The destructive consequences of the sexual revolution

The destructive consequences of the sexual revolution.

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/10/06/our-sickening-sexual-sewer/

Given the support now in schools to inappropriately promoting notions of transgenderism even to small children, and thoroughly confusing so many with the pernicious nonsense that they can choose to be whichever sex they prefer, it’s high time to question the whole notion of the State inappropriately sexualising our children and grandchildren.

That sex education in schools is largely not only inappropriate, and not the business of politicians,  has long been pointed out. That it fails, destabilising and even shocking many children, needs to be more widely recognised.

According to a long-time British Medical Journal study that reviewed 26 trials, there was no delay in initiating sexual intercourse by adolescents participating in pregnancy prevention programmes. They did not improve the use of birth control by young men and women,  nor reduce pregnancy rates – in fact some programmes were associated with a rise in pregnancies.

The trials evaluated programmes in North America, Australia and Europe, including those in New Zealand which has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world.  There is little doubt that the academic theorists behind so many of the far Left destructive ideology long dumped on our children in schools,  and promoted throughout our  now thoroughly discredited universities,  will produce studies arguing exactly the opposite. But agenda-driven conclusions can be dismissed. What is actually happening is obvious everywhere.

Some years back when I wrote on this issue, receiving feedback from a lot of troubled parents, I was struck by a mother contacting me saying that her young daughter had arrived home from school shocked and disturbed. The little girl  remained upset. No prior notice of the information inappropriately thrust upon her had been given to her parents – many of whom today are conned by being told that it will simply be embarrassing for their child to exercise the right to be removed from her/his classes. In fact, I’ve encountered the opposite reaction from children who find them embarrassing and intrusive.  

That young boys subsequently harass girls in the playground is glossed over. And as one worried grandmother recently told me of a misbehaving 10 year old, “This child now knows far more than she should, and the consequences are obvious in her behaviour.”

That sex education has long been deliberately promoted in schools by those with a neo-Marxist agenda who infiltrated the Ministry of Education with the deliberate aim of destabilising the West needs to be far more widely known.

Check out the relevant, thoroughly documented chapter in my book “The 100 days – Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.”-   P. 89. “Sex education – from the beginning its ill concealed intent was to destroy lives”. Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

Nigel Farage – Cometh the hour, cometh the man…


For so many world-wide, Nigel Farage epitomises that one outstanding individual saying “Go no further…” to the system whereby political classes, so often under highly damaging leadership worldwide,  have distorted the democratic process. https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1047058901621981184/video/1

We are now in a similar situation here in New Zealand with  central authority  over the whole of the country –  which equates to government and power without genuine  accountability – merely a recycling of the less damaging-looking political party every three years.

Is everyone happy with this?  If not SHARE, LIKE and support us on Facebook, and at www.100days.co.nz – to at last claim back this country for New Zealanders – from rule by politicians. Yes, it can be done – and we can do it…as always, it’s up to individuals,

The runaway situation with the never-ending treaty claims, some imaginatively reinvented;  some, on good evidence,  arguably fraudulent;  is compounded by the mess the previous National government has got us into.

Over 300 claims for the foreshore and seabed from opportunistic iwi and hapu?  That we, all New Zealanders, will  be required to actually pay the costs of those claiming against us – as usual!  – is  a prime example of the damage caused to this country by top-down government decision-making –  from which the public are routinely  excluded.

You’ll remember the smooth-tongued John Key and the Minister for  Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson – (formerly Ngai Tahu’ s only too successful lawyer)  – assuring the country there would be very little chance of any claims,  because uninterrupted occupation of these relevant areas would be required. Should he/they be answerable to the country for the costly consequences,  either of their naivety – or even incompetence. Or was there another agenda here?

The real issue is that, as usual, this legislation and other damaging legislation was imposed upon the country by our successive governments which, historically, have got most things wrong.

And what about the ramped-up claims by today’s well-paid, radicalised part-Maori (by no means representative of the majority of New Zealanders, both  part-Maori,  European and of other ancestry) that an almost totally inauthentic “Maori” language be compulsorily inflicted upon the country?

That the highly activist Wellington City Council is now squandering ratepayers’ money on rewriting street and other signs in largely reinvented Maori, without the consent of the majority of ratepayers –  with our most important language, English, in much smaller letters below, is almost credible – although it is not the only local government heading in these unsupported directions.

Today’s reinvented te reo, bearing minimal relationship to the genuine Maori language,  and now including very many thousands of completely made-up, supposedly “Maori” words,  is very much part of the constant push by well-funded activists, many also feathering their own nests highly successfully.

However, New Zealanders as a whole are fed up with legislation imposing upon them markedly  damaging directions, while  highly impoverished areas of the economy suffer a severe  lack of funding  – because of the slush funds of political bribery directed towards those iwi on the make.

And while the Labour government is marching even more firmly down the road of political opportunism and other disastrous directions, it is almost incredible that the National Party leader, Simon Bridges, has spoken out so strongly against what is really an issue of national security – long overdue. This is the requirement for all New Zealand immigrants to be required to pledge to respect our democratic values, and obey the laws which uphold these.

