John Key’s damaging leadership. Elton John: gay “rights” to marriage?

John Key’s damaging leadership – Elton John – gay “rights’ to marriage?

 What has happened to this country under the soft tyranny of groupthink? And is it time to acknowledge that never were individuals of courage more needed? 

 Few would disagree with Peter Drucker’s statement that: “Management is about doing things right; leadership is about doing the right things.” On both counts we can legitimately maintain that the present Prime Minister John Key has been as damaging in his domination of his colleagues and in setting the directions for this country as the self-willed Helen Clark was before him.

An extreme statement? Not when we know that a score or so National Party MPs, individually asked privately if they supported the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation – (what became The Marine and Coastal Area Act, giving special rights to opportunistic iwi with no genuine claim to these under the Treaty of Waitangi) – admitted that they didn’t. These National MPs were not in favour of it. They knew very well that the majority of New Zealanders had good reason to regard this claim as a rort – and that it would open a whole new can of worms, compounding the damage already done to this country with divisive, preferential iwi legislation.

So they were then asked if they would vote against it. No. Not one said they would. Each gave the same excuse… that they did not want to lose ministerial salaries, cars, perks and privileges within the National Party – which they regarded would undoubtedly the case if they stood up publicly against their party leader.

John Key rules, OK? But why? Isn’t this supposed to be a democracy?

 John Key opposed 85% of the country who rightly viewed with alarm the proposal to criminalise parents who smack a naughty child.

John Key must be right? – although, as we would expect, uneasy National Party MPs didn’t want to vote for this either. And right across this country today, demoralised parents are now fearful, too intimidated to properly control their children, to even administer a well-deserved smack to a naughty child who couldn’t care less about time-out – lest well-programmed teachers at school ask the kind of questions children were asked to report on their parents in Nazi Germany.

An exaggeration? No – it’s happening.

Too bad?

What when John Key was complicit in Peter Sharples sneaking off to New York without the country being informed – or having any say in this hugely important issue –  to sign the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples…opening yet another can of worms as it  recognises “the rights of indigenous people to self-determination… and to manage their own affairs”?  Regardless of the fact that an increasing body of evidence shows that Maori were not the indigenous people of this country,   and that early Maori recognised those who had gone before them as “the tangata whenua”…regardless of the fact that Key has taken it upon himself to allow the contentious Maori self-determination flag to be flown from Auckland Harbour Bridge and public buildings on Waitangi Day – the Prime Minister assures us that signing this Declaration is merely “aspirational”.

Aspirational of what?

This Declaration specifically mentioned “water rights”. And what are we now faced with? Spurious claims to water rights.

 How many National MPs crossed the floor to represent their electorates on this issue?


The Emissions and Trading Scheme?  There are National MPs who did not want to vote for this either,  knowing full well the cost to the country, and that the whole theory of global warming has not only never been proved – but that the actual evidence  is strongly against it.

 They did as they were told.

And now?

 One of the most damaging proposals ever to come before the country, potentially immensely damaging to the fabric of our society, is the proposal, in the name of a spurious “equality”, to legislate for an agreement between same-sex individuals to be regarded as a genuine marriage.

Deep down most New Zealanders well know that marriage has nothing to do with any relationship between individuals of the same sex. But so well have gay rights activists managed to portray themselves as victims, while unfairly demonising concerned individuals as “homophobic” and “intolerant” – (even while they themselves have shown a complete lack of tolerance for others’ point of view – extending to unfairly pillorying them, mounting vendettas, and attacking websites) – that the liberal Left has fallen hook, line and sinker for their pressing the “intolerance” button. And what they have been well concealing is that there is a great deal more at stake than simply seeking an “equality” which has nothing whatever to do with marriage.

