Legislation by Stealth

On 29^th August, in the NZ Parliamentary homosexual “marriage” debate, devious and deceitful supporting argument for the bill was that young homosexual suicides resulted through the need for such legislation. Oh! The irony!

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

Earlier that same day I had posted comment, with indisputable evidence, on how NZ’s FPA had over the years actually encouraged youngsters to become homosexual through pernicious sex education.(“FPA’s Toxic legacy”)

I also have on record on my blog  KiwiCredo (http://KiwiCredo.blogspot.com)  hard evidence of such perverse encouragement coming from homosexual political activists themselves, such as : “You can choose to be gay” and “Eight advantages of being homosexual”.(See “Introduction, Part I, Looking Back”)

So much for the heinous falsehoods presented by the likes of Green MP and  seasoned homosexual  political strategist  Kevin Hague in Parliament in order to have passed the homosexual “marriage” bill.

If, as claimed,  there is a high rate of suicide among young homosexuals – and given the facts, this should hardly be surprising – the finger of suspicion surely should be pointed at the social change agents responsible, such as FPA, homosexual political activists and their fellow travellers, rather than at some craftily concocted bogus pretext such as marriage legislation to further the international homosexual political agenda.

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

FPA's Toxic Legacy

 Considering the facts, NZ's current alarming youth suicide rate was surely only to be expected, after decades of toxic and pernicious Family Planning Association ( FPA) sex education.

Some facts

  On  27^th August 2012, The Family First Lobby expressed concern about the dangers of the Government-funded FPA.. So what’s new?

On 14th October 1983 the (then) Dominion  featured "Family under siege, says Briton", a report of the SPCS-sponsored NZ speaking tour of Mrs. Valerie Riches, a social worker and from the Responsible Society in Britain. Some quotes from that report:-

    "The British Government was condoning and colluding in the undermining of the family by funding the organisations which were bent on destroying the family...sex education was dominated by the FPA...one of the Association's stated aims was to get rid of archaic sex laws, which would include the age of consent and incest..important social and medical consequences of sexual relationships were screened out.

“Every form of perversion could be presented to children in a neutral way. For example, the British Medical Association had put out a pamphlet describing safe methods of bondage....in spite of sex education and free contraceptives teenage pregnancies had doubled in the last ten years. Even the FPA  admitted that provision of contraceptives led to more abortions." etc.

    Also, in 1982 the NZ FPA issued a multi-booklet Sex Education Kit for the teaching of sex education to  students 13 years upwards. Unit 5 covered contraception and on page 7 had the following : "There are many alternatives to having intercourse.......There are many reasons for not having a sexual relationship. It is an option to consider ...A couple of the opposite sex may decide to use manual stimulation or to have oral sex.....If one decides to have a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex, then of course there is no need for birth control.” (Emphasis added)

Yet the lie persists that one cannot choose to be homosexual.  And we wonder why NZ has a high youth suicide rate!

INTRODUCTION

Putting things into perspective

Part I : LookingBack

On 5^th October  1998 I was guest on a Men’s Hour programme on Auckland’s Access Community Radio, with the host being John Potter, (then) secretary of Men’s Centre North Shore. He opened by noting that a current Member of Parliament, Owen Jennings, had commended the Men’s Centre for its encouragement of the responsibilities of fathers and two-parent families. Jennings had echoed the Centre’s concern that the breakdown of traditional marriage makes a significant contribution to social decay.

Potter asked “Just what are the forces behind the breakdown of traditional marriage and family structure? Here tonight to talk about some of these forces behind the radical, and sometimes overwhelming social change we are experiencing is Barbara Faithfull of the Credo Society. [An organisation seeking integrity and credibility in the news media – now defunct]

“Way back in 1986, when the explosion of fatherless families was just beginning, this remarkable woman caught on to what was happening, and began writing about it in the newsletter Credonews.”

I then began to explain what had led me to this situation - actually earlier than 1986 - , and to the establishing of Credo Society, which was in 1981. I had been at the University of Auckland in the 1970’s, doing a B.A. in Psychology and Anthropology, and found a book called ‘Teenage Marketplace’, by Anne-Louise de Verteuil and Nicola Brooks. (Methuen, 1975) which I found disturbing. The authors were two English teenage girls who were protesting about the exploitation of young people by various forces. Some quotes to illustrate this from that pre-AIDS era:-

                “We loathe those adults who debauch and degrade our young bodies for profit; those who are mercilessly growing rich on ruining us with drugs.  Contraceptive manufacturers who boost their products; the pornography merchants, advertisers who exploit a woman’s body..”