All around the world the consequences of allowing open immigration have been disastrous – with increases in violent crime traceable to a newly immigrant population whose radicalised young men show little respect for women,  and with demands from a radicalised Muslim sector for Sharia law.

Politicians get too much wrong –  and we are all suffering the consequences. Those who claim that our leaders know best could not be more wrong – as well we know. History itself is the best proof of this, and only, “Cometh the hour,  cometh the man” has saved us from so much worse.

It is well and truly time to insist what the Swiss long achieved for themselves – Government by the people, for the people, and of the people – not by the politicians – and for the politicians.

Join us to achieve a tipping point of New Zealanders aiming for just this!

Amy Brooke – Convenor: The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. See www.100days.co.nz 

-- 

“Disharmonious speech” ! Wake up NZ – This is shocking…

 

 “Disharmonious speech” ! Wake up NZ – This is shocking  

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/is-freedom-of-speech-under-threat/#ath

Political commentator Lindsay Perigo has told Chris Lynch he is concerned freedom of speech is under threat in New Zealand from the Human Rights Commission wanting to prevent “disharmonious speech” directed towards ethnic minority groups in New Zealand.

Yes, we are all busy, but it’s well worth taking the time to listen to this interview. It was this same highly experienced media commentator who originally raised the alarm over the “brain dead” directions of our state-sponsored television and broadcasting media.

This is now equalled by the descent of  Fairfax New Zealand  (a subsidiary of Australia’s Fairfax Media newspapers)  and New Zealand Media & Entertainment (owned by Sydney-based APN News & Media and the Australian Radio Network) into the obligingly dumbed-down, PC, daily fare dished up to this country. There never was a better time to abandon subscriptions and to support proudly independent local newspapers.

Critical analysis of what we’re being fed through the media is only too rare, which is why the Perigo interview is so very important. For there is no question that we New Zealanders are in deep trouble with now state-sponsored cultural bullying receiving useful platforms in the only-too compliant mass media.

It is also receiving support even in areas which have absolutely no business in becoming politically active – and radicalised.  The police hierarchy, for example, is now causing concern by its inappropriate intrusion into areas relating to policy-making – a move which will rightly concern many of its own rank and file.

Former Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy, already viewed by many as inappropriately partisan in her role, increased concern with her apparent wish to involve the police in policy decisions  – or pressuring the government to do. And now, a New Zealand Herald correspondent has pointed out that the Acting Race Relations Conciliator, Paula Tesoriero, a former New Zealand Paralympics racing cyclist, has made the mistake of attempting to equate freedom of speech with physical safety…in order to give legitimacy to restricting this freedom. This is very poor thinking from her indeed.

 This Herald correspondent commented on Tesoriero’s failure to make the distinction between words and actions – a now fashionable justification for those seeking to muzzle freedom of expression. He’s right in stating that “Legislation already protects the right to physical safety- and words are not actions.” Moreover, as he points out “The commission seeks new legislation to sanction ‘hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religious and beliefs of minority communities.’ Who will define these terms, he asks, and why would they apply only to speech directed at minority communities?’

Why indeed? But I think we all know the answer to this, given the now constant attack on mainstream New Zealanders, who are not being consulted by our government on what they feel as the best directions for our country.

Tesoriero has now denied that this is the case – but the evidence is against her.  The Summary of Recommendations by our far from impartial Race Relations Commission to the United Nations is worth checking out– see 2(a) and (b)  – https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/8215/0171/9491/Appendix_to_NZHRC_CERD_Submission_2017_-_Summary_of_Recommendations.pdf

Not only does it inexcusably continue to advance the quite wrong claim of a ”partnership” between Maori and the Crown, it specifically urges the government  to “Review the adequacy of current legislation in addressing and sanctioning hate speech and incitement to racial disharmony, including hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities.”

In fact, reading this document right through leaves little doubt in the reader’s mind that it is basically a highly activist piece of work, also pressuring the government to implement the recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal – a body which has already been not only utterly partisan, but even arguably corrupt in its modus operandi. (See page 160 in my book “The 100 Days  – Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians – “The case for abolishing the highly damaging Waitangi  Tribunal and questioning its highly dubious, activist record.”

We’ve got to the stage in this country where the European-descended majority is now basically under constant attack, with special rights and privileges directed not only at today’s part-Maori but at other ethnic minorities which can be used as a tool for this purpose. And of course, when one particular sector of the community gains special rights, special privileges, special concessions…it is always at the cost to all others.

The weasel word of diversity has become especially useful when wielded to silence criticism from New Zealanders rightly concerned that the democratic aim of equal rights for all, regardless of colour, race, gender and creed to bring people together as one – is now being deliberately undermined.