Should we be surprised that this basically aggressive campaign has the Prime Minister’s approval – apparently because he doesn’t think it will make any difference to his and his wife’s marriage? But are we entitled to expect more than this sort of superficial thinking with which we have become so familiar from the leader of the country?   Contrast this with Justice Minister Judith Collins, announcing the restructuring of access to the Family Court, saying that this body must “put the needs of children first, rather than those of private couples with relationship issues. “

The needs of children? Apparently, in the midst of the current practice of the commodification of children, bringing them into the world to satisfy the demands of self focusing “elites”, Elton John acknowledges that his son is getting a raw deal.  “It will break my son’s heart to realise he hasn’t got a mother.” The extremely brave Australian commentator Bill Muehlenberg whose book on the attack launched by militant gays against Western society has achieved record sales, previously wrote about how Elton and his “husband” ordered a baby boy, conceived by an anonymous surrogate mother from California and a separate egg donor, much like one would put in a demand for a made-to-order sports car. This rock star reveals that he’d like his son Zachary, who now calls him Daddy (what does he call Elton’s partner?  Mummy?) to have a sibling.

Muehlenberg, with the kind of courage which has brought him under quite vicious attack by the militant gay movement – including the usual nasty name-calling, and extending to death threats , emphasises –  “We can stop right there for a moment. Did you get that? He actually admits that he is depriving his child of one of the two most important persons in his life – his own mother – and yet he wants to do it again to another poor kid. And of course young Zachary does not even have the same biological father either. All he has is some spoiled rotten senior citizen rocker and his male lover. “John will shortly be 67 years, his partner 51.

Same-sex individuals who want to claim “the right” to marriage, a notion which would have been very healthily regarded as farcical until very recently, have relationship issues. They want what they are not entitled to. They want to redefine the whole concept of marriage to suit what many regard as a biological aberration. And given the supine nature of the present National Party MPs, and the considerable divorce between the professed well-founded Christian beliefs that many of them share – and the way they can manage to not bring these on board to help them make honest decisions – we may very well have an utterly inappropriate “gay marriage” bill foisted off on the public – which, contrary to the usual media backing it – deeply perturbs the public at large. However, one thing we can be sure of:  “gay marriage” – even if provided for in legislation – will in fact never be marriage.

While strong friendships within the sexes have been known and celebrated throughout history, it is quite a different thing to insist, not to put too fine a point on it, that sodomy for example, defined as copulation not through vaginal penetration, but through the anus or mouth of another individual, is part of nature’s plan for the survival of the human race. On the contrary, it has historically been regarded with disfavour, if not disgust. Contrary, too, to the usual propaganda about the liberal practices of the Greeks, although homosexual liaisons between youths and their older patrons were tolerated, both idealised and criticised at the time with the expectation that marriage would later be the norm for these young men, sodomy itself it was not favoured by the Greeks who were known to have prosecuted those practising it. Plato himself characterised it as “unnatural”.

Few, no matter their personal beliefs, would wish what are consenting acts in private to be criminalised in law, let alone that individuals involved in same-sex relationships – which can take quite different forms from physical penetration and the practice of sodomy – should be subject to public scrutiny or opprobrium. From the days of “Thy people shall be my people…” onwards, civilised society has recognised the importance and great value of genuine friendship, kindness, support and love between individuals of the same sex.

This is quite different,  however, from today’s demands by a bullying and utterly intolerant minority,  targeting with surprising venom and the name-calling of “homophobic” – (designed of course to inhibit debate  or opposition from individuals concerned at the growing disintegration of society with its consequences for children, now increasingly targeted by those actively recruiting for the spread of their lifestyle) .

Moreover, we are making a big mistake if we regard this whole issue as merely based on the personal grievances of individuals wanting legislation passed that they think will remove any stigma attached to the active promotion of homosexuality. We would be quite wrong.

Another brave individual, Barbara Faithfull, apologising for highly offensive and revolting material sent through – but making a very valid point that how are we to otherwise know what actually is involved in the militant gay rights movement… has made available an extraordinarily pernicious agenda in a June of this year call for the UK Charity commission to revoke the Terrence Higgins Trust registration which receives considerable government funding in the UK.

