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.

 

 

The real racism in our institutions. And not all women are irrational!

 

The real racism in our institutions. And not all women are irrational!

There’s little doubt that away from our long infiltrated and now Marxist-dominated universities, by far the majority of New Zealanders will agree with Professor Greg Newbold of the University of Canterbury when he challenges what is happening.

Did you know that Sandra Grey, president of the Tertiary Education Union (TEU), has come out IN SUPPORT of Massey’s VC, and said that Don Brash’s views have no place in a university?

Unbelievable!

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As a member of the TEU for the past 30 years I wish to condemn in the strongest terms the letter that the TEU president has recently sent to members at Massey University. Inter alia, the message says that the (unspecified) views of Dr Don Brash ‘should not be encouraged, respected, nor accepted’ and infers that the rules of free speech should not apply in the case of Dr Brash. It also says that Dr Brash’s (unspecified) views have no place in this country and it supports the Massey VC’s decision to stop Dr Brash from speaking on campus.

To suggest that views that may contradict the opinions of some people should be banned from expression on a university campus, and that a person who holds such views should be blocked from speaking on a campus, is a direct affront to the principle of freedom of thought and speech. Any such a suggestion erodes the most sacred principle upon which a university is founded. It also undermines the basis of a free and democratic society and is reminiscent of the book-burning philosophies of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.   The TEU should stridently reject the censorship of controversial ideas and oppose the suppression of debate on matters that are of critical importance to this nation.

Greg Newbold, Professor in Sociology, University of Canterbury

https://us4.campaign-archive.com/?u=fb04aaec9ab34fde94735fa91&id=c15f1f0c2e

Reading through the extraordinary nonsense offered by Sandra Grey (link above)  in  her contention that she is all for free speech…but wants some free-speech banned  (!)  one can only marvel at the apparently delusional nature of so much of what these left-wing women are now maintaining.

But where are the good women publicly opposing them? Or what about the point some are now making, strong, centrist-right women writers, many far from feminist – who feel they are being elbowed out by their male colleagues? A touch of condescension here and there? Male solidarity? Even male ego?

Historically this has certainly been valid, regarding women as outside the brotherhood…and it seems to be still the case, from mounting anecdotal evidence. A pity if these strongest voices of all in the best position to challenge the sisterhood are not getting the support they well deserve.

Thanks to all those who have persevered, often largely because of sheer courage, of integrity, of their concern to protect their families – the family unit itself, as the most important institution of all –  in  the face of the sheer venom of what have been termed the feminazi.

The result? The tide is undoubtedly turning against the essentially totalitarian thinking and practices now being inflicted upon the public, not only by our government and our local governments,  but by our publicly funded institutions, very much including the universities.

And it is those New Zealanders who have stood up to be counted who have achieved this.  The country owes you – as will our children

What about those who have just complained – and done nothing?  Is it a lack of moral courage – or just laziness? Even though  you count.

If you have done nothing at all to help to date, there is still time…

Email, call your local MP’s office – call the universities  –write to your local paper – ring talkback. Above all, register your displeasure with the increasingly racist provisions now being foisted off on New Zealanders by parliament.

Parliament’s number is 04 817 9999.

Ring Jacinda Ardern’s office for your message to be delivered to the Prime Minister.

Ring Winston Peters’ office – and tell him why so many New Zealanders feel he let them down.

And especially – join us to help reach a tipping point of New Zealanders right around the country. www.100days.co.nz

© 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.

 

 

 

Why is Jacinda Ardern promoting further racial separatism?

Why is Jacinda Ardern promoting further racial separatism? 

Can Ardern really be ignorant of the fact that there is absolutely no doubt that New Zealanders as a whole – whatever their ethnic background – are now fed up with the increasing polarisation of society along the lines of a deliberately promoted Maori superiority? 

Is she ignorant, naïve –  or does she have a more concerning aim in mind? 

According to the usual part-Maori activists, Maori names must now appear first. In city streets, throughout national and local government agencies, signs are being rewritten at considerable expense to the whole country so that Maori – in many cases, of course, predominantly reinvented Maori – is to take precedence. Any English must appear in much smaller lettering underneath. 

 This is not only insulting to the majority of New Zealanders: it appears to be  an extraordinarily insensitive promotion of resentment, of a kickback against the massive, never-ending payouts of now hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed “compensation” by a generation today which had absolutely nothing to do with any wrongs committed nearly 200 hundred years ago. Moreover, a one-sided emphasis on these has been allowed to hold sway for too long. 

