BRAINWASHING THE CHILDREN: A GLOBAL EFFORT
http://www.newswithviews.com/Walker/jill22.htm
By Jill Cohen Walker, J.D.
June 25, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
Not since the days of Noah has there been such a systematic destruction of the children, not just literally (through infanticide), but through brainwashing and abuse. There’s a lot at stake for the liberal elites and turncoat conservatives, but their plans didn’t come out of thin air. The real source is spiritual, and a “war in the heavenlies” is mirroring what’s happening here on earth—a war that’s more insidious than those fought with guns, grenades, and rockets.
While researching the weapons of the New World Order crowd, I stumbled upon the work of Lynette Burrows, author of the book, The Fight for the Family - the adults behind children's rights. Her book contains the names of liberal activist groups that “have been campaigning since the 1970s to promote children’s rights and remove from parents the right to discipline their children and pass on their values.” It’s no surprise that the UN is the giant umbrella under which all such small groups gather.
Mrs. Burrows, the mother of six children, knows what’s going on in the UK and elsewhere. This includes the left’s campaign to abolish corporal punishment in the schools, the passage of legislation “to forbid the use of any form of physical discipline in any setting, including the family,” and “lowering the age of consent for hetero- and homo-sexual activity.” It’s enough to break the hearts of those who value the traditional family.
What’s pathetic is their use of pseudo-lingo, “psychobabble,” and the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child to bolster their campaigns. This is not children’s rights; it’s the Sodom-and- Gomorrah-izing of the children which will lead to the final demise of the family, whether extended or nuclear. For this they use such illustrious publications as the “Labour Gay Rights Manifesto.” (Notice that only evil seems to come from some form of “manifesto”—the Humanist Manifestos 1-4, the Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf which is still a manifesto.) Here’s a sample of what they believe (as cited in “Educating for the AntiChrist”):
“Children grow up under the power of their parents. As children, any behaviour which is obviously sexual in adult terms is repressed. A socialist society would supersede the family household. Gay people and children should have the right to live together. Children and young people should have the right to determine their own sexual lives. Marriage should be disestablished. Women need access to free contraception and abortion facilities; this applies just as much to young women as to 'adults.' Children should be able to divorce their parents. It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.”
This is the goal of just one group that’s out to control the sexuality of OUR children. But we keep hearing that we have nothing to fear from homosexuals. Sorry, but I find the agenda of the Labour Gay Rights Manifesto downright frightening and offensive. Color me outraged, and righteously “homophobic,” homo-disgusted, and homo-nauseated.
On October 28, 2000, Burrows gave a lecture at the “Mankind” Conference and discussed the ideas presented in G.K. Chesterton’s The Flying Inn, written almost a century ago (1914). She had a reason for using that work of near-prophetic fiction. The story takes place right before the end of Britain’s imperialistic reign. The Brits were “stripped of almost every sign of their traditions and their national identity, [while everything] Eastern was praised and accommodated, and everything the British believed [was] trashed.”
Was it really fiction? Not if you watch the nightly news and realize that Great Britain has been infiltrated and nearly taken over by those she once ruled. In fact, Burrows explained that the hero of The Flying Inn, Dalroy, believed that the governing class saw the destiny of Empire in four Acts:
1. Victory over barbarians.
2. Employment of barbarians
3. Alliance with barbarians.
4. Conquest by barbarians.
Perhaps, what’s happening on our borders requires more scrutiny. But here’s more. In The Flying Inn, polygamy had to be accommodated, divorce was made easy, and sexual morality was “declared completely irrelevant so citizens would be lost in a welter of ‘new ways of living.’” The British army no longer existed and was replaced with a foreign army.
Sound familiar yet? Try this: Chesterton’s The Flying Inn had a subplot of uniting a western democracy with an Islamic regime. Does that make some bells ring? Is the same thing happening in Europe and here . . . almost one hundred years later? Is the infiltration of illegal aliens from the South part of a larger, more dangerous takeover? The answers are: it should, yes, and yes. Remember Daniel’s vision of the four world empires. The last was the feet of iron and clay—as in uniting a western democracy with an Islamic regime, or a revived Roman Empire with the desired strength of the Babylonian Empire. No digression here . . .
Burrows also noted Chesterton’s views on women securing the right to vote. “The [voting'] franchise was always widened when the governing class were up to no good and were in trouble. It was because they knew it gave people no power that they gave them [the women] the power to vote.” Now you know why 18-year-olds got the vote in the 1970s. The liberals were in trouble.
Burrows also spoke on the feminist movement, acknowledging it as sham. “The truth, however, is that men and women with power have always oppressed men and women without power,” she said. Read that statement this way: “Women with power have always oppressed women without power.” The leaders of the feminist movement have been some of the most oppressive women in the workplace, government schools, and colleges. If we don’t agree with their positions, they have plenty of choice words for and about us. Their hatred of God and Judeo-Christianity stands in stark contrast to their demands for tolerance; or is that peace, flowers, and freedom?