The Charity Commission has been asked to revoke the registration of sexual health charity Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) on the basis that the advice it gives to gay men is unhealthy, harmful and in contradiction of the organisation’s stated charitable aims.

In a letter to the Commissioners, Alan Craig of Voice for Justice UK attacked the charity for openly promoting sado-masochistic practices that pose a serious risk to health. “Their information is aimed at gay men, but freely accessible to all including children directed to the THT website by teachers and health professionals promoting ‘safe sex’.

“Citing a series of shocking examples taken direct from THT’s website, he quoted:

“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.’

“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.’

“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.’

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

“Rimming: ‘Rimming… is exploring someone’s arse with your tongue. As a ‘warm up’ for fucking, rimming can relax the arse hole, getting it used to being explored before taking a finger or cock… Having your mouth or tongue near someone’s arse has no health risks if that person has no infections.’

“Alan Craig said ….”We await the Commissioners’ response but it is difficult to see how they can maintain THT’s charitable status when THT gives counsel and guidance that is so contrary to sound health and to their own charitable objectives.

“NHS doctors and health authorities insist we should wash our hands after using the toilet; THT advises gay men about playing with and even eating faeces and drinking urine. This cannot be right.”

“Alan Craig is also concerned that THT is particularly targeting young people with its health advice, pointing out that last year the charity received  £200,000 from the Department of Education to train 100 disadvantaged young people to become Sexual Health Champions who would then go on to deliver peer-to-peer SRE (sex and relationships education) sessions for 2,000 more young people.

“He also pointed out that they regularly run Sex Education Days for teenagers alongside local accredited youth organisations and have set up TalkSafe, ‘a service which offers young people a wide range of health information and introduces them to our counselling services.’

“THT receives over £15m a year from statutory sources – that’s 70% of their funding,” said Alan Craig, “but what on earth are they teaching? Children and young people follow their advice in good faith, laying themselves open to a large number of diseases many of which remain untreatable.

“The next step is to approach government to ask them to stop all public funding to THT until its health advice is drastically revised.”

Editor’s notes:

(i)   Alan Craig first drew attention to THT’s harmful gay health advice on Monday 2nd July on his blog: .Yesterday afternoon (Wednesday 4th July), THT’s website was taken down, first for “maintenance” and now for a relaunch without the offending material. However their health information on watersports, scat, fisting, felching and rimming (above) is also readily available from THT information booklets “Below The Belt” and “The Bottom Line”; call THT on 020-7812 1600.

What our MPs need to take on board is the fact that the goal of the radical gay activists is not to be left alone in society, but,  in fact, to radicalise society, quite specifically targeting children. Already representatives of the Rainbow Coalition, representing homosexual, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual activists visit New Zealand schools to propagandise our children at that very vulnerable age when teenagers quite commonly get crushes on others of the same sex – crushes which they later outgrow. But not if it’s left to gay and lesbian support groups among our  teachers, happy to persuade these children that they are basically gay and lesbian – “supporting “ them , recruiting them, and supplying them with persuasive reading material.

What of our leader’s role in all these issues? What are we to make of an individual who has so consistently imposed his own views on the country through compliant, self-serving MPs, while still maintaining his charismatic hold over the media?  While it is certainly quite common for a leader to evoke adulation and a considerable following, John Key’s support of issues has to be seen in the light of the behaviour pattern of a highly ambitious young man, determined one day to be Prime Minister – and who is no doubt not not unaware that any hoped-for presence on the world stage after inevitable electoral defeat may well depend upon to what extent his background of decision-making pleases the power-group within the United Nations, this now predominantly liberal, anti-family, anti-the West organisation, promoting the superiority of ethnic rights and activism as an extension of the Marxist agenda which has long infiltrated our society.

The United Nations, for example, equates the simple smack delivered to a persistently disobedient child with “violence”  “hitting” – and other exaggerated terminology, deliberately equating it with issues of real physical abuse.

