable. If you bother to read some of this junk (and it is certainly deserving of no more flattering term) you will find they are all searching, and offering advice to themselves, on how to solve the problems of others.
They do not hesitate to inflict their wild guesses and do-gooding philosophy on the children and on the community; posing as unchallengeable authorities they demand legal protection for their egocentric dreams.
And what problems do they set themselves to solve? Why, every problem there is of course. They have to teach children how to be assertive; meek; forgiving; uncompromised by peer group pressure; to accept consensus; to make rational judgments; to ignore the lessons of history; to be kind to each other; to disregard the advice of parents; to be social animals; to reject authority (except that of their teachers); and so on, contradictions ad-infinitum.
This reveals the philosophy accepted by those too young and unworldly to evaluate philosophy. They accept a philosophy that insists a child is, if not a blank slate, then at least a slate that can be cleared and have the perfect formula for living imprinted.
These people are so innocent of reality that they don't even understand that they are not unique, that their good intentions alone, will not create the perfect instruction. They do not appreciate that in this cheap philosophy they deny thousands of years of human experience gathered by millions of people quite as clever as themselves.
They try to clean the slate of hard-won human experience and to replace the message of experience with ideology. They do not see that they themselves have had to be directed to do this by 'authorities' who are well aware of what the result will be.
Better Teacher Training - For What?
We don't really believe that someone wants us dead? We want to believe that educators are devoted to children not ideology. We like to think that, as there has never been so much money spent on education, well trained teachers must teach legitimate subjects and are not trying to re-create humanity. Let us keep alert:
Sydney Teachers College, Health Education Centre. Drug Education Strategies for schools and the Community. Page 15, Strategy six - values clarification - rank order.
Objectives:
(1) To provide the opportunity for participants to distinguish between a variety of situations which may apply to them at some stage during their lives. (E.A.)
(2) To give the participants practice in choosing among alternatives.
(3) To allow participants the opportunity to publicly affirm and explain their choices, as well as being able to defend the choice if necessary.
(4) To demonstrate that many issues require more thoughtful consideration than we tend to give them.
Teacher issues hand-out to participants containing rank order questions and explains that some questions will require them to look deeply into themselves and make a judgment.
Stress that participants must rank all the alternatives, not just their first choices, from:
1. feelings most strong 2. feelings least strong. ........"
And so on. Now this seems to be a typical 'values clarification' paper. From it we see that the first three 'objectives' are both trivial and futile, and should not need instruction except for severely handicapped children.
The 4th, we may assume, is something of which any competent teacher would remind pupils in the normal course of events.
But then we have detailed instructions to the teacher as to how to conduct the lesson, so obviously the teacher knows little about conducting a class. It is common with these 'education' papers for the teacher to be instructed to hand-out various materials such as paper, felt pens, etc.
So we see the immediate problem that arises when people start trying to control every detail of behaviour. Children lose confidence in their own judgment and have to be treated like retarded children, and the more detail given about expected attitudes and behaviour the more has to be given. This carries through to adulthood.
People treated like little computers become like little computers; or, as they say, "garbage in, garbage out".
The programmed teachers are blind to the futility of their teachings and the disastrous results.
They teach 'values-clarification' so that children will have an open attitude to promiscuity and abnormal sex. As a result we have a vast increase in promiscuity and abnormal sex. The cost in broken homes and community hand-outs is huge.
They teach 'sex education' to prevent unwanted pregnancies. As a result legalized abortion has to be introduced to try to control the vast increase in unwanted pregnancies. The cost to the girls and to the community is huge.
They teach 'sex education' to prevent venereal disease. So sex-related disease is now the greatest disease threat facing our culture and people. The cost in health services and community support is already huge.
(Note: Federal Health Minister, Neal Blewett, stated (23/5/'85) that the direct community cost for each AIDS patient was $40,000 (looks a very conservative estimate now). As AIDS (last report) has an incubation period of up to 14 years, there may be thousands of people already infected. Will the community be able to meet the cost of homosexuality and promiscuity even if that cost is measured in direct medical costs alone? What will 'value free' sex education eventually cost?)
They teach that sexual immorality is 'a victimless crime' but now the cost in human life is likely to be uncountable.
Sex education in its present form is an immense evil. Those behind it use it as an aid to genocide. While they condemn the effects they promote the cause.
