|
Jeff Randall talks a lot of sense in his article in
the Telegraph:
As Harriet Harman slithered on the thin ice of dissemblance,
cracks in her conviction were palpable. Blinking furiously,
she appeared as someone who would rather plunge into
freezing waters of ridicule than succumb to truth.
Asked by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight to affirm her
confidence in Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, Miss
Harman skated round an honest reply numerous times until
falling over her own feet with a sullen confession:
"I am not saying I have got full confidence in anything
or anybody."
It was the kind of encounter to which British viewers
have become inured: in effect, a current affairs entertainment
show, with a celebrity presenter posing questions and
a slippery interviewee defying clarity through a fog
of non-answers.
As a society, we have not just stopped expecting
veracity from elected representatives, but we have also
been brainwashed into believing that harsh realities
are to be avoided lest they damage confidence, disturb
sensibilities or upset the growing number of delicate
flowers who protect themselves from legitimate criticism
with the prophylactic of grievance.
It is as though there has been a conspiracy between
disingenuous politicians, campaigners for political
correctness and a malleable electorate to accept deliberate
omissions and distortions as valid currencies of exchange
for public discourse, while banning the gold standard
of fact. (My emphasis)
This has been made possible because, as I
have pointed out before, most recently two days
ago:
The government decides what is to be “achieved,” then
uses the “advice” given by registered ‘charities’ funded
by other charities and government departments who they
know will spin the case for the government.
The electorate has been made malleable due in part
at least to declining standards in education and a dumbed-down
media.
It is indeed as though there has been a conspiracy,
but Mr Randall omitted to mention the most influential
players: the world's 'elite' figures in banking, industry,
health, 'education' and a network of secret societies
who are re-engineering society for their own selfish
ends.
Why? Because they can.
They own the mass media, make the mass medications,
have created a culture of dependency on state intervention.
Certain things are made to look cool, so that the young
will be led in a certain direction.
One example is illicit sex. The "Want Respect?
Use a Condom" campaign is cleverly disguised as
an exercise in public health, but what does changing
the meaning of the word 'respect' actually deliver?
I have mentioned this before, but I spoke to a pastor
in Oxfordshire who runs a youth club in his town for
non-churchgoers. The young men he speaks with think
that the moral dilemma they face is whether to use a
condom while having sex, rather than whether it is right
to be having sex.
The "Want Respect? Use a Condom" campaign
sponsored one of the Urban
Music Awards in 2007. How 'cool' is that?!
The false notions being transmitted about equality
mean a great many minds have been rewired to believe
that abortion is a 'woman's choice' and homosexual relationships
are just 'another kind of love'.
Just to make sure that there is no escape from the
brainwashing, the New Labour Government is expected
to implement sex and 'relationship' lessons in schools
starting straight off in primary one. And it looks like
there will be no arrangements for parents to opt out.
Why is no more than a small proportion of the public
enraged by this?
Is it because parents have little time to themselves
and do not have the energy left to be angry?
The homosexuals will say that there are different kinds
of love and so all relationships should be treated as
equal.
The feminists will say that girls need to learn that
they own their bodies and have sexual rights including
the 'right' to terminate pregnancy. It has been reported
that this brainwashing has already begun in selected
schools.
Here is yet another registered 'charity', Education
for Choice.
On their home page they say that "anti-abortion
campaigners are being allowed into schools to present
their arguments to teenagers, and are making converts."
It sounds like they do not like the term, 'pro-life'.
The
Guardian also seems to prefer 'anti-abortion' to
'pro-life' thus giving the impression that aborting
a pregnancy is the default position.
It is Newspeak all the way now for our society: another
method of distorting untruths into 'truths'.
EfC must be scared as they have an online
form where pupils can report what pro-life material
they have been subjected to.
So, the pro-lifers are gaining ground in our schools;
well great! It should lead to fewer abortions due to
fewer illicit sexual encounters and therefore fewer
precious NHS resources spent trying to clear up STDs.
But EfC's head of policy and communications believes
that what is needed is for schools to move away from
presenting the issue as a dichotomy: abortion - is it
right or wrong? "That's so often how it's addressed
in schools, which completely ignores the sexual health
aspect."
This just confirms what I always say about "sexual
health" propaganda. It is nothing to do with morals
or decency, just part of a campaign to reduce society
to a dysfunctional dystopia with rights and choices
taking over from rights and wrongs.
No wonder victims are often treated worse than criminals
when morals get booted out.
LIFE's education officer is concerned that most people
assume abortion is "perfectly fine" because it's legal.
"That's the general perception. But really we don't
want kids to inherit these views. We want them to think
about the principles they live by, what values are important
to them. Every member of LIFE agrees "that because
we believe human life begins at the moment of fertilisation,
then the pro-life position is the only logical position
to take".
It is in all our interests, outside of the realm of
mad social engineers, that human life is valued from
its earliest moment, because a civilisation that betrays
the trust of the most fragile and needy is capable,
I believe, of total degeneration where the conditions
will exist to enable our new masters to commit the most
vile acts on any of us or all of us together.
The net result of all this conditioning is that these
youngsters will grow up with totally warped ideas of
what humanity is all about, probably start experimenting
with sex very early and as a result of being coached
into being dysfunctional, find it very difficult to
find lifelong partners and raise families: exactly what
the social engineers need to weaken society enough to
fully control us.
It is not good enough for them to have dumbed down
education to the point where even McDonald's
needs to give school leavers basic lessons in literacy
and numeracy, nor does fingerprinting
children in schools go far enough to train them
to be owned by the state.
This project has a long way to go. Is it already too
big to be put back in the box and sent on a one-way
journey into outer darkness?
That is up to us - to see past the lies and act accordingly.
Comments can be left on my
blog.
|