In its alleged quest for equality for women, the feminist movement fomented the destruction of the family (especially poor families) and the creation of a global harem via the destruction of morals. Women still (as in ancient empires) rely on their physical selves to bargain for the crown jewels. Look at the prostitution rings taking shape on college campuses across this nation. Modern women have evidently found a way to put a dollar value on their virtue; and once that virtue is sold, the merchandise is no different than a used car.
This is the type of education being nurtured in the youngest of our females for the good of the New World Order. The harems must be replenished and our littlest girls are the source. This is not freedom for women, it’s slavery; and it comes with a high price—the destruction of their souls.
Go back, again, to Chesterton’s time. He believed that women’s instincts were naturally “despotic,” something which could be seen in the way they ran their homes, their role in their children’s education, and the way they met the needs of their husbands and children. Burrows put it this way: “They had been the rock and guide of what was arguably the most important, and certainly the oldest institution on earth and they had protected its autonomy and their right to rule it by instinct, common sense, and strength of character.”
Ironically, Emma Goldman (often called “Red Emma”) gave a speech in San Francisco during the suffragette movement. A contemporary of Chesterton, she said that if men were oppressing women, women were to blame because of the way they raised their sons. Her speech didn’t go over well, but her words still apply today. Sons are no longer raised by their mothers to be men, but some sissified hybrid that God didn’t create or intend. Their individuality and ruggedness has been drummed or drugged out of them by the socialists in Washington, DC.
Recall that women also had control over socially acceptable behavior. As Burrows stated, women didn’t need “the blundering interference of ‘sexual harassment’ laws to ensure that men treated them with positively exaggerated deference, nor took liberties with them in public.” Today, women need laws to protect them from the very dangers they created for themselves in their quest for freedom and equality.
Prior to WWI, wealthy or near-rich women employed thousands of servants and ruled them as oppressively as they believed themselves to be oppressed. It was this form of “tyranny” that spawned Chesterton’s concern regarding women in the world of politics. He noted two dangerous effects that would likely “forever harm even the strongest culture,” and he was right. As Burrows stated:
1. “They would treat everybody as if they were children — and create a ‘nanny state’. They would turn society itself into a great nursery;’” and
2. “Essentially tyrannical laws would be enacted to uphold this re-creation of ‘mother knows best!’ ” Ironically, this would produce laws “that oppress parental authority. Parents no longer have the right to discipline children as they think fit, nor to require other people such as teachers and policemen, to give them the discipline they need to reach adult life without a criminal record.”
So, these “nanny state” women (usually found in liberal or left-wing political circles) have now put the moral education of our children more and more into the hands of government so that (as Burrows said) “children can be introduced to gross sexual provocation in the classroom and then supplied with the means to be promiscuous without their parents even being told.” However, in the name of freedom and power, illegitimacy has increased, abortions still take place (the great American Holocaust is operating without government interference while tax dollars and political donations from the abortion industry fill their coffers), and sexually transmitted diseases are plagues on this nation.
Face it! Liberalism is a sinister form of bullyism that makes living under the rules of the most legalistic Christianity a walk in the park. Liberals are the new totalitarians who want to control our beliefs, our thoughts, our prayer lives, and our Christian worship. They want to shove their ungodly sewage down our throats, and punish us severely if we speak out against them, their “manifestos,” and the social practices they want to impose on us. They consider us “mentally ill” while they wallow in spiritual sickness. No digression here . . .
Burrows also noted that the men who claim to be “pro-women” are the very men who use women to do “the ‘dirty jobs’ in making public policy.” She referred to the current work of the notable Lady Gavron, a contemptible elitist, who wants to get rid of all traditional British culture and “turn us into a ‘community of communities’ rather than a nation.” Her plan, if successful, lets the men off the hook because a woman becomes responsible for the master attack on national sovereignty. (I’ll bet Lady Gavron is good friends with Hillary Clinton.) Eventually, liberal/elitist women will become the force that makes governments more “tyrannical” with little or no liberty for anyone but them.
The new governments that rule today don’t operate on anything resembling “traditional right and wrong” because it’s been “dispensed with by the new [im]morality of liberalism.” As Burrows stated, “We have a unique and shameless collection of perverts, ratters on their marriage vows, and takers of money from the highest bidder—and the media turns a blind eye because they are too afraid to break ranks.”
Well, I don’t think the media is frightened in the least by world rulers. I think they work in concert with them. They’re akin to voyeurs watching the plan they support unfold before their eyes; and they report the “news” as instructed by the powers of “this present darkness.” They have forsaken the truth for something far more diabolical—at least until someone breaks into their homes, rapes their daughters, or steals their money.
Indeed, Satan is alive and well on planet earth . . . and his followers demonstrate their allegiance to him through their own immoral and heinous deeds. To this end, Burrows suggested we all “learn to be more brave and [speak out about] what we believe without fear of condemnation.” I stand shoulder to shoulder with her and share her belief that we cannot “allow ourselves to be silence by the pipsqueaks of power.” Citing Chesterton, Burrows concluded her speech with the following: “When a people have lost their courage, they cannot rely on keeping any other virtue.”