The Emissions Trading Scheme? The United Nations contends that global warming is a real and immediate threat – although there is strong evidence that a period of natural warming ended about 1998.

And so on.

If one is wise to judge an individual not on what he or she says, but on his or her actions, then much of the directions of our country in recent years becomes possibly more understandable –  while in no way lessening the  damage that has been done.

Behind a great deal of this has been a problematic emphasis on leadership, a two-edged sword.

The very concept of leadership is one we should treat with great caution. Consistently throughout recorded history, and arguably inevitably even before then, given that human nature does not change, self-regarding leaders have been responsible for many, many more of the follies, hardships, suffering and deaths of the human race than we could ever estimate. Wars are constantly begun not by the people of a country but by their leaders. The German people – like the English, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Poles, the French, the Italians, Yugoslav, Russians, English – those units of the country which are essentially comprised of the individual and his/her family, share a basic humanity bonded more closely to father, mother, children, grandparents, brothers and sisters – and stretching out to extended family such as uncles and aunts and cousins – than to any overlordship, or authoritarian control.

 In other words, in two of the most disastrous wars in recorded history, World War I and World War II, the German people would have been as basically peace-loving, as anxious for the care and safety of their sons and daughters, their mothers and fathers – but were those forced to take up arms, controlled, dominated and manipulated by leaders upon whose heads, as so often,  lie the blame for so many millions killed, tortured, imprisoned – their orders obeyed by subservient followers.

Has human nature changed? Or do we still have strongly egotistical and ambitious leaders whose orders are obeyed by subservient followers? In other words, is leadership still a highly dangerous concept? And if, as historian Barbara Tuchman so well illustrated in her book “The March of Folly”, governments get most issues wrong  – what should we think about a leader who so dominates his/her own government that his/her own ambition may well be what determines the directions for that country?  There is a good case for maintaining this is now precisely what is happening in New Zealand  –  and that,  far from any longer being a democracy  – we have moved from even being a representative democracy when electorate MPs, answerable to the people of a community,  a district, ignore their wishes to endorse those of their leader instead.

While it is true that the quality and integrity of an exceptional leader can still save a country – “Cometh the hour – cometh the man …” it is notable that this form of leadership inevitably involves an individual standing up to be counted and to oppose his or her counterpart – the self-elected leader intent on a course of action which will have damaging, even disastrous consequences for so many. Such leaders of the hour, rising to challenge an existing and damaging leadership, are recorded with gratitude in the histories of their people… Don Juan of Austria, in the great 16th century battle of Lepanto, holding the tide for the Christian West against the Muslim fight for Europe. Alfred the Great, who earned this recognition for leading an army of Anglo-Saxons farmers, tradesmen, ordinary country folk against highly trained Danish invaders. (It is not irrelevant that in Chesterton’s great poem “The Ballad of  the White Horse”,  the Christian Alfred, winning this battle against all the odds, knows that it is ongoing, “revealing that it is not so much the violent pagans that he fears, but rather the cultured, subversive pagans. As he says:  – “I have a vision and I know / The heathen shall return/ They shall not come with warships/They shall not waste with brands/ But books be all their eating/ And ink be on their hands.’ “

Churchill, the man of the hour, overcoming the antagonism, apathy, smugness and sheer folly – if not in fact the  jealousy of members of his own political party – rallied England in the face of what seemed an almost inevitable German invasion – led by another disastrous leader.

We should now, at what is a crucial point in our own history as a country, be questioning our own leadership. Some argue that,  given the failure of any recent referenda showing quite clearly considerable disquiet on the part of the New Zealand public against government directions, clearly set by a now highly dominating pattern of leadership,  New Zealanders have given up thinking that they can achieve meaningful resistance. Successive governments have quite simply pleased themselves,  treating New Zealanders as children,  ignoring what referenda have spelt out and persisting in making sure that such referenda are non-binding.

