RAPE INTRIGUE AND THE WIDER WAR ON CULTURE

Preface

Rape activism is driven  by a rigid , dogmatic belief that there exists in society an “oppressive patriarchy”. Therefore, also, that this exercises “power and control” over women – clearly Marxist terminology – and, ludicrously, with virtually nothing to do with sex.

Nowadays this deeper pernicious influence behind rape activism is well camouflaged, and masquerades, publicly funded in our education system, under a respectable cloak as “rape prevention education”.

It is even applauded by our current and  previous Prime Ministers, John Key and Helen Clark respectively. It is  high time to shed some light on this thorny subject. Society in general, and our young people in particular, surely deserve nothing less.

Rape rumpus

In early November 2013 NZ became embroiled in a furore following the boasting by some male teenagers of having sex with drunk and underaged girls, and  naming them on social media. Public outrage erupted, to the extent of some talkback hosts – Willy Jackson and John Tamihere on Radio Live -  being  removed from the air for “ insensitive and inappropriate” interviewing of a young woman caller…Advertisers boycotted the station etc. Social media ran rampant.

The wave of outrage even reached Parliament, with Labour’s  Jacinda Adern reportedly asking  whether police questioning a rape complainant about her clothing at the time of an alleged rape would  imply that what the girl was wearing could influence the case. (1) Also, with the Police Minister being challenged over an apparent lack of police action in the matter.

Come November 16^th 2013, the culmination of feverish media coverage and social media planning resulted in countrywide “rape culture” protest rallies.(2) Numbers were apparently anybody’s guess; for Auckland it varied from “about 700” to “a crowd of about 1000”.(3) Even the Man Booker prize  winner Eleanor Catton had a say,  terming “disgusting” writer C.K Stead’s NZ Herald letter describing the furore as “an embarrassing delirium”! (4)

There were other curious and emotive reports  from the protest rallies, along with the highly predictable calls for more Rape Crisis funding. Feminist lawyer Catriona McLennan accused the police of “failing to keep women safe”, and at least twice on Radio NZ news came  the sly canard, conveniently without attribution : “members of the rally said  young people need to be told that it (rape)  is never the victim’s fault!” (5) A mistaken notion, of course, based as it is upon the false and absurd  assumption that “the patriarchy” causes rape.

Marxist front groups

Going back to 1979 we can at least trace how this came about. In the  9^th July 1979 issue of the    ( leftist, now defunct) Republican was a major article “Radical Feminism and the NZ Political Scene” by Christine Dann, now a senior Green Party staffer. She included Rape Crisis there among a host of racial, gender, and environmental activists as : “Anarchists…..and latterly their more Marxist libertarian socialist and anarcho-communist fellow leftists” etc. That, then, clearly identified Rape Crisis as being an ideologically driven Marxist front group and would serve to explain the distorted and warped anti social attitudes which it holds, as outlined below.

Firstly, there is a distinctly Marxist nature to the rape activism view of what constitutes rape,  seeing it as having little or nothing to do with sexual attraction, and virtually everything to do with power and control .(6) This interpretation, of course,  fits with the myopic feminist belief that “patriarchy” is to blame for all rapes.

Secondly, following that, according to rapethink, a woman/girl never, ever,  lies about rape. Then when, of course, one is discovered to have lied, perhaps after deep police probing, (which rapethink terms “blaming the victim”) a rape activist comes to her defence and seeks “help” instead of punishment for her.

Such was the case with Dr. Kim McGregor of Rape Prevention Education (RPE) and Rape Crisis in Rotorua in January 2009, when a teenager had lied about being dragged by three youths and sexually assaulted. (7) Moreover, that was the second such false accusation handled by Rotorua Police within two months. Extrapolating that out NZ wide could make for interesting reading.

Thirdly, if “patriarchy” was to blame for virtually all rapes, naturally  a rape victim’s   behaviour or mode of dress would never be able to have any bearing on her plight, but of course reality decrees that “patriarchy” does not cause rape; personal circumstances of each particular case do.Therefore, surely, this must be constantly examined, despite the intimidatory cries of “blaming the victim” from  rape activists.

The bizarre  “patriarchy” theory will also explain the perverse attitude of Rape Crisis national co-ordinator Geogia Knowles when she declared it was “not relevant or appropriate” for police to question a rape complainant on what she was wearing at the time of a rape allegation, and with this not  even questioned by  Radio NZ interviewer Mary Wilson. (8)

Understanding the “patriarchy” theory is surely also essential to ensure that justice is done to all parties involved – to the accused as well as to the alleged victim. After all, in the confused thinking of rape activism, all men represent the enemy, namely patriarchy, and a few male victims of false accusations seem of little or  no consequence to them.