                “Can anybody ever write about self-control, self discipline, the joys of pregnancy? All this family planning [for youth] is a hoax. With all the ease of obtaining contraceptives, and all the easy advice, illegitimacy still increases, and so do abortions. How ironic!”

                “We’re angry as hell that it’s difficult in England now to find a teenager who’s grown into a real man, instead of a long-haired effeminate freak, or a member of a cowardly gang. Men have lost their masculinity because our reserve, beauty, mystery, has no longer to be won by loyalty, responsibility, protective strength, love…We girls are to blame for queuing up and laying ourselves cheaply on the line.” Etc.   
     
 Two particular quotes in the book I found especially thought-provoking:-

1. “We read a directive to communists in Florida : ‘Corrupt youth, alienate it from religion, direct its attention to sex; let it become superficial, destroy its idealism, use every means to bring about the collapse of moral virtues – honesty, purity, temperance and trust in the given word’.”
2. “Lenin once said if we want to destiny a nation we must first destroy its morals. Then that nation will fall into our lap like ripe fruit”.

That got me thinking. I hadn’t seen much behind the social upheaval until then. I saw various evidence in N.Z. around that time which all seemed to bear the hallmarks of such radical ideological thinking.
Some examples : In the 1970′s N.Z. was rife with Women’s Liberation conferences and conventions. In 1974 the Trotskyist (Cuba-aligned) Socialist Action League (SAL, now Communist League) presented a landmark submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee On Women’s Rights. That submission, along with ‘The New Rules of Feminism’, text of a resolution adopted by the second SAL national conference at Wellington in January 1973, was published in 1974 as ‘A Strategy For Women’s Liberation, – the view of revolutionary socialists’ (more on this later).

Advent of Radio Pacific and flagrant homosexual political activism

Also, early in 1979. two people – Dr. Ian Scott and Father Felix Donnelly – had emerged as key players in the operation of the new private radio station, Radio Pacific, an initiative of Gordon Dryden, ex-member of the N.Z. Communist Party. It had begun operation in April of that year. Donnelly was a talkback host, with often very confrontational, and even  highly manipulative programmes four days per week, while Scott was an influential member of the Radio Pacific Board.

Back then, and  with the decriminalising of homosexual acts  in NZ still seven years away, Scott, a homosexual,  was also a leading activist in the homosexual political movement, being Northern Representative of the National Gay Rights Coalition. (NGRC) As such he used to chair occasional homosexual forums at Auckland University, where Donnelly was invariably guest speaker.

Having attended several such forums, it was therefore not surprising to me that homosexual politics, related gender and racial politics, and much other anti-social material was soon flooding the airwaves of the fledgling radio station, and frequently  via  biased and one-sided programmes.

One such programme occurred on 20^th May 1979, when  Judith Emms, a Christchurch teacher and lesbian member of NGRC, appeared with two other lesbians declaring throughout the programme “You can choose to be gay!” Also at this time, in the April/May issue of the newsletter of the Christchurch-based Concerned Parents’ Association (CPA), came concerns about  growing homosexual influences in education with  the establishing of the NGRC in 1977. Judith  Emms was named as co-ordinator, and another Christchurch teacher, Robin Duff, as  a member of the executive.

The CPA was particularly concerned about  a homosexual speaking in a Christchurch sixth form class and  with students being given  copies of a pamphlet entitled “On Being Homosexual”, which included eight “advantages” of being homosexual!

With respect to the biased and one-sided Radio Pacific programmes, complaints fell on deaf ears, and particularly outspoken complainants were dealt to on air via ridicule, personal and even defamatory attacks and censorship. I was just one of those so treated, and the censorship of me from  Donnelly’s Sunday programmes was still permitted as at the time of that  1998  interview – “If it makes (Donnelly) more comfortable” according to (then) Managing Director Derek Lowe, when I complained back in 1983 – a whole fifteen years earlier!