TV and media present the horror of pedophilia but, as disclosed in How to Avoid the LOOMING CATASTROPHE the political feminists, with the blessing of educators and education departments, support pedophilia. Here are the closing words from an article written by a feminist, Gillian Leahy, in support of a pedophile. It was printed in the feminist Girls Own and distributors include the Sydney University Co- op Bookshop and Teachers' Federation:
"We can't let Emu become a scapegoat for us all .. I don't think Emu deserves to go to gaol. He probably deserves a medal for bravery from the sexual liberation movement. .. I think we should support him because I see this attack on political pedophiles speaking openly as an attack on all of us concerned with sexual liberation .."
There is no doubt about where the political feminists stand but still we see feminists of the 'Humanist/socialist' cliche campaign to expose increasing incest as an evil of family life. Strange! Because, if we look at it from their point of view, then incest is an appealing example of sexual liberation. If children need be encouraged to express their sexuality and actually be taught the act itself by educators as Ms. Sargent suggests, then who has a better right to teach their children than their parents?
So when the man who loves his little daughter is told that she needs to express her sexuality and he sees that whatever his objections she is going to be liberated by pigs who only want to use her for their pleasure, then he must be tempted to attend to her education himself.
Incest is on the increase. However those who encourage incest use the effect of their efforts to abuse the family. This is because they want to destroy the family which is a hindrance to their efforts to gain total control of children. To them child sex is good, teacher child sex is good, pedophilia is good. Good for those who want enslavement, especially if the unfortunate results can be blamed on the family.
A massive campaign, overflowing from the U.S.A., is promoted as having the purpose of making young children aware of sexual abuse in the family. However it should be understood that increasing sexual abuse is a product of the 'sex revolution'. Promotion of contempt for parents and promotion of fears that affectionate handling is a preliminary to rape are all very logical steps toward breaking up family relationships. We may note that this comes after a generation during which 'LOVE' was promoted as being the main item of good parenting.
Sex education of under-age children is a rape of the mind. When children are of an age when they should be gaining real life experience and learning to distinguish right from wrong, they are being sidetracked into sexuality, sex preoccupation, sexual fears and sexual confusion. They are being mentally raped and their natural development deformed. Vile people have been with us for a long time as Sir James Elyot expressed it way back in 1531 (Modern presentation):
"Truly I do suppose that in the brains and hearts of children, while their spiritual nature is tender, and the little germ of reason beginning in them to bud, there may happen by evil custom some pestilent dew of vice to penetrate the said members and infect and corrupt the soft and tender bodies."
We have seen a sample of 'desired education legislation' from Queensland; we have seen a sample (N.S.W.) of how community organizations are taken over and used to support the suspect drug and sex education organized by government departments of health and education as required by United Nations agreements. Let us now look at what is actually happening in the name of sex education in some Victorian Schools.
To give a full report would take too much space but enough can be set down to expose that unnatural and promiscuous relations are promoted. Questions asked of the children include: "How do homosexuals make love? Explain." "How do transvestites find their sexual pleasure?"
News Weekly (7/8/'85): Year nine students at Ferntree Gully High ... are being given a comprehensive introduction to 'value free' sexuality ... including oral sex and homosexuality.
One point at issue was the use of a book called Our Bodies, Ourselves. The Mail-Times mentions that it has a copy of this book and other material and says of it:
"The words, the terms, the expressions and explicit sexual language could not be used in a newspaper.
Why are they allowed in the teaching of immature students?
This was the question posed at Tuesday night's Murtoa meeting by the speaker, Mr. Neil Dewan. ..
"Mr.Dewan said the social biology resource centre at Melbourne University had courses for teachers who wished to teach human relations in schools."
[The director of that centre .. Delys Sargent.]
"Thousands of university students went through the course. Last year the centre was moved out of the university to Carlton, and was registered as a community health service and funded by the Health Department."
Again we come across that same combination of Education and Health departments dispensing a sick pornography. It is also revealed that the department (as is usual) claims the process of consultation is 'democratic'. Mr. Dewan claims that the facts do not support that contention, he also warns:
"Dr. Laurie Shears, Director-General of Education, had sent a circular to all school principals in May, saying that all discrimination based on sex was to be eliminated.
"If that is put into effect, you can get rid of the Bible, Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw and all the great authors ..
"What would you think of a passage which says that no harm can come if a girl has intercourse with an animal because she can't get pregnant? ..
"He added that the Assistant Minister of Education, Mr. Lacy, has said the courses were in the schools and would stay there."