Fourthly, rapethink does not observe the correct term “allegation” for an unproven rape complaint, but slyly and fraudulently refers to any and all rape complaints as “disclosures” as if they are proven, cut-and-dried facts, when at least some may perhaps later prove to have been false complaints! No wonder Rape Crisis (as above) think police questioning of a complainant is “not relevant or appropriate”!

The saga of the bogus sex abuse “statistics”

Lastly, there have been decades of lying about the supposed epidemic level of  child sexual abuse (“1 in 3 or 4 girls” and “1 in 8 boys”). This originated from a 1979 NZ Woman’s Weekly questionnaire by lesbian activist and psychologist, Miriam Saphira, who was subsequently generously sponsored by the Mental Health Foundation to write copiously as an “expert” on the subject, but see more on this shortly. So the highly unscientific figures took wings through the 1980’s.

As (then) spokesman for Credo Society (seeking more credibility in the news media) I challenged the figures at every opportunity, but mainly in vain. By early 1988, and unaware of the major part they were destined to play in the coming scandalous June 1988 Telethon publicity campaign, I wrote to the (then) editor of the NZ Herald, Peter Scherer, as they were once more quoted  there as fact, only to have my letter rejected for publication. With no e-mails then, correspondence between us ensued for a short time; Mr. Scherer was adamant that I had not made a case for such a challenge.

Then I discovered in my records notes of a phone conversation he and I had had on 26^th September 1984 (he  then possibly as Letters Editor) where he had expressed awareness of the unscientific nature of those figures. So once more I wrote to him, reminding him of this and requesting that the letter be published to rebut the bogus figures. His response was swift and angry : he wrote a mere half line reply  - “Have it your way!” and published my letter that day, 7^th March 1988, but in garbled form. This of course left my letter  wide open to criticism  from several correspondents, which he readily allowed!

But wait! There’s more! As I have alluded to already, unknown to me at that time the NZ media was gearing up for a revenue bonanza in the form of blanket advertising for a June 1988 Telethon. Moreover, and unsurprisingly, beneficiaries of it were to be  various social helping agencies, many being radical feminist-based, such as those associated with rape and child sex abuse, as well as Women’s Refuge. Moreover, those fabricated, scaremongering   figures were to play a major part in that rich advertising campaign persuading the NZ public to donate generously, which  of course it did.

So as June 1988 approached, the advertising frenzy began : giant lurid images of a sleeping child and shadow of a predator father. Another huge image of four babies, one of whom, so it said, would be sexually abused by age 16 etc…

Then, a week before Telethon, the (then) Auckland Sun began questioning the situation, and interviewed lesbian psychologist Dr. Hillary Haines (later Lapsley) the Deputy Director of the Mental Health Foundation, (MHF) which had supplied the bogus figures for the campaign. There she had the gall to admit : “Of course they’re only guessing with these figures, but in a sense it doesn’t really matter. The main point is that they shock!”(10)MHF Director at the time, incidentally, and its founding director,  was Dr. Max Abbott, by 2013 Professor of Psychology and Public Health at AUT University)

Media further aids and abets rape activism

Less than a year after that brazen admission of the figures’ bogus nature, attempts were still being made to assert their credibility. One example was on Bob McNeil’s midday radio talkback show on Newstalk ZB on 20^th April 1989, where he appeared to be plainly in collusion with Kim McGregor, (then) of HELP Sex assault Centre.

I phoned in to challenge this, only for McNeil, after my call, to misrepresent what I had said, thus confusing listeners and  causing some to ring in and fiercely criticise me….I was not concerned about child sexual abuse etc.! I was then denied right of reply, even after twice phoning  station manager Brent Harman. His dismissive response was simply “You set yourself up!”

The sequel to this shameful episode came several weeks later, when I  held a one-person protest in Auckland’s Queen Street, complete with sign, and distributed copies of my Open Letter to Brent Harman outlining the shoddy details of that despicable affair. Although I never did receive an apology, I did have the satisfaction of observing that within weeks McNeil was off the air, and for good.