Even given this aim of equality under the law for all New Zealanders, we need to also remember the American political scientist Sam Huntingdon’s reminder about cultures in conflict. Best known for his 1993 theory, “the Clash of civilisations”-  of  a new post-Cold  War new world order – he argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures, and that Islam extremism would become the biggest threat to world peace. Given the problems that the rise of militant Islam is now causing throughout Europe, in Britain and even close to us, in Australia, it can be argued that it would be irresponsible of our government to allow unrestricted Muslim immigration to our own country. Moreover, it would be inexcusable if even opening this relevant issue up for debate will bring accusations of “disharmonious speech” directed against concerned New Zealanders.

The summary of the Race Relation Commission’s recommendations to the United Nations should be torn up. It is basically a divisive and damaging document – and gives credence to those who argue that the commission itself should be abolished.

Susan Devoy had come to be viewed by many as naïve in her seeming lack of awareness that the United Nations is now a highly suspect organisation essentially antagonistic to the West, with a basically One World, repressive agenda aimed at bringing down democracies. Devoy did not seem to realise that her loyalty should be to New Zealanders at large – not to this leftist organisation whose destructive diktats should be opposed – not endorsed.  The question that should be asked is – who authorised her policy stands there on our behalf?

The situation is getting worse, not better, with this new move to threaten or criminalise New Zealanders by proposed new legislation ridiculously described as “disharmonious speech”. Common sense alone, which today seems extraordinarily lacking among government appointees, points to the fact that a horse and cart, metaphorically speaking, can be driven through this definition. And all the puffery now forthcoming – to hastily assure us that such legislation would only be invoked in extreme cases – should be treated with the derision it deserves.  Bad laws are bad laws – and what is proposed is very bad law indeed. 

It is in essence nothing other than a giant step towards the overwhelmingly repressive legislation with which those unfortunate enough  to live in the former USSR, in Nazi Germany, in North Korea today – or in any other  oppressive dictatorships  – were, and are, only too familiar. 

The hour is now very late for New Zealanders to wake up – or we are going to lose this country.  We all know that the tentacles of the State are reaching more and more over us all, not only with all the increasing compliance edicts and petty regulations,  but with the utterly inappropriate ethnic superiority, anti-Christian, anti-European onslaught that has targeted all our institutions. The universities, the teacher training facilities, the nursing and medical curricula –  and, among the most pernicious, the Ministry of Education, imposing its costly and radicalised agenda on our schools  in a blatant power grab for the minds of  our children – are all now contributing. 

 The ominous and loaded phrase “hate speech” was bad enough. But now, under a basically socialist government, and an agenda-driven Prime Minister who likes to use the word “Comrades” – while well aware of its Communist cloaking – we are heading and more and more towards the reality of a police state. 

A recent excellent article in the Spectator Australia by political science student Tom Grein should be compulsory reading for all our naive and incompetent politicians. It is the latter, whose knuckling under to the bullying of the Marxist cultural movement white-anting our society (in the name of ethnic diversity), who are costing us so dearly. It is our politicians  who constantly inflict on the country, without New Zealanders’ consent, the flawed, ill-thought legislation with which we have become only too familiar. 

Noting that we have lost our way, Grein states,” I’m talking of course about the unfettered ability of the individual to express their (sic) opinion without fear of violence or intimidation, otherwise known as free speech…

“I propose this is an open question to those that demand speech codes. 

  “Quo warranto? The oldest question in the book asks, By what right do you have to decide what I can and cannot hear?

“A de facto Islamic blasphemy law is already in place – everyone knows full well what the consequences of caricaturing ‘the prophet’ are. The Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons Charlie Hebdo… You had your own protests in this fine city of Sydney a few years back which saw young Muslims carrying signs saying ‘Behead all those who insult the Prophet’. If you had told me before I read up on these problems that people were being killed in Western nations for caricaturing a prophet, I would have asked ‘When did the Inquisition return?  These sickly developments are a threat not only to free speech, but to everything we can sensibly call civilisation, and   must be meet head-on… 

“ It pained me to read about the attempted prohibition of the Catholic Union at Balliol College, Oxford…This specific targeting of Christians has become an all too common theme on university campuses as we saw a few months back with the harassment of students on this campus,  the University of Sydney,  over their opposition to same-sex marriage…Such incidents  represent the pointy end of a ‘progressive’ culture that has swept through the institutions of Australian society over the past decade or so,  which seeks to make redundant the history of this nation and reshape it along a revisionist ideology of guilt, shame, and self-flagellation”.   

New Zealanders will recognise exactly the same sort of reinvention of our history, the deliberate encouragement of a culture of special “entitlement” for some.  The agenda underpinning this here is just as dangerous and as corrupt.  

Grein concludes, with an unusual source as a recommendation. “I offer this challenge as a pragmatic way forward {that]  – we return to first principles in understanding the necessity of free speech… I suggest the letters of Rosa Luxemburg who most eloquently wrote, ‘Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.’  

“From this position we must inculcate a culture that understands the significance of free speech and its place as the bedrock which all other freedoms lie upon…” 

He concludes with Oscar Wilde’s reminder that ‘He who does not think for himself does not think at all.’ 