Editorial The Mail-Times (6/8/1980):
".. we can understand the feelings of anyone who, in the proper circumstances, calls for the resignation of the responsible Minister. He has much for which to answer if such material remains on the list of teaching 'aids' to be plucked from a shelf at will for the purpose of poisoning young minds."
Letters (22/8/1980) Norman Lacy M.P.:
"I cannot believe that anyone .. in attendance at the Geelong meeting could have left under the impression that I had made any defense of "the sordid sex section of Health and Human Relations education."
Editor's reply:
"The main point of the editorial was that questionable material was on the list available to teachers. Mr. Lacy has not answered the question of how this filth was approved as resource material .."
From E.J. Wright letter:
"But I think a lot of parents would not understand what the proposed course, Health and Human Relations, is all about and would tend to pass it over. ..
"A typical course covers in detail, not only such aspects as intercourse, menstruation, pregnancy, contraception and abortion, but also homosexuality, lesbianism and masturbation.
"As an introduction to such a course, children 14 years and younger were told, as a class exercise, to write down as many terms they know for intercourse and the male and female genital organs. These lists were either passed around the class or read out loud. ..
".. When all these varied expressions of sexuality are proposed to the child in the classroom, not only as equally normal, but as equal 'options', what is involved is obviously not a lesson in biology but instruction in morality."
To be more realistic let's make that, 'instruction in IM-morality'.
Letters (12/9/1980) Rev. James H. Treloar:
"How many parents know that sexual intercourse was physically demonstrated in a Victorian classroom between a male student and a female teacher in the presence of a class. This can be vouched for by an impeccable member of the Education Department...
"How many parents know that the course suggests there is nothing wrong in some form of sex with animals?"
Some examples of the devious and mischievous reasoning contained in sex education classes were given by Mark Adams who pointed to these questions; Colac Herald:
"Does condemnation of homosexuality suggest unsolved sexual problems amongst those who condemn?
"It isn't what you do sexually that matters, as long as you're not hurting someone else." [victimless crime]
Colac Herald (22/9/1980). Part of an article on an address given by the Rev. John Cromarty at a meeting called by the Geelong-based Concerned Parents Association:
"We are face to face with an alarming state of affairs and one of the explanations for this is that the majority of parents have .. failed miserably in being parents.
"There has been an indifference, an apathy towards the method and content of education ..
"When did you last read the textbooks recommended for your child's education?
"The Rev. Cromarty also made the rather interesting remark that sex education was based on two premises, both false: 'if you give children explicit information about sex they would not use it, and if you gave them information about contraception, they would use it'.
"We live in a hypocritical society, which on the one hand deplores teenage pregnancies, illegitimate births and venereal disease, but which on the other hand permits and even promotes explicit and deviant sex in films, books, magazines and schools."
These extremes show clearly where they are taking our children but the greater danger to the child is the more reasonable teacher who, while not insulting the common sense of anyone, lays the groundwork and prepares the way so that these extremes will become acceptable to students as they mature. Every classroom in Australia is not yet teaching these subjects in the most obnoxious way, but that is the aim. The complete degradation of children is the aim and the ideal of humanist based education as planned for imposition on the Christian democracies under the direction of United Nations authority.
Nor will this be presented in the old classroom atmosphere that mature readers may recall from their own schooldays. Education has become indoctrination and is now a science that is turning to 'relaxation', 'imagery', 'suggestology-hypnosis', 'values clarification', 'role playing' and 'meditation' as part of its armoury for prising the resistance off the minds of the innocent.
ALERT gives the following run down of the general concept of change agent methodology:
"The process of sensitizing a child involves three steps. UNFREEZING his values and standards, CHANGING the child by giving him different standards and a different conception of who he is, and thirdly, REFREEZING, to lock the child into the new self. He is then supposed to be a self-actualizing person. After the re-freezing is accomplished, it is impossible for the child to communicate with the conventional person ... he operates on a different wave length, and though in conversation he will use the same words he formerly used, the meanings of those words to him will be entirely different from their meaning as understood by his parent ..."
We can try to defend ourselves against this attack on an item by item level and may have a victory in getting some heavy porn material out of the classroom in one term, but those who want to expose this material to children will find a way to introduce it under another title, or in another class, until such time as the resistance of caring parents becomes exhausted.
What they do is deliberate and so long as we give them the power to keep on doing it they are not going to stop merely because parents object, or because it is proven harmful. Parents have to get these people out of education and out of government. aonc05.htm