Fast forward now from 1989 to the 21^st century where, astonishingly,  McNeil and McGregor still appear to be in cahoots on feminist anti-violence issues, but now on TV3 News, and with her now Dr. Kim McGregor and director of the Rape Crisis entity Rape Prevention Education (RPE) (11) Indeed RPE grows from strength to strength as part of the burgeoning socialist/feminist-inspired bureaucracy covering rape, domestic violence and child sex abuse issues.

This virtual industry is well illustrated on the RPE website (rpe.co.nz) with such pretentious-sounding services as : courses for professionals on how to “respond to disclosures [sic] of sexual violence”, and general “delivery of education in the greater Auckland area, and nationally, to prevent sexual violence through the delivery of education and health promotion/prevention activities”; and all of course with an atheistic, anti-family, anti-male bias.

Moreover, RPE still enjoys ongoing support from the likes of the NZ Herald,  even with a  recent invitation for readers to donate to it. Also,  with the publishing of the bogus figures once more and, as usual, rejecting my letter (and perhaps others also) challenging this. (12) This, moreover, despite the Herald’s PR slogan “The more you know, the better!”It is surely time to call a halt to the nefarious activities of these state-funded charlatans, whose infiltration now runs deeply into NZ’s social fabric.

 So to summarise :  Rape activism sees rape as being about “power and control”, and somehow caused by “the patriarchy”, with little or nothing to do with sex, let alone moral values. This deeply contorted view results from its very ideological nature, and helps explain much warped and illogical thinking on the rape issue. This has now seeped deeply into NZ’s  publicly funded education system as “rape prevention education” – a misnomer if ever there was one – and is even championed by Prime Minister and former Prime Minister John Key and Helen Clark respectively in farcical testimonies on the RPE website.(13)Such rigid rapethink also decrees that rape complainants never lie; that their behaviour and mode of dress can never ever be a  contributing factor; that all rape allegations must be called “disclosures”, and that the bogus sex abuse figures must be treated as factual.

It is time to challenge such charlatans with their atheistic and anti-social world view, and their intimidating clamour for police not to probe too much the veracity of rape complaints, or related personal details. Nor should any such challenge be interpreted as the condoning of rape, but rather as a more legitimate, values-based approach to genuine rape prevention.

Moreover, a more legitimate means, I suggest, should mean greater funding and focus being placed upon church-based, pro-family helping agencies which, over the decades, have been systematically marginalized in favour of atheistic, ideologically driven ones.

Conclusion

We will never know how many youth suicides may have occurred, or been attempted, over the years through  the devilish  confusing and  misguiding of youth, as part of the  covert and pernicious war on culture engulfing NZ society, and with rape activism being but a part of this.

 Far more has yet to be revealed. Also the contemptible part played in this by various compliant sectors of the news media. Of necessity it must include the similarly subversive nature of Rape Crisis’ sister lobby Women’s Refuge, which enjoys NZ Herald and wide public sponsorship and support, This, moreover, despite its founders admitting in 1979 its “revolutionary nature” and its objectives being “to attack the institution of marriage” and gain information from victims of domestic violence “that we could then use as a weapon against patriarchal oppression”.(14)

To such fanatics, victim numbers are all-important, as a means to more funding – and more power. It is surely time  to direct troubled youth and  victims of rape and family violence – male as well as female – to values-based and  family-oriented agencies. Unless this occurs, I suggest, such social mayhem will only continue.

References

1.          NZ Herald 8^th November 2013 : wide coverage of Radio Live debacle.

2.          Radio NZ news 16^th November. Top news most of the day.

3.                   “                16^th November “About 700”; Stuff News 17^th “about 1000”.

4.          NZ Herald 14^th November.

5.          Radio NZ news 16^th November, 8 and 10 pm.

6.          Acknowledged as recently as 12^th November, letter to editor NZ Herald.

7.          Daily Post Rotorua 8 January 2009 : “Calls for help, not charges”.

8.          On Checkpoint, Radio NZ 7^th November.

9.          Credo Society seeking credibility and integrity in the  news media –now defunct.

10.       “Statistics : the Facts” in Auckland Sun 18 June 1988

11.       For example, along with a photo of McGregor and McNeil, a somewhat contrived story by him on TV3 News 21^st September 2009 entitled “Concerns Rugby World Cup will bring more domestic violence”; on http://www.3news.co.nz

12.       “Roast Busters’ questions scream for answers” : Toby Manhire quoted “Those sick-making statistics” etc. and Herald invitation to donate to RPE at conclusion of article. NZ Herald 8^th November.