Further gender politics via rape and domestic violence activism

 On the gender political scene in 1979 rape and domestic violence were emerging as major social issues, thanks to radical  feminism. At Auckland University I was witnessing fanatical Rape Crisis activism where, at a women-only meeting I attended, all men were being branded as rapists. I stood up and declared that my two sons were not rapists!

The July 1979 issue of the extreme Left-Wing Republican (edited by  the late  Bruce Jesson) featured an article by feminist Christine Dann, “Radical Feminism and the NZ Political Scene”.(By 2005 Dann was to be Green Party Campaign Manager, according to Radio NZ news 7^th November that year) In a particularly revealing paragraph in that earlier article  she wrote:-

…"Thus anarchists (and latterly their more Marxist ‘libertarian socialist’ and ‘anarcho-communist’ fellow leftists) have preferred forms of organisation which will lead more directly to the situation which is ultimately desired. Thus…they posit small, autonomous, non-hierarchical collectives which provide personal as well as political support and are part of local and national networks which can be co-ordinated to work on important matters. The groups may choose to work autonomously on specific issues e.g. oppression of women, racism, or the environment, to become involved with community struggles, or to be part of the larger national campaigns. They may offer direct political action (e.g. groups such as HART,…..Matakite..) personal assistance (Rape Crisis, TPA – Tenants’ Protection Assn,) information and education (New Perspectives on Race, Women’s Centres) skills and expertise (The Wellington Media Collective) or a combination of all these activities e.g. cultural activities such as guerrilla theatre".

Also in 1979 three Auckland radical feminists; Joy Florence (later to become a key person with the HELP Foundation for sexual assault victims), Bronwyn Banks and Jenny Ruth wrote a book on the founding of Women’s Refuge in Auckland, He Said He Loved Me Really. There they made this astonishing admission:-

"Halfway House [as Refuge was originally called] was conceived by some Auckland feminists as being a tactic towards our liberation. Basically we wished to attack the institution of marriage and to salvage what womanity we could in the process."(Emphasis added)

By this time much else was also happening on the domestic violence scene, not least being moves by feminists to get the media more ‘woman-friendly’ in its terminology on this issue. At a 1981 Auckland Mediawomen Seminar which I attended, Sandra Coney, then Editor of Broadsheet, differentiated between “Men’s media” -  mostly controlled and presented by men -  and “women’s media” – presumably mostly influenced by women! She pointed out that in the matter of domestic violence the men’s media described it as "a domestic dispute", while the women’s media described it more emotively as "bashing"….Also, and now more commonly, "battering".

In June 1978 the NZ Woman’s Weekly published their “Battered Wife Questionnaire”, with the lurid heading “Bashed Wives Reveal Their Lives of Hidden Suffering”. Auckland psychologist (and lesbian political activist) Miriam Jackson (later Saphira) was able to eventually elicit responses from 220 women readers about their domestic violence experiences. Predictably, the grim and graphic picture painted in the follow-up feature in October 1978 seems to have afforded Jackson ample ammunition to further the anti-male crusade she appears to have had planned all along. Indeed, in hindsight, her recommendations for action and attitude changes following that clearly contrived and unscientific questionnaire bear remarkable similarities to many of the marked changes which have come about on the domestic violence front in recent years.

"An urgent need for alternative, temporary, protective accommodation. A battered wife is the innocent party…. A change in attitude towards sex roles and images is called for…. The survey indicates that barbaric male attitudes are still very much alive…. (The survey) indicates just what a trap the ‘traditional female role’ can spring for some women…. they have also been led to believe it is the woman’s responsibility to keep the marriage together" etc.

Around 1980, as Jackson/Saphira stepped up her domestic violence activism, I telephoned and challenged her on her highly publicised but utterly baseless and nonsensical contention that "the raising of little boys had to change if domestic violence was to be reduced".

As an aside, over time I became aware that the traditionally church-based family refuges and helping agencies, which catered  for the whole family – men included – and were dedicated, where possible, to enabling families to stay together, were being marginalised, and systematically excluded from the growing publicity for women seeking help for domestic violence. I accumulated much evidence of this in official publicity brochures, where agencies such as Rape Crisis, Women’s Refuge etc. were prominently displayed, with all available addresses and contact details supplied, while only the odd church-based agency was  ever mentioned, and often with little contact information at that.