Add on the nonsensical assertion that what is now an overwhelmingly fake language should be compulsorily inflicted upon the country…with attempts to pass it off as “the language of the land”, and the inevitable backlash is gathering momentum. 

Someone needs to tell the present Race Relations Conciliator this claim of hers is sheer gobbledygook. The land has no language.  The land cannot speak. Faced with an inexorable logic, even if one were deluded enough to literally put one ear to the ground, one would have to admit a failure in any attempt to listen to the land speaking… 

Moreover, if the land today had a language it would be English – the international language overwhelmingly necessary for communication both within and outside this country…the language which new immigrants must learn to assimilate…the language which by far the majority of those of Maori descent also prefer to speak. And any attempt by the politically correct to try to gain more mileage for a language stretched well past its original authenticity will be resisted by New Zealanders who have far more important things to do – and who resent the ongoing virtual squandering of scores of millions of dollars each year on a now inauthentic, largely made-up language which has no relevance to them.  But it provides lucrative jobs for the boys and girls pushing it… 

In fact, it can be argued that it is not only farcical to claim that a genuine Maori language has the words for, say Inland Revenue Department, Ministry of  Social Welfare, economy return flight tickets to Afghanistan… Accident and Emergency Department… but that it is a basic con to claim that this largely reinvented language is authentic.  

So why is this happening? 

We are also well overdue to ask – who is Maori?  

It’s past time for a scientifically based definition of Maori. We should now be insisting upon this from this government, because the lack of any definition allows today’s opportunists, those with their eye to the main chance, to claim to be Maori for any economic or preferential advantage going. 

There are no longer any genuinely full-blooded Maoris in this country. And the most prominent iwi opportunists are those who are predominantly certainly not Maori – but to whom the constant rejection of the largest proportion of their genetic inheritance pays great dividends – given today’s corruption of our vote-seeking political parties.

Remember Donna Awatare? A convicted fraudster, together with her husband, she was found guilty in 2005 and sentenced to 2 years nine months in jail. They were convicted of stealing $80,000 from a trust fund she had formed to improve literacy among underperforming Maori children.  Since being released from jail, she has held several roles including deputy chair administration for the New Zealand Māori Council.

In 2014 she represented the council in presenting the Māori claim for water to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.  She has now been appointed Maori Climate Commissioner.

How many will have been incredulous at this news? It is not surprising, but it is ominous, that our major newspaper syndicates, obligingly changing their mastheads  to switch to Maori-derived names, have now severely cut back, or completely dispensed with, the ability to comment on the major socio-political articles of the day. 

Why do you think this might be? Could it possibly be related to the fact that most commentators have voiced their concern, even their anger, at the views of the majority of New Zealanders now being completely discarded.  

One correspondent‘s view, that the Treaty of Waitangi has become a stranglehold on the rest of the country, is now reflected the length and breadth of the country.  Another expat’s comments represent the thinking of many. Having left New Zealand because of the increasingly toxic atmosphere caused by our political parties sell-out of democracy along racist lines, he writes, “It seems the will of the people in a democratic vote is not respected if the minority don’t like it. This I find very worrying,  as voting is the basis of democracy.” Individuals who feel powerless in the face of this increasingly racist reorientation of New Zealand do have a remedy. And it’s a very easy one.  Each of us can indeed stand up to be counted. You don’t have to despise yourself for doing nothing  (an essentially cowardly choice which diminishes us as human beings, as Jordan Peterson points out ) –  or for feeling powerless in the face of this virtual steam-rolling over the majority of New Zealanders. 

When did you last put a quick call through to Parliament to the appropriate office – that of your local MP? – or the office of the leader of a political party. They claim they really want to hear from you  – then why don’t you make sure they do?  

A correspondent has contacted me to say she has done just that. She rang Jacinda Arden’s office to politely state that she completely disagrees – as do majority of New Zealanders – with the racist lines Jacinda Ardern is promoting… She asked her views to be taken into account – to be taken back to the Prime Minister. 

Everything in the end depends upon individuals. Why don’t you do the same? And no – it’s not like knocking on the headmaster’s door! We employ and pay our political servants. We will be genuinely beginning to claim back this country when we act upon this actual fact.  

Parliament’s number is 04 817 9999. Ring and ask to be put through to the appropriate office. Every call counts – as does doing nothing… We do have a choice.

 

©  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.