13.       Helen Clark : “Thank you for the work you have done to keep women (and men) safe, and to educate and protect the community.” On rpe website 22 Sept.2009

John Key : “I applaud (RPE) for its work to improve awareness of sexual violence” etc. On rpe website 6^th September 2012.

     14.  Joy Florence, Bronwyn Banks and Jenny Ruth in their book He Said He Loved  Me Really (Auckland 1979). Re Halfway House, later named Women’s Refuge.(Ruth currently Business Editor at Radio NZ)

Lesbian activist admits homosexual "marriage" campaign a fraud

With so many media reports of jubilation over New Zealand’s 17^th April 2013 Parliamentary vote for homosexual “marriage”, and similarly around the world, I wait in vain for a dollop of balance and honesty on this issue. To be fair and accurate it would need to reveal the monstrously fraudulent nature of this issue. After all, it is covert and ideologically driven, and with its real objective - now finally admitted -  being to attack and undermine the institution of marriage and the traditional family unit. That, in turn, clearly being part of a far wider Leftist subversion of Western culture itself.

There is copious evidence attesting to the fraudulent nature of the homosexual “marriage” issue, from 1970’s examples of homosexual activists actually scorning and attacking marriage, to the more recent ruse of demanding marriage “equality”.

Firstly, evidence of earlier  anti-marriage campaigning:-

1. Some quotes from Australian commentator Bill Muehlenberg.:-

(a)    “The truth is, early gay radicals campaigned against marriage, not for it. : ‘Marriage is a rotten, oppressive institution’ said the 1970 Gay Manifesto.”

(b)   “ ‘Homosexuals are in revolt against the nuclear family structure’ said the influential Gay is Good tract  of 1972.” (1)

2.In 1979 three Auckland feminist founders of Women’s Refuge – Joy Florence, Bronwyn Banks and Jenny Ruth – admitted in their book He said he loved me really

: “Halfway House [as it was then known] was conceived by some Auckland feminists as a tactic towards our liberation. Basically we wished to attack the institution of marriage and salvage what womanity (sic) we could  in the process.”

2. “Marriage, apart from restricting your emotional and sexual experience with other people, can also be very destructive for the two people involved. They are both going to have feelings for  other people.” (2)

Evidence of later pro-marriage homosexual campaigning:-

By 1996 the homosexual political agenda was having a remarkable change of direction in this respect in NZ, with one example of this being much publicity  of six lesbians seeking the “right” to marry. However, there was also a group calling itself Lesbians Who Do Not Want a Bar of It. (3)

One of the abovementioned six lesbians was Lindsay Quilter (later Zelf) who, two months later, was on record with this highly revealing admission :-

            “When homosexual couples can also enter into the legal definition of marriage, i.e. if a homosexual couple who don’t live together, who don’t share their money, who don’t  share their property, and yet are in law married, they have already altered the shape  of the legal definition of marriage”.(4)

By 1998 there was further discussion on this issue on the Radio NZ Kim Hill Show, when she interviewed Mike Gabbard, US campaigner for the Stop Promoting Homosexuality International organization. He pointed out that group marriage was part of the wider homosexual political agenda :  “One of 17 demands put forth in 1972 at a Chicago convention was that homosexual “marriage” be legalized, and with no restriction on numbers involved.” (5)

By 2011 the NZ Herald was reporting “Celebs champion open marriage”, which included a report of a man living with two women. He: “We’re not a couple, we’re a triple.” (6)

Given the above evidence, any reasonable person would surely agree that in the past few decades there has been a monumental change regarding attitudes towards the institution of marriage and the family by the homosexual movement and Leftist activism in general, from fanatically attacking it as “a rotten oppressive institution”, to now hypocritically demanding the “right” to marry.

However, now at long last comes a whiff of honesty, an actual admission by a homosexual activist that the frenzied push to that end has all been a pack of lies, a deliberate duping of the masses.

It now seems that in 2012, and well before the NZ Parliament’s 17^th April vote for homosexual “marriage”, a  lesbian activist and author, Masha Gesson, had admitted on US radio that  the homosexual agenda is actually “to redefine the institution of marriage and eventually eliminate it. It is going to change and it should change. I don’t think it should exist..” (7)

So how about some  journalistic responsibility, some honest, truly objective reporting on this crucial issue for a change from our scandalously biased news media? In the meantime I won’t be holding my breath waiting.

References.