To have a police force in the position of laying charges against individuals brave enough to challenge the damaging, politically correct orthodoxies of the day would be unacceptable –  incredible and  utterly dismaying to those New Zealanders who fought for our democratic freedoms. 

 If we do not correspondingly fight, we will not just have let them down – we will have lost our country. 

*

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

 

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media /police activism.

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media and police activism.

 In the gossip circles of a basically close-knit mainstream media, it was reported some time back that unpleasant rumours were swirling about the Prime Minister’s partner. It was called “an unprecedented assault of baseless rumour and false innuendo.” Toxic gossip is not new in these circles. Who can forget the tragic case of the beautiful Charlotte Dawson, a media celebrity in New Zealand which she fled for Australia later, saying that she was “savaged” as a celebrity living in this country? “New Zealand is small and nasty and vindictive. It’s a tiny little village…a tiny country at the end of the year,” she said. Her death by suicide shocked so many – as it should have.

The relevant question is, was she right? Who would deny that the political scene is a toxic one with the jostling for power and ambition underpinning many of the rumours that surface – very often never reaching the public at large, but gaining currency in the media in-groups. The latter have now become equally as little respected – so much so that politicians and the mass media are near the bottom of the least-trusted occupations.  This is tough on those journalists who do try to write with integrity against the tide of the times, including some well worth respect. That they are apparently now in a minority makes it harder for them.

No doubt the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford will have a tough road ahead – even disregarding the media rumour mill. New Zealanders will wish her well, with the imminent arrival of her baby. However, paralleling the usual corresponding euphoria which surrounds any “progressive” celebrities, many New Zealanders have been troubled by Arden’s decision to prioritise her own career over what they see as the best interests of a baby…whose primary caregiver, for very good reason, has traditionally been regarded as its mother. By no means isolated comment also maintains she should have let the country know, before the election, that she was pregnant.

However, there is little doubt that Labour’s strategists would have known that if the country knew before the election that its leader was carrying a baby, many would have been concerned – wondering if a vote for her, in such a demanding job, was in the best interests of the child – let alone for the Prime Minister herself.

We cannot but be aware that many solo mothers have a far more demanding life than those with a husband to support them. Where a deliberate decision has been made for someone in Jacinda Arden’s position to not marry the father of her child, questions are asked. The liberal views of so many self-congratulatory but under-informed media are by no means, as so many journalists seem to take for granted, reflected back by the far more conservative country at large. Memories are surfacing of the younger political Ardern, steeped deep in socialist doctrine, choosing to use the word Comrade…as well as of socialists’ contempt for the family unit, regarding marriage contemptuously as a ”bourgeois” practice. But evidence overwhelmingly points to the presence of married parents, a mother and father, as in the best interests of the child.

Labour is very much a minority government, attracting only 37% of the vote.  It cannot claim to have a mandate for some of the ill-thought directions on which it has now embarked, including the foolish clampdown on any further gas and oil exploration – moving into typical ideologically-motivated, deep Green territory.  Disgracefully, vitally important decisions are being made behind the scenes by the coalition’s party hierarchy without even Cabinet involvement!  Buying lock stock and barrel into the now massively discredited global warming theory is costing the country hugely in economic terms. Little wonder there is rising concern about its decision-making.

The media reporting which has so obligingly avoided any of these issues of concern out in the wider community has been interesting.  Long-time journalist Barry Soper describes Clarke Gayford  “as being in the social pages long before he’d ever hooked up with Ardern – “he was a man about town.” It’s a curious, almost Edwardian description, whose meaning is not clear. But it does highlight the fact that Mr Gayford, handed the role of primary caregiver for their child, is being asked to make a considerable sacrifice, very much limiting his career and social activities – as any mother in the same position could tell him. And how demanding a role it will be for Ms Ardern, juggling her initial few weeks away from Parliament while expecting to be in constant touch with what is happening. The question still stands, whether this demanding scenario is likely to be in the best interests of the baby – let alone the mother, in those very early days.

Interesting, too, is Barry Soper’s casual mention of the fact that he texted Ardern, outlining the rumours, suggesting she or her partner should address them, and offering them a media platform to do it. His comment that, “The only reply came from her press secretary, insisting that the rumours were false and she wouldn’t be commenting on them” sounded almost miffed – as if he was expecting the Prime Minister to be personally responding to him.

This is an interesting point, because I recall journalist friends taking for granted the fact that they had Prime Minister Helen Clark’s cellphone number and could reach her for direct comment. Reportedly this worked two ways – Clark could leak to chosen media statements she wished to go further. However, whether the preferential, two-way access of selected media to the leader of the country is appropriate is another issue.

This political journalist did make one very valid point when he said that it was a mistake for Police Superintendent Mike Bush to become involved by approving the statement denying that Gayford had been the subject of a police enquiry, and saying he’d never been charged in relation to any matter.  In Soper’s words, “This simply stokes the rumour mill, and opens up the suggestion that the police have become politicised. It is unprecedented for the cops to become involved in what are unsubstantiated rumours. The question’s already been asked: Who requested the Police Commissioner’s involvement?”