 

 

The bully boys and girls have gone too far

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/07/the-bully-boys-and-girls-have-gone-too-far/

We all know that among human beings, in every ethnic grouping, individuals vary enormously. And I’ll always recall with gratitude the kindness of a Wellington Muslim café owner, Abdel, who, learning that we had just come from farewelling my mother, brought my sister and me a cup of coffee with an almond biscuit – and would take no payment.

Any well-justified concern at the aggressive worldwide march of Islam needs to take into account that most people share basic aims, wanting peace for their families and the best for their children. We have this in common with New Zealanders of all backgrounds – including family-minded Muslims who now regard themselves as New Zealanders and have happily become part of our communities.

However, the threat to this country from radicalised Islam targeting, propagandising, recruiting, even virtually blackmailing its own people is very real. So New Zealanders have a right to know what steps the government is taking to safeguard this country – and to limit the intake from those from Islamic background.

We should now be well aware, given what is happening right throughout Europe, and even in our closest neighbour, Australia, that when the numbers are sufficiently large, assimilation is replaced by virtual enclaves, or ghettoised settlements. Women and young girls continue to be sexually mutilated and basically enslaved by their male relatives, forced or brainwashed to wearing anachronistic, burdensome clothing,  while Islam’s deep antagonism to Christianity and the West should make us very wary of our government’s apparent naivety – if not incompetence  – in the face of its strident minority demands.

We all now well know the pattern happening world-wide. Radicalised activists from other cultures, sheltering within ethnic groups, begin to challenge majority rule – and to demand the damaging separatism which has occurred under the manipulative, ideological demands for multiculturalism.

So-called diversity, the superior merits of which we are constantly assailed with, is simply a weasel word wielded like a bludgeon to propagandise and intimidate New Zealanders beginning to ask well-overdue questions about what is happening to this country.

It is time for our politicians put their hands up to answer them. Our political parties’ responsibility is given to them by New Zealanders – to represent us, in accordance with our wishes – not to constantly over-ride them. But it is the latter which has now become entrenched.

Join our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement – www.100days.co.nz

 © Amy Brooke

Courage is everything…Check out the outstanding Kapiti Independent News

The excellent Kapiti Independent News puts most other newspapers to shame. No wonder that most media are now so despised.

Without courage, what is left? And what has happened to us as a country that, as formerly happened in the USSR,  much-needed debate is now suppressed, and to speak the truth on important issues now takes an act of courage?

The Kapiti Independent News deserves to be acclaimed by all of us. It stands head and shoulders above our mainstream newspapers right across the country  – earning respect by its support of debate on the now damaging issues of racial preference and discrimination.This Kapiti newspaper’s support of the fine article by courageous Bud Codger brings to mind the phrase  – redeeming the times.  Congratulations to all involved. And don’t miss the below.

http://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/racism-in-the-universities/#more-63053

Judging from my own experiences in relation to my local newspaper, I’d agree it’s no wonder that, in the public mind, it’s been established that the least-trusted group of individuals in any occupation are  journalists, “ranked below MPs, even, the second least trusted, and behind local council members, lawyers and civil servants, who are all below the half-way mark in a survey of public trust and confidence. ”

That’s no surprise to so many New Zealanders concerned about the directions in which this country is heading, but finding it almost impossible to be able to take part in that underpinning of democracy, public debate, using the forum of letters to the editor. I’m not alone in the long campaign I’ve been waging to challenge the Nelson Mail  in relation to its disgraceful practice of suppressing letters to the editor from well-respected commentators – if the opinions, even the facts that they express, obviously irritate the letters editor – or/and even the actual editor.

My persistent objection to the letters of one highly qualified commentator on treaty issues being ignored has at last seen his letters begin to appear – possibly because I included, in my recent complaint to the Press Council, the constant suppression of his excellent letters, and,  even of a well substantiated article pointing out that so-called facts invoked by two local activists  in relation to  Maori-related historical issues could indeed be challenged. Naturally, he was denied publication. Moreover, invited to give an address  to the Nelson Institute,  he found this recently cancelled, when the Institute, the Nelson City Council and the public library were asked to cancel his address – with the implied threat that there would be public disruption – possibly violence –  “a health and safety issue” – if he was allowed to speak. And I’m referring here to an excellent historian, respected in his field.

Tiring of the constant  suppression of my own letters, challenging left-wing, quite wrong or troubling “facts” presented in the Nelson Mail  (I would write no more than about four a year – given so  much already to juggle – and in particular where others had not highlighted an important issue) I finally submitted a complaint to the Press Council  about the Mail’s suppression of these.