 Indeed, I believe that the aim has clearly been to establish the anti-male, anti-family,  pro-women Refuges as the only places to go for help, but with nary a hint of their underlying pernicious belief system - indeed their driving dogma - that a woman never commits domestic violence (only ever a male) and a woman never lies about domestic violence or sex abuse either. Thus we now have massive public support and funding - Government, corporate and private - for Women’s Refuges, as the false impression is  continually conveyed in the media that they are the only places to go for families with such problems, and even then, of course, only for the women and children!

Two 1979 quotes from feminist Sandra Coney tie in well here, both occurring during appearances on Felix Donnelly’s Radio Pacific programmes : “Men are going to have to change before women will stay with them!” (31^st July) and “Marriage is very destructive for a woman!”(23^rd August)

Now back to Jackson/Saphira. When she moved into rape and child sex abuse activism in the early 1980′s, with similarly unscientific surveys and similarly predictable outcomes and political rabble rousing with bogus, inflated ‘statistics’ of supposed incidence of these problems, I again telephoned her to challenge the legitimacy of her activities, and made constant challenges in the media also, but with the latter mainly to no avail. To the media it appeared that Saphira could do no wrong and rarely was any such challenge allowed publication. It was not to be until 1988 that some sanity prevailed in this respect, particularly in the area of child sex abuse, as the public awoke to the massive hoax which had been perpetrated with the use of bogus, inflated sex abuse figures (“1 in 3 girls abused” etc) for the 1988 Telethon promotional publicity.

By that time NZ’s homosexual law had changed and Saphira was less covert regarding her lesbianism, although its political significance for the crusades she was conducting would still not have been evident to the average citizen. Thus it was that in 1986 she made no secret of the fact that she had  been appointed a Secretary General of the International Lesbian Gay Association (ILGA), which is, after all, part of the wider international gender politics movement.

Cultural subversion the name of the game

Back in 1980, with Radio Pacific becoming such a hot bed of anti-social activism (so much so that it was commonly nicknamed “Radio Moscow”), I began to see for the first time hard evidence of what I perceived to be a determined bid to win hearts and minds as part of an ideologically-based movement to subvert traditional Western cultural values and institutions such as marriage and the family unit.

I saw this as fitting in well with the disturbing trends in England discussed so eloquently by the two angry and troubled teenagers in Teenage Marketplace. Moreover, I saw the news media, by and large, playing a major role in making this possible, and began to look at ways to try and counteract such a disturbing trend. Following much talkback activity on Radio Pacific I began to gather wide support for my concerns resulting in the forming in 1981 of Credo Society Inc.

Meantime, also  in 1980, came two rare and most valuable media items which served to confirm my conclusions about the existence of a systematic and ideologically-driven undermining of culture. In the
Auckland Star of 9^th February that year was Warwick Rogers’ highly revealing major article “The Splintered Revolution” including a chart of all the Far Left factions operating in NZ at that time. The Socialist Action League (S.A.L. - mentioned earlier) was shown to promote trade union activism, race and gender issues, abortion etc.

Then on 25^th August that year Radio NZ’s Checkpoint discussion on the SAL included the following frank comments from Canterbury University political scientist Dr. Keith Ovenden: "They have bizarre issues: racism, sexism, homosexuality, abortion."

This had been well demonstrated in the SAL Submission to the 1974 Parliamentary Select Committee on Women’s Rights, as mentioned earlier. Following are two quotes from The Strategy for Women’s Liberation, which included that submission:-

"The full demands of the women’s liberation movement cannot be met by the capitalist system, which depends upon the oppressive patriarchal family…. The strategy of the feminist movement must be based on the understanding of how capitalism perpetuates itself, and which forces must be mobilised in the struggle to eliminate it.

“The feminist movement is part of the broader anti-capitalist struggle. As long as social relations are organised on the basis of private property and production for profit, the material foundations which give rise to the family and the subjugation of women will continue, along with war, racism, economic exploitation and alienation."

Under “Oppressive Role of the Family”: came this highly revealing quote:-

"The family institution is a repressive, conservative structure that reproduces within itself the hierarchical, authoritarian relationships necessary for the maintenance of class society as a whole. It fosters the possessive, competitive and aggressive attitudes necessary for the perpetuation of class divisions. It moulds the behaviour and character structure of children…. disciplining them and teaching submission to established authority. The family represses sexuality, discouraging all sexual activity which is not within marriage. It distorts all human relationships by imposing on them the framework of economic compulsion, social dependence and sexual repression."