Who indeed?

However, it’s over late in the day to wonder whether or not the police have become politicised and partisan in their activities when we have evidence this is already the case. Equally, we have evidence that mainstream media, with now strong liberal Left leanings, are not only highly selective when publishing what takes their fancy, but now routinely suppress letters to the editor from correspondents when the content challenges their thinking – and their bias.

I’m waiting still for a reply from the Press Council – now many weeks overdue, which this august body has not yet even acknowledged receiving – even though it promises receipt of a formal complaint within two days. A follow-up enquiry has also been ignored.  As I am familiar with two or three of the names on this council, I am not holding my breath in expectation of the response to which it is supposedly publicly committed.  However, if my third enquiry continues to be ignored, then it will be time to check to whom the Press Council itself is answerable.

The are serious issues, questions of accountability, and the suppression by the Nelson Mail of the letters below some weeks back – and a follow-up enquiry made to this newspaper – is an important matter  – because the content of these letters involves what Barry Soper is questioning  –  an arguably inappropriate police involvement in a highly politicised situation. Given the Fairfax media’s now quite blatant practice of featuring editorials and opinion pieces which allow no genuine consideration of those radicalised issues of the day which attack family values – and of refusing to publish letters legitimately expressing genuine concern, it is no wonder its newspapers are closing down all over the country.

“Dear Editor  “For the police to publicly favour the “lesbian, gay, transgender, queer, intersex and questioning” movement now becoming confrontational and aggressive is quite shocking. Those warring with the biological fact of being born male are actively targeting and recruiting vulnerable children in schools, while demanding to share women’s and children’s toilets.

“Using the weasel excuse of “discrimination”, children are being prescribed pernicious “sex education” programmes detailing as perfectly acceptable what many consider abnormal – with the word “normal” now ridiculously regarded as “hate speech”.  “

Under the banner of that other weasel word, “diversity”, police marched in the Auckland Pride campaign with rainbow colours on a police car. Individuals’ free choice must always be respected. But Police Commissioner Mike Bush’s partisan policy stance, offering recruitment support, is inappropriate and unacceptable. When have the police ever marched in a parade supporting Christian values, or any other of those core values underpinning our society?

“Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson’s courageous confrontation of this destructive counterculture war, and of the moral relativism now flooding the West, is attracting capacity crowds. Commissioner Bush should reflect on the fact that among the loudest support from Jordan’s young audiences is for his appeal for the sanctity of marriage, and child-rearing.”

Although this letter makes important points –they are not ones which the majority of today’s journalists wish to hear. The Editor of the Nelson Mail is apparently no exception. Churchill’s very important reminder to “Never, ever, ever quit,” is one that too many, deeply concerned about what is happening to New Zealand, seem to have forgotten.  Yet it is the key to winning back this country.

So I wrote again as below…although I by no means support the National Party – nor any political party for that matter, given the accumulative damage they have all caused to this country. Only by working toward what the clever Swiss have achieved, control of our politicians (www.100days.co.nz) so that New Zealanders themselves can make the decisions about our directions ahead, will we be able to mount an effective challenge to being ruled by today’s politburo. However, after a typically unbalanced editorial quite common now for this newspaper, I felt it was not good enough to walk away.  Hence this follow-up.

“Dear Editor

“The Nelson Mail’s increasingly “liberal” editorials apparently take for granted the majority of the community feels the same. For example, you noted the new leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges, voted against same-sex marriage and opposes euthanasia. You reported he goes to church and his father was a Baptist Minister  – (are we meant to recoil with horror?) – stating this puts him not only at odds with “the liberal faction”, but “potentially the momentum of popular opinion in this country and around the world”.

”It’s a leap too far. You offer no sound evidence to substantiate such an extravagant claim. Obviously the unpleasant targeting of those concerned about the worrying directions of the day – (particularly families and parents) – deters much feedback. So does the now common, bullying tactic of calling “homophobic” those who question abandoning the values so long stabilising our society.  Many will not agree with the partisan stance inappropriately shown by the police hierarchy marching in the LGBTQIA parade in Auckland – nor with schools now offering programmes which disturb many children, confusing them about their sexual identity.

“Apparently encouraging “diversity” doesn’t extend to supporting genuine debate?  And only extremist groups’ “cultural sensitivity” counts?”

Needless to say, this letter also did not get published.   However, there are  ways around this, and cancelling your support for any Stuff – Fairfax media publication to access local news and correspondence from other sources available  is a very good strategy.

These are increasingly important issues for us all – and what is equally as important is the fact that the police hierarchy felt it appropriate to take a stand which must have made many individual police deeply uncomfortable. It’s time Commissioner Bush was indeed called upon to explain his inappropriate, apparently personal partisanship in relation to an issue causing so much concern to the wider community.