 In other words, the political party of the time – or rather the political leader of the day, can carry on with his or her agenda. New Zealanders, well aware of the accommodations that our ruling parties now make with small but highly activist interest groups for vote-buying purposes,  are reduced to eventually and routinely  throwing out at election time a political party whose course we know well has been damaging. The other choices for those who quite wrongly feel that there is little that can be done in between are simply to keep their heads down, hoping to be left alone, or to leave the country.

Thousands are now doing just that, and many of us will be the poorer for the brightest and best of those we knew, who, as a good friend recently told me, simply can’t stand what is happening to the country – and others – who don’t want to come back for this reason.

So what is this malaise? And what does it have to do with the present government, almost overwhelmingly endorsed by mainstream media whose attitude towards our present charismatic leader has been remarkably sycophantic? And when the media fail in their role of providing information, scrutineers of policy and directions – as well as careful analysis – to be transformed into a celebrity endorsing, self-important role, swinging like weathercocks in the tide of liberal opinion, then we have the mainstream media playing as damaging a role as can self-ordained leadership – what has been described as the media evolving into a weapon of mass destruction.

There is very good evidence, in relation to this highly dangerous and quite wrong notion of so-called equal rights launched by homosexual and lesbian individuals – and so very inevitably endorsed by Prime Minister John Key – that the media is not acting in the interests of the nation. Supportive photographs are now appearing in our daily newspapers of gay couples, but not of conservative families, emphasising the importance of the roles of a mother, father and children – the basic foundation of a stable Western society underpinned by what Christendom gave to the West. This is the realisation of the importance and value of the individual and his/her interdependence with those who brought him/her into the world – and the importance of respecting all other individuals – allied to the reality that man was not his own creator and must eventually answer for how well or how badly (he or she) has lived a given life.

On the contrary, in an extraordinary achievement by a basically antagonistic and liberal Western media, the most important religion in the world – the one which answers the deepest needs of individuals – emphasising the right to be treated in the same way as others in turn should be treated by  individuals – what became known as the never-bettered Golden Rule  of  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you“  – has become snidely pilloried as if it  Christianity itself  is merely an eccentric sect.

This staggering lack of perception, of reality, even, by a media commentariat extraordinarily ignorant of not just the lessons, but even the facts of history, shows an almost bottomless chasm of unawareness of the reasons for society’s near–endemic sexual permissiveness, lack of motivation and self-respect – with its inevitable consequences in the drunkenness, violent crime, conscienceless theft and child abuse that would have been unimaginable in our parents’ generation.

Theories with regard to what has gone wrong with our society avoid the most important fact that everything begins and ends with the child – and that  all the well-respected,  well-researched literature points to the fact that increasing crime, abortion, child neglect,  and abuse can be laid at the feet of the attack on the family, particularly the family without both a mother and a father. The crime rate among black youth in America for example, is demonstrably extraordinarily high, where the breakdown of society, the growth in sexual promiscuity – allied to government-funded support – has made it very easy for males to impregnate women – then walk away from their responsibilities.

There is every indication that our representatives in parliament, led by a highly problematic leader, are once more also going to walk away from theirs.

As has been commented elsewhere – “The witch hunts are back in earnest, and guess who are the new witches?”  Conservative Christians, for example to whom we owe so much in their guarding of family values underpinning our society, are no longer to be tolerated.

“And all this comes from those who shout the most about tolerance. As Alister McGrath puts it, “The 20th century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerance and violence of that century were practised by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence “”.

We need to recall, that although the hour is very late, when Pandora’s Box was opened, hope at least remained.  New Zealanders do have an opportunity, the only genuinely possible and practicable one, to reclaim this country. It is through the www. –  and through your support for us.

But this can only be done through the power of the individual, standing up at last to be counted. Everything ultimately, depends upon the individual trying – or turning away. But then he or she should not grumble about what is happening to us as a country…

©Amy Brooke