Under “What Must be Done” are many demands which, by the late 1990′s, would appear to have been a virtual blueprint for what has now been achieved in N.Z. in the area of radical social reform. They included:-

"An end to coercive family laws…. De facto marriage ……to have the same status, legally and socially, as marriage by legal contract …. Divorce should be automatically available at the request of either partner. The concept of ‘illegitimacy’ should be abolished…. All forms of discrimination against unmarried mothers or their children must be outlawed…. The rearing, social welfare and education of children should become the responsibility of society, rather than the individual parents … All laws enforcing individual ownership of children should be abolished…..
"
So these were some of the insidious forces that I  had been referring to earlier in that interview as being behind the radical social change  NZ has experienced in the past several decades. Potter noted :  "One thing we of the Men’s Centre have become very aware of is that groups who claim to be standing up for victims of various kinds find it easy to get hold of fairly large amounts of funding, and jobs and careers."

My reply: "That’s the interesting thing. Back in the 1970′s and early 80′s it was all about ‘oppression…..society oppressing us’, and they’ve now turned it around and they’re more subtle, because they knew we could  identify them by their ideology when they were talking about oppression, because that was the language of communism…. ‘capitalism is oppressing us’ etc. So they’ve changed it all around and (notwithstanding that there are genuine victims of violence of course) turned many into so-called victims,  who are then deserving of sympathy. Quite brilliant… they’ve exploited the whole concept of violence. ‘Victimhood’, ‘violence’, and ‘safety’[and later, bullying] are the current ways of directing their activism. So we just need to read behind a lot of that stuff.

 There was an example in the news today: how the Education Review Authority had produced a damning report about Otago Boys’ High School (a very traditional institution) accusing it of  “Pursuing an outdated male culture” etc. There has been a long history of radical  activism on the part of the Head of the Education Review Office, Dr. Judith Aitkin, so such an attack was not unexpected!"

Potter: "That’s certainly one of the things that concerns us, when we hear educationalists talking about ‘feminising boys…..getting rid of this male culture’."

My reply :  "That’s right. The revolutionising of culture to their specifications."

Potter: "When we see the high suicide rate among young men in NZ, we wonder about the effect of these kinds of programmes that try to change boys into something they basically aren’t."

My reply: "And the media is not really bringing out these things; it is protecting certain forces from their views being challenged, so I think for an organisation such as yours, it’s important that your folk understand about some of the influences behind such problems. For example, I have had men express surprise that I am involved speaking out on such matters as those concerning the Men’s Centre, and I tell them that this is not a woman or a man thing, this is a people thing. It’s people who should be concerned about this. It’s not a thing for men only to fight. It’s a people thing."

Potter :  "Yes it is. I must admit that in the beginning of my involvement with the Men’s Centre I thought ‘why is there a need for separate men’s organisations? Why shouldn’t women and men work at it together?’."

I replied : "Only because it’s been so one-sided for so long, and the men’s groups that have been set up have, in the main,  been feminist aligned, and therefore you of the  Men’s Centre  are a counter to them."

(The above is based upon a report of that interview in MENZ Issues, May 1999,  pp8-11)

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

Part II : Secular Humanist influences

On 11^th December 2009 came the bizarre news on Radio NZ Checkpoint that New Zealand’s main centres of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch were to be subjected to an “Atheist Bus Campaign”. Emulating one in the United Kingdom that year there would be advertisements on buses reading “There’s  probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” According to a spokesman named   Simon Fisher it was “To provide an alternative voice to raise awareness of humanism and atheism”, but closer scrutiny suggested to me a far more suspect motive, of which more shortly.

Moreover, New Zealanders were being asked to pay for this highly questionable prank. Initially $10,000 was being sought, but by December 17^th TV3 news was reporting that $20,000 had been raised. No mean feat for an entirely unknown outfit, and one  of questionable  bona fides. {As an aside, the venture thankfully did not materialise}

Nevertheless it would have helped that there appeared to be virtually no media questioning about who was behind the scheme, let alone any skepticism about the stated goal  as quoted above.