What are our prospects ahead, if we have a corrupt democracy and corrupt media?  As Toby Young points out in a recent Spectator, “a lack of democratic accountability leads to the corruption of the political class”.

What democratic accountability do we have in this country, when, as West Coast MP Damien O’Connor recently stated, the decisions are made by the party hierarchy. Nick Smith also admitted, during the doggedly charming John Key’s tight-fisted control of his party that when the leader says  jump, he asks how high…

MPs are supposed to represent their electorates – nobody believes this any more. MPs now largely do as they’re told. The corruption of the political class is apparently well under way in New Zealand.

While party politics controls the country, instead of New Zealanders themselves  – the achievable way the Swiss have shown us – we’ll continue to pay a huge price for the basic incompetence and sheer ignorance underpinning so much of the decision-making we’ve been inflicted with is recent years. And look what it’s done to this country…

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazons Kindle.

 

 

 

Anzac Day

Anzac Day

Perhaps in the end
they didn’t mind dying so much;
but wouldn’t you, just twenty-two?

You, worn out, sleeping only fitfully,
a trench bed of muddy clay and water,
soaked to the skin, propped up on sandbags –
pyjamas, man? You’ve worn the same clothes
for weeks, filthy, smelling, depressed
by dysentery, a fortnight’s rain on and off
and on…thinking before dawn of home…

longing in this surrealistic world
of dirt and damp and hunger, the horror
of good mates hanging over barbed wire,
a head joined only to a helmet…

to see them all once more, and say
the things you wished you’d said before.

You say them now, or scribble them down,
think their world might yet be saved
if enough, tough men like you are trying
hard to be, lie awake at night
and think of them, and fight and kill
others trapped like you – to keep them free.

You wanted once so much to live!

But now you say – For them – what’s meant to be…
for them and for theirs – things undone – forgive?
I fought for things enduring. Oh, remember me!

Amy Brooke

The Harvey Weinstein syndrome –the MeToo movement

As with most popular movements, what starts from good intentions frequently spirals out of control – or beyond what its originator intended. Many men, for example, already experience not only sexual harassment, but also physical abuse at the hands of women. And Western men, especially white males, have already long been under attack by fanatical feminists, weathering unwarranted abuse simply because of their gender. Those of us with sons, brother, husbands, friends who are far from being predatory males have reason to be concerned about the excesses the MeToo movement is likely to lead to. One of these is the clamour for very young children to be given much more explicit sex education – although studies have shown that this is far from being in the best interests of vulnerable children. The removal of innocence, and the arousing of sexual curiosity among the young, can be emotionally not only distracting, but damaging. 

Moreover, many conservative women have also long themselves been at the mercy of the sisterhood. What is too often overlooked is that what have been called the feminazi are equally and as nastily antagonistic to their sisters…to family women, to pro-life women in particular.  Every pro-abortion rally brings out the angry faces chanting “a woman’s right to her own body” when it is demonstrably not her own body, but that of an entirely different little human being, that of her own son or daughter,  that so many desperate women are encouraged to dispose of. That the so-called sexual revolution did neither men nor women any real favours is overdue for debate. 

Arguably, it certainly assisted what we can call the Harvey Weinstein Syndrome. But has the entitlement too many much-feted or wealthy men feel they have to expect sexual favours from women persisted  – because it has been allowed to? After all, it takes two to tango…

The now conveniently indignant Hollywood female glitterati, late banding together as a sisterhood to condemn Weinstein and Hollywood powerbrokers, have long been arguably derelict in acquiescing to the casting couch syndrome. Well-known as the place where sexual favours were demanded by powerful film producers or directors, it was first reported in the 1930s. All Hollywood was aware of it:  some fine actresses opposed it, warning others. Ambitious women may well have been aware of the probable consequences of resisting – or of speaking out. The real issue is the fact that so many did not – with prominent stars such as Meryl Streep now defending themselves against accusations that they stayed silent.

 It is not so much whether we are now a sick society – but whether its illness is terminal. Who could deny it has become sex-obsessed? The now, too-late recognised long march through our institutions, advocated by the Italian communist Gramsci as the best chance of white-anting the West, has achieved much of what it aimed for. The shocking targeting, even, of school children, not only down to new entrants, but even at kindergarten level, has reached fruition in the Safe Schools programme. Advocating homosexuality, transgenderism, queerism, and all the special demands from the radicalised agenda-driven, it has adopted the now tattered cloak of liberalism to conceal its increasingly extreme onslaughts against rational thinking.

The attack on basic human biology, on nature, on DNA, can well be argued to be a delusional form of thinking , in which individuals claim they can choose what sex they want to be – and that anyone who wants this current faddism objectively debated – or who objects to children being propagandised by the rainbow coalitions – is homophobic. Using the usual tactics of bullying, of harassment, the blacklisting of businesses or of court attacks on those claiming a legitimate right to obey their conscience, its success is considerable. It takes a great deal of courage to confront bullies…especially when the attack on free debate is punitively classified as “hate speech”, and, appallingly enough, even open to prosecution.