My expectation of support from this body is pretty minimal. Our institutions all over the country are now largely dominated by the Politically Correct, and I recognize from my own time as an independent columnist and commentator on current affairs for the Dominion, and elsewhere, two or three familiar names on the Press Council.

However, one of the facts we need to take on board as individuals in this country, concerned about its very worrying directions, is that it is not good enough to fold up under pressure – or to simply be a pushover (in a friend’s words) – when confronted  by any form of bullying. On the contrary, it is important to make things as difficult as possible for those misusing positions of power.  And this is exactly what too many of today’s journalists are doing – pushing their markedly ” liberal” or radicalized points of view on the public – and then denying the opportunity for public debate.

It wasn’t always the case.  C. P. Scott, the long-standing editor of the Manchester Guardian, summed up the professional duty of a journalist, arguing that the “primary office” of a newspaper is accurate news reporting, saying “comment is free, but facts are sacred“.

Once, when journalism had a code of ethics, reporters would be pulled up short when their personal opinions took precedence over the facts. I recall some fine editors or features editors whom it was a pleasure to know. However, training journalists on an actual paper under the eye of experienced editors gave way to an utterly unnecessary three-year (and more) journalism courses where today’s often highly opinionated and self-regarding editors and reporters learned that their inculcated left-wing and  PC views were to be inflicted on the readers – and that they are free to push their too often half baked opinions – at the expense of the facts.

As usual the Nelson Mail is now holding back my letter in support of historian Bruce Moon.  I very much doubt if the editor has any intention of publishing it, and if this is the case, I will let readers judge for themselves by producing in this journal the letters which obviously offended the tender sense of susceptibilities of editorial staff.

Once more into the breach, dear friends …
©  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 my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazons Kindle.

 

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution?

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution? Apparently so – with her suggestion of involving the police to charge those she fancies have committed “hate speech”.

While in every society  there are undoubtedly individuals whose form of expression is extreme, unfair, or thoroughly objectionable, there is very good reason why we have not in the past moved towards a more totalitarian society –  by removing the right to free speech.

What our Race Relations Conciliator does not seem able to take on board is the fact that  New Zealand can no longer claim to be a free society if she achieves her apparent wish – to have individuals charged with the crime of using speech she and others may find offensive.

This is a horrifically dangerous move for any government to embark upon – a new form of censorship which would have been completely unthinkable to our parents and grandparents. Only in times of war,  when loose tongues could cost lives, has any Western society risked the damage done to one of the most important of human freedoms – people’s very basic rights to speak the truth as they see it.

But there is no doubt now that individuals are under threat today, even vilified, or virulently attacked for speaking the truth as they see this – for pointing out the growing dangers threatening our society.  The form of Muslim extremism, for example, sweeping across Europe, tolerates no opposition, the least form of which is name-calling and disparaging its opponents – those with the courage still to try to warn about what is actually happening to this now troubled continent.

 It has always been recognised that whether individual opinions are considered right or wrong – an open society is the only one compatible with Western freedoms – and the underpinning of democracy. Open debate and free comment are the best remedies to counter extremism. And we should be questioning why, if Devoy has any real knowledge of what happened to those societies in the 20th century (and today) in which the climate of intimidation allowed dictatorships to flourish, she has not taken the lessons on board.

It’s happening again. From one of the best informed website journals, The Gatestone Institute, comes this reminder of what happens when the State begins to censor speech. It contains a reminder by Spiked Online editor, Brendan O’Neill, that “politically correct speech does not need protecting. The United States first Amendment exists precisely to protect the minority from the majority – and to protect unpopular opinions from those who would silence them.”  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12008/france-le-pen-free-speech#.WrNlggLKBas.gmail

There seems little doubt that Susan Devoy, with her aim of having suppressed speech or opinions which she finds unpalatable, thinks these should be silenced.

 This is not only an aim incompatible with democratic freedoms – (regardless of the creeping activism we have seen for some time, in relation to even our court decisions). It flies in the face of that most important reminder from The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 19.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

We have already in this country seen the rise of bullying and name-calling whereby radical activism uses the tactics of badmouthing thoughtful critics by targeting them as racist, or homophobic, for example. As it works by silencing all too many worried about the repercussions ensuing from standing up for their beliefs, we have started on the first step of a very slippery slope.

Ms Devoy arguably needs to think much more deeply of the consequences of her wish to involve the police to target individuals whose utterances she disapproves of. This will undoubtedly take us even further down the road of a virtual Police State that some maintain, with reason, we are already embarked upon.

©  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.

 

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!