Also on the campaign website all sounded so rosy and  well meaning, with some anonymous person named “Duncan” even  assuring readers that “This campaign is about positivity and we need to respect people’s alternative points of view, just as we hope they will respect ours”.

So as the unnamed backers of this campaign at least purported to want to “raise awareness of humanism”, and also purported  to “welcome alternative points of view”, I  accepted the invitation, writing about it, albeit to a somewhat limited readership.

 I said I  hoped to demonstrate that all was far from what it seemed with this highly dubious caper. Indeed, that the whole scheme was nothing less than a calculated confidence trick : part of an insidious attack upon Western cultural values. In short,  that it was part of what is widely regarded as a pernicious international  Culture War.

Firstly then, I saw the campaign as  soliciting money under false pretences. This because secrecy surrounded what would appear to be the true goal of the campaign, along with certain unpalatable facts about the people presumably behind it. Therefore if what I presumed to be the case was correct, the N.Z. public was being asked to donate to a highly suspect “cause”, and one  about which it was being  kept in the dark.

Indeed the so-called  N.Z. Atheist Bus Campaign would be  simply a cunning front to disguise the real nature of this appeal  and the  promoters behind it, as I’m sure also will have  been the case with the UK campaign  : a shadowy mishmash of international, ideologically driven atheistic humanists and rationalists.

One only needed to check the campaign’s website, www.nogod.org.nz. There,  on page 2 of the information for December 13th 2009, and   listed as “Valuable links”,  were Canterbury Atheists, Humanist Society of New Zealand and N.Z. Association of Rationalists and Humanists, as if the latter two, at least, would not, more than likely, have  been the core drivers of this crafty escapade. Also this innocuous-sounding  bit of information : "The Humanist Society of N.Z.  has kindly offered to administrate and oversee the donation collection to ensure it conforms to financial standards." How very magnanimous of them, as if they would not, almost certainly, have   been at the very heart of the whole duplicitous affair anyway!

Admittedly on page 3 of  one of their December 13th blurbs  there was  a  vague hint of  a humanist influence behind it all, but in no way sufficient to raise questions or to cause doubts :  "The promotion and expression of a secular humanist world view [but of course not spelt out - see below]  and the affirmation that there is no need to believe in a supernatural being to live a full rich life."

A basic tactic of these zealots is to avoid like the plague facts,  rational argument and public debate,  and instead to appeal to people's emotions. Hence the absence of hesitation of some to respond to  the advertisement funding appeal. So certain unpalatable facts about humanism  invariably are  never allowed to rear their ugly heads. Facts such as the following.

Global population control

For several decades now  the International Humanist and Ethical Union, along with its many shadowy friends, has pursued a covert  agenda for revolutionary social change by peaceful means. Moreover the major concern propelling this phenomenon  appears to relate to  global population control, although this is equally covert, because it is also rare to read/hear any acknowledgement of this, let alone debate.

Yet if one probes deeply enough ample evidence is unquestionably there. Such as a ten page closely typed paper headed  “Population – An Outline and Overview of the Human Population of the World – its Situation and Future, its Problems,  and our Choice and our Responsibility in Facing These” – A Humanist Occasional Paper, dated May 1976, published by the Humanist Information Service, Christchurch NZ.

As the editor, Trevor M. Cobeldick, explained there, that paper was based upon a submission by the Humanist Society of NZ for a NZ Government Commission in May 1974,that having been designated World Population Year. The full submission was printed in the NZ Humanist, No. 25, July 1974.

What I find particularly disquieting however I come to shortly: the actual social issues which comprise that covert Humanist international, radical social change agenda, and how some of them, at least, seem to fit so well with the Humanist concern for world population control: One, suicide, has already been widely  decriminalised.

Some others, however, are  still on the agenda, such as  euthanasia; abortion and homosexuality. This latter  also fits very well with those quotes I included  in Part II  from 1979 and 1980 : “You can choose to be gay!” and “Eight ‘advantages’ of being homosexual”! Moreover, on page 10 of that Humanist Population paper, under “Examples of means of population regulation”, in the “decrease” category, are listed, inter alia, “homosexuality” and “abortion”! So much for the hackneyed sloganeering of being necessarily “Born that way!” More on this under my “Present Day” notes.