Is all this, including the nonsense of gay  “marriage”,  symptomatic of a civilisation in decline? Who could have foreseen the rapid flowering of the obnoxious, spoilt brats of an over-privileged class of those young enough to know everything – now dubbed the snowflakes? Too intellectually or morally fragile to endure debate about the truth of issues, they have mounted an attack on those basic democratic freedoms for which so many in the generations preceding ours gave their lives. Moreover, they have flourished largely in those very institutions – our universities – which were once proud of their commitment to freedom of speech and thought. Disgracefully, university management has in places knuckled under to the radicalised demands of the bully boys and girls, repudiating these very essential values. Their complicity is  shameful, as is the silence of today’s protestors about the issues that really do need addressing.

Given our now far-reaching social media, for example, how many of us can claim ignorance of today’s totalitarian governments still oppressing, imprisoning,  torturing and executing their own people – especially those brave enough to fight for the values we have so obligingly discarded?  That the West, with too long a spoon, sups with some of these appalling régimes,  turning a blind eye  to the inhumane practices inflicted, in male-dominated traditions, within such countries – in particular the appalling bullying of women and young  girls by forced marriages  and genital mutilation –  is an issue  well overdue for addressing.  

Nevertheless, the majority of the powerful, much admired stars of the Hollywood long operating in a moral vacuum having a great deal to do with the corruption of the West, have never lent their influence to speak for the oppressed women of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. There,  girls as young as eleven years can be forced into marriage with middle-aged, or old men,  and males, encouraged by the fanatical religious, sexually obsessed Mutawas, all-powerful clerical police, can put to death their wives and daughters with no accountability…whether by officially drowning them, bound and gagged, in a family swimming pool or stoning  them to death. Such brave men, to first shackle these women, often the victims of male jealousy, such as their beauty, lest they escape…

All these appalling practices of today’s Arab world, given in the testimony of brave Arab women, such as in the Saudi Princess Sultana’s  “Princess”  first-hand account, have been highlighted in American writer Jean Sassoon’s world-wide best-seller.  And yet the constantly interviewed, glamorous Hollywood women, so conveniently now mounting their decades-late attack on the corrupt Hollywood culture, have failed to show any interest in the plight of so many women other than their own.

A survey of American students some time back revealed that the kind of films they preferred watching were those that did not embarrass them when others were present. However, with Hollywood’s influence now all-pervasive, warnings of graphic sex and violence are omnipresent. Topless actresses, and graphic depictions of sexual intercourse have progressed to shows like the Naked Attraction, where naked bodies of men in pods with sliding panels are gradually revealed from their genital areas upwards, until they are fully viewable – as, eventually, is the equally naked female choosing her preferred body – dismissing one male because of his “ginger pubes”. 

It’s legitimate to ask whether things can get much worse. Possibly yes, if Western society is determined to self-destruct through the fanaticism of a few, or the silence of so many.  

The great English columnist Bernard Levin warned us, that “the atrophy of moral judgment is the characteristic disease of our times – the inability to see evil, and the willingness to condone it “.  Whether or not we are eventually judged by our actions and inactions, how many of us would fail to respect the Australian woman who said simply that she “wanted to tell my grandchildren that I did try to help.” 

 

 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

We need you to help get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz-  Thank you!

 

 

Ah, the poor dear found it “hurtful”. But what does “rogue” mean?

The feeling of apparent entitlement Metiria Turei seemingly had when cheating the system to obtain extra advantages as a solo parent is not new. But it seems to have reached epidemic proportions. What individuals claim they are “entitled to” rarely if ever now comes with the recognition that their claim must cost others. Society willingly consents to this  when the common good is involved, as, for example, with access for all to quality heath care – an access now demonstrably lessened with this National Party government’s unrealistic and damaging squeeze on hospital funding and services.  But when that feeling of entitlement involves cheating, for self-advantage, most people take a dim view.

And so with all those illegal activities – or, worse, crimes individuals commit across all levels of society. Take theft or robbery – among the most contemptible of all crimes – whether  the all too prevalent “nicking”…or the more ambitious forms of theft committed by trusted civil servants and  financial high fliers …and now by  drug dependants and too many of our young. Is this a surprise, when too many  children  no longer have much needed standards of right and wrong taught them as essential for society’s stability, even survival?

Isn’t it time to question why subjects that required supplying rigorous thinking aids to all children were gradually removed from schools – putting so many disadvantaged children in particular at even greater risk? And how very convenient that the constant sniggering, or sniping, at those Christian values which so long underpinned the West, occurred at the same time. Coincidence or agenda? The Ministry of Education’s neo-Marxist infiltrators, long calling the shots, hold the answers here. 

No matter how contemptible the crime, the moral responsibility for owning up to a mean or violent deed too often now elicits the self-excusing “I made a mistake” – a clichéd understatement,  and a lack of acknowledgment of a moral culpability. 