1.        In “Obliterating Parenthood and Families” in News Weekly 2^nd March 2013.

2.        In a “Homosexuality and Education” pamphlet circulated to some Christchurch schools by the (then) newly formed National Gay Rights Coalition of NZ, (NGRC) as reported in Concerned Parents’ Association Newsletter of April/May 1979. A member of the (then) NGRC executive was named as Christchurch teacher Robin Duff, now, in 2013,  Immediate Past President of the NZPPTA. Also in that pamphlet were listed eight “advantages” of being homosexual.

3.        As discussed on the Kim Hill Show, Radio NZ, on 27^th February 1996.

4.        In an interview  with Lindsay Quilter on the  homosexual G & T Show, Access Radio Auckland, 25^th April 1996.

5.        Kim Hill Show, Radio NZ, 25^th February 1998.

6.        “Celebs champion open marriage” by Joanne Carroll and Gillian Orr, NZ Herald.co.nz, 18th December 2011.

7.        Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506  Written by Micah Clark 6^th April 2013 : “Homosexual activist admits true purpose of battle is to destroy marriage”. Also on 29^th April 2013 as reported on the  US Glenn Beck TV programme, where a recording of the  Masha Gessen speech was played.

UK public funds depravity as homosexual "education"

Terrence Higgins Health Horrors

(WARNING: This post is not for minors. There’s some stomach-churning stuff here which is mainstream, endorsed by public authorities and funded in part by you and me. It is available to our children from a recommended and apparently reputable source. It urgently needs challenging.)

The charity Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) was formed in the first rush of the HIV/AIDS pandemic that panicked society in the early eighties. Named after a gay man who was among the first to die from AIDS in the UK and with its roots still in the gay community, THT claims now to be the nation’s leading and largest HIV and sexual health charity (here) having broadened its services to include the general population “especially young people who are most at risk of sexual ill health”.

Certainly THT has gained recognition and clout in health and education circles. It works regularly in partnership with NHS trusts (here), received £200,000 from the Department for Education last year to train “100 disadvantaged 14-19 year-olds to become Sexual Health Champions who will then go on to deliver peer-to-peer SRE (sex and relationships education) sessions for 2,000 more young people” (here), and runs Sex Education Days for teenagers alongside local accredited youth organisations (here).

Incidentally a young person I know was employed by THT last year in one of their local initiatives – a chlamydia survey amongst 14 to 25 year olds in east London. He was trained to approach young people in busy shopping centres (and, interestingly, to avoid any who were accompanied by adults) and persuade them to complete a survey and pee privately into a bottle. If they returned the bottle containing urine they received 10 free condoms. The pay was lousy and success rate low, so he left.

Nonetheless, so far so good. THT has become a reputable nationwide organisation with growing influence that works in association with public health and education authorities as a guide, counsellor and mentor to young people.

But read this astonishing health information for gay men direct from THT’s website and easily available to all, including THT’s youthful followers:

Watersports: “Watersports means letting piss get on his or your body or clothes – or in the mouth, or drinking it. Drinking plenty of beer – or water, apple or cranberry juice if you want to stay clear-headed – makes sure your urine isn’t too salty and smelly” (here).

Scat: “Scat is sex involving playing with shit, maybe eating it, too. Smearing shit onto healthy unbroken skin poses relatively little health risk if the person the turds came from is free of infections” (here).

Fisting: “Fisting involves inserting a hand, sometimes forearm, into the rectum – occasionally going up as far as the lower colon… Fisting fans call it the ultimate sexual experience, giving intense feelings of trust and intimacy” (here).

Felching: “Felching involves sucking (usually your own) semen out of someone else’s arse – with or without a straw” (here).

So, mainstream publicly-funded THT advises on drinking urine, eating faeces, inserting forearms up recta and sucking semen from anuses.

What depravity and insanity is this?

Health authorities tell us that we mustn’t smoke (here); THT counsels gays on playing with and even eating human excrement.

The NHS says we should eat 5-A-Day (here); THT advises gays about gulping semen from backsides.

THT’s gay health information is sick and evil. The organisation must lose its public funding and charity status. Its programme of targeting minors should be outlawed immediately. And its advice and information needs to be relegated to the repulsive ranks of the most depraved hard-porn gay sites on the web.

----------------------------------

The above article was written by Alan Craig, an English Christian activist, former businessman and local body politician. It was posted on Monday July 2^nd 2012 and can be found on www.alansangle.com/?p=1035  

He can be contacted at alancraig3@aol.com