Now for a closer look at the Humanist phenomenon. As long ago as October  1980 Pat McCarthy, editor of the N.Z. Catholic newspaper at that time, Humanity,  wrote a highly informative  article entitled  “Humanism : A philosophy for social action” . There he quoted Vince Nesbit, an Australian   researcher who had made a study of humanism, and especially its influence in education.  Nesbit:-

                “I am not going to suggest that humanists are evil people. On the whole they are good people…..They are trying to work to bring about the sort of society they believe to be the best for their fellow men…They have used the Fabian method of gradualism to penetrate into society in all those areas where they can exert influences – in the pulpit, in government, in the school, in the bureaucracy, in the trade unions.

                “From about 1963 the British Humanist Association, in a series of resolutions, drew up a plan of political action for law change. Its seven points, some of which were achieved during the 1970’s to become planks in Britain’s permissive society, are:-

Legislation of homosexual acts between consenting adults

Abortion on demand

Easy divorce for marriage “breakdown”

Legalised voluntary euthanasia

Removal of restrictions on “soft drugs”

Abolition of all forms of censorship

Abolition of religious education in schools.”

In that article McCarthy quoted Nesbit as observing  that  “A humanist organisation often  doe not  appear in public as itself. It sets up organisations like the  Council for Civil Liberties, The Divorce Law Reform Association, the Homosexual Law Reform Association, the Abortion Law Reform Association and various other groups, particularly women’s groups…..It doesn’t operate as itself. It makes the intellectual bullets for other people to fire.” McCarthy then pointed out :-

 “In  N.Z. Humanism has provided many of the leading activists in the pro-abortion movement.[Such as the massively Government funded Family Planning Association] The Humanist Society has also instigated the founding of a society devoted to legalising euthanasia, and taken a close interest in the introduction of moral education in schools…..” etc.(End of quotes)

As indicated  there by McCarthy,  over the past several decades N.Z. has also had its  various Humanist front groups similar to those quoted above in Britain; and the Atheist Bus Campaign  would seem to  be but  the latest example of this trickery.

 Similarly to the British situation, in  N.Z. some of these front groups doing Humanist lobbying are, or have been, the Abortion Law Reform Association of N.Z. (ALRANZ);  Homosexual Law Reform Association of N.Z. (now defunct); Divorce Law Reform Association of N.Z. (now defunct) and the  Voluntary Euthanasia Society etc.

 Yet the N.Z. public is being  kept utterly in ignorance about  such an ongoing covert attack upon its traditional cultural values. Now, in 2012,  one of the most obvious such Humanist-based  issues is that of euthanasia, via a Parliamentary Private Member’s Bill, and sponsored by, unsurprisingly, a seasoned lesbian teacher-activist from the 1980’s, Maryan Street. So more on euthanasia and other hot potato subjects in the “Present Day” section.

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

 PRESENT DAY : General Discussion

Chickens coming home to roost?

I was interested to read Jim Hopkins’ column  “Soldiers serve countries, Assange only himself” (NZ Herald 24^th August 2012). Particularly his reference to a 20 year old man he had just met, who was still angry about a most unsettling experience at primary school ten years earlier.

One day all the ten year old girls had been taken for a “self defense course”, while all the ten year old boys had been subjected to an “anger management” session. Later the girls refused to play with the boys, regarding them as “the enemy, demonised, stigmatised, and judged to be a dark, threatening menace”.

Hopkins reflected upon this troubling situation : “That’s our world; that’s the place we’ve made – or allowed others to make on our behalf.” etc.

Now for the irony I see here. In the early to mid-1980’s Hopkins was, for a time, a talkback host on the (back then) most radical Leftist-oriented station Radio Pacific. As secretary/spokesman for Credo Society, and although unwelcomed by the station,  I was a frequent caller  to challenge what I saw as perverse socialist-driven programme content, such as the above radical feminist,  mind-poisoning drivel which went under the guise of  girls’ “self defense”.

For my trouble I was detested by the station and many of its staff. One day Hopkins and another male staffer went to air with a satirical skit, mocking me for my concerns, and even acting out a supposed phone call to Moscow!

So to Hopkins I would just say this : Do not include me among those comments above (“That’s our world”) etc.  Back then, when such pernicious thinking  was establishing itself in the minds of our people I was one of the very few who stood up to be counted. So in this respect my conscience is clear. How about yours?

KiwiCredo blog 25^th August 2012

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