In an extraordinary and ill-judged example of group-think, the Green Party has shot itself in the foot by treating one of its probably most financially privileged MPs, Metiria Turei, as some sort of heroine. Contrariwise, it has treated two of its most respected MPs, who are apparently not willing to abandon conscience and put a good face on her cheating the system, as “rogue” MPs.

This is Alice in Wonderland territory, where words mean only what they are chosen to mean – neither more nor less. This may be highly convenient for the self-deceiving Greens and any media cohorts – but parts company with reality – and public perception. A dictionary definition of “rogue” is “dishonest or unprincipled…”or “…a large animal living apart from the herd, having …destructive tendencies.”  For media to condemn as “rogue” the two honest individuals who acted according to conscience “seems extraordinarily ironic. Shouldn’t they be retargeting their thinking?

The country knows the story. The co-leader of the Green Party, until her now change of mind,  was  reported as saying she had  no intention of stepping down, even if it costs her party (much-needed) votes. Presumably her sense of self-entitlement, twinned with her sense of self-esteem, was more important to her than how her colleagues will now now fare in the coming election. Because, twist the facts as one may, many New Zealanders undoubtedly feel a lack of respect for someone who cheated the system to gain more financial advantage – particularly so if she also had family help.  Worse, she has apparently been encouraging others to do the same. At the Green Party’s annual conference, Ms Turei unveiled a totally unrealistic, socially damaging major new policy to overhaul the welfare system. Its aim? Reportedly, to remove all sanctions to beneficiaries if they don’t meet obligations when receiving a benefit.

Well, well, well…This extraordinary encouragement to seemingly cheat the system (regardless of the fact that our welfare benefits have undergone a number of studies showing their damaging consequences) seems to be saying – Do as I did.

What many regard as encouraging dishonest behaviour has become enormously divisive – with good reason – regardless of the fact that the Green Party appeared to be living in La la Land- with a kind of happy-ever-after perception that everything was just fine. However, it isn’t. Those who remained poor but honest, with little or no family help, have a right to feel that Turei threw honesty to the wind – and to challenge her lack of any past attempt to pay back what she contrived for herself through fiddling the system. After all, her subsequent work as a lawyer commanding a very healthy salary of an estimated $150,000, presumably left her plenty of leeway to start paying back what she could, as soon as possible – had she sincerely regretted her actions. It seems that in fact she has misjudged the situation – apparently attempting to elicit sympathy at the conference for her own previous situation – to justify removing all sanctions against others who may be encouraged to follow her example.  

Metiria Turei now runs the risk of being viewed by many New Zealanders as incomprehensibly egoistic. And it is too late for the Greens to fall into damage control mode, because they made quite the wrong decision to apparently regard the two individuals who made a principled stand as beyond the pale.

A topsy-turvy land indeed, and Labour is not likely to benefit for long as its new inexperienced leader refrains from making any comment on its virtual partner-party. Jacinta Ardern may now be the media’s new young darling, but her unprofessional look,  with that now all-too fashionable unkempt hair style, is off-putting to those who would prefer any future leader to look capable and mature – not simply good at soundbites or speeches.

This country doesn’t need any more media personalities. It needs those who have had the knowledge and sense of history which enables an individual to read the writing on the wall – to articulate what is happening to us as a people, and to target how we can reclaim our country.

Politicians are no more saints than the rest of us. But we expect them to have principles. And their proven intent to fight for this country has become more necessary than ever.  But it’s not happening.

Nor is Metiria Turei the only politician to feel especially entitled. To their shame, our politicians collectively have long contrived special, unacceptable perks and privileges from us…superannuation access greater than what is available to the public, required to keep paying for this – the inexcusable largesse of taxpayer-provided, ongoing airfares for these often very wealthy individuals and their partners, post-parliament. But why? The rationale provided for such self-serving “entitlements” is more than weak.

The world-wide mood is one of being fed up with the political classes. And the nearest we have in this country to a perk-buster is gaining growing support. In spite of NZFirst’s apparently inability to mount effective spokespersons from its List, and its poor internal party organisation, the country is more and more turning to Winston Peters. This highly experiences politician has long warned about the very real threats, both internal and external, facing New Zealand.  

Peter is now seen as the nearest we have to a genuine and knowledgeable statesman among a line-up of yes-sir,  rigidly party-politicians , apparently pledged to not stiffen their spines when dealing with past reruns of damaging, autocratic  leadership, such as the wide-eyed and wily Helen Clark, and the glib John Key.  

NZFirst has promised for the future a genuine binding referendum on issues where it does not have a mandate from the public for not previously stated policy directions.

 Not enough yet  but we are on the way to where we New Zealanders  – not mere politicians  – will be making, as we ourselves should – the important decisions that affect us all. We are on the way to the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand. 

© Amy Brooke

**http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/17341/amy-brooke-downplaying-the-very-real-threats-to-nz/?mc_cid=e632cab3ff&mc_eid=2eadea2444

**And for the important stories which are so relevant in election year,  check out

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network!
Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!