Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: New Zealand Bill follows Trotskyist agenda to Destroy Family
|Whether the Hidden Hand uses terms of the Right or terms of the Left they seek to transfer your power of your Sovereignty to their puppets and the organizations they control. This bill sounds good but in reality it is aimed at destroying the family while pretending to protect the child.
First to control us they gave us the concept of the Family. They then gave us the concept of the Nation-State, now that the Hidden Hand Agenda is done with these concepts they are herding us down a chute of alienation toward their new power structure which as always transfers power to the Hidden Hand.
The Hidden Hand always co opt the meaning of words so they can speak in public seeming to mean one thing when they really mean another.
Take the words freedom and liberty while the public thinks the Hidden Hand puppets who use these code words mean personal freedom and personal liberty this is a lie. The last thing the Hidden Hand wants is for you to demand your Sovereignty. Your Sovereignty is never mentioned though they want you to believe it is implied. Hell, they are destroying Nation-State Sovereignty so they sure don't want you to assert your natural born Sovereignty! They want you to believe your power comes from the Hidden Hand and their structures of politicians, business unions. banking institutions and of course their religions with their gods.
Everything always starts out fine and we are to believe things are designed for us when in fact everything is given to us to entrap us. They give us enough of their rope that we hang ourselves with it. We hang our Sovereignty on their concept of Freedom and Liberty which is Freedom to leave work to sleep and be at Liberty to roam for a short while until time to report back to your slave station.
Don't OBEY and you get no life support regardless of how rich the nation is. People starve in the wealthiest nation on earth, the United States. Do you think the Hidden Hand and their puppets starve if they don't work? Hell no. The system is designed to reward them with luxury regardless. They don't starve because this is their system !!!!
So here's yet another news item warning of the agenda and the newspeak words of the Hidden Hand. Awaken to focus your attention and you will be a Sovereign once again...
|‘Anti-smacking bill’ in New Zealand follows Trotskyist agenda of
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:14:39 +1200 From: email@example.com
Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ Bill pursues Trotskyite agenda
K R Bolton, Ph.D.
Sue Bradford’s so-called ‘anti-smacking bill’ which aims to remove a
supposed ‘legal loophole’, Section 59, from the Crimes Act that allows
parents to discipline their children physically, is rightly perceived by
80% of the public as a measure aimed at decent parents. Like all
socialist legislation it is promoted as being concerned with ‘rights’,
in this instance the rights of the child against physical abuse from
adults. Again the public rightly perceives that sanctions against
parents who resort to a light smack as a quick, efficient corrective to
behaviour that can often reach the level of outright hysteria, are not
going to prevent child abuse.
The Bill is sold on the grounds that it will not allow child abusers to
use S59 as a defense. Yet very few have used this as a defense, and in
the midst of the debate a father was fined $500 for hitting his son on
the ear. Clearly the laws are sufficient to prosecute child abusers,
and the high rate of child abuse in New Zealand has factors that will
not be mitigated by Bradford’s Bill. It is also claimed that police will
use their discretion in not prosecuting for a light smack. Police Assn.
president Greg O’Connor contradicted this by stating that ‘police will
have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint.’
The real purpose of the Bradford Bill was disclosed during the course of
a lengthy interview with The Waikato Times, reprinted in the Dominion
Post. Here Bradford said:
“It’s a choice between an old psychology which says children are our
property and hitting them is fine. Old New Zealand versus New Zealand.’
“Many of the people fighting the bill are doing so because it is the
last but of power they have in their lives, she says. I feel sad they
can’t find their power another way.”
That is precisely what the issue is about, ‘power relationships.’ This
follows the communist agenda in destroying the traditional family, since
communism views the family as primarily a power relationship, like every
other institution. The bonds between parents and children and between
husband and wife are to be broken.
Marx in the Communist Manifesto states that the family is an economic
power relationship, and that children are regarded as property,
precisely in the terms Bradford is using:
‘On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based?
On capital, on private gain. The bourgeois family will vanish when its
complement vanishes, and both will vanish when capital vanishes. Do you
charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their
parents? To this crime we plead guilty.’
Where Marx uses the term ‘bourgeois’ Bradford uses the term ‘Old New
Zealand.’ Bradford has direct recourse to Marx in alluding to this ‘old
[bourgeois] psychology’ as seeing children as ‘property’, and as based
on ‘power’. It is classic Marxism.
SAME AGENDA AS GLOBALISTS
This also happens to be the same agenda pursued by globalist Big
Business. Conservative commentator and former Reagan White House
communications adviser Pat Buchanan states: ‘Global capitalism and
Marxism share a belief that it is far better to have women in the market
place than in the home. The old Marxists wanted top bring down the
traditional family, and to move women out of the home and into the
market place. The global capitalists want the same thing.’
TROTSKYITES ENTRE ‘MAINSTREAM’
My book Useful Idiots of the New World Order documents this relationship
between feminism, communism and global capitalism in the destruction of
the family for the purposes of a more efficient global economy, whether
under State capitalism (communism) or monopoly capitalism; the results
are the same.
My book Red Fascism also documents the historic link between Trotskyism,
supposedly the most revolutionary faction of communism, and
I also show in Red Fascism that the Trotskyites have a tactic called
‘entryism’ whereby they infiltrate and take over so-called respectable
organisations. During the 1970s this became a scandal when it was
exposed that the Trotskyite Militant Tendency had taken over key
positions in the British Labour Party for e.g. Entryism is also at work
in the Green movement. The communists have long since realised that they
are not going to obtain the allegiance of the ‘working class’. They have
therefore sought to create new ‘classes’ and to generated feelings of
disadvantage. Hence they are in the forefront of ethnic agitation,
feminism, ‘gay rights’, ‘open borders’ and ‘immigrant rights’, ‘asylum
seekers’ rights’, and now they are exploiting children as an entire new
‘class’ . One such action in 2006 was the use of children by the
Trotskyite trades union Unite over the issue of ‘youth rates’. This
included a riot in Auckland which saw youths running rampant and
blocking an ambulance. The response was a smirking Sue Bradford on TV
lauding the riot.
Bradford, as mentioned in my book Red Fascism, quit the New Labour Party
as founding vice president in 1990 and joined the Green Party because of
the expulsion from the Alliance Party of an obscure Trotskyite-communist
faction, the Permanent Revolution Group.
TROTSKYITE ANTI-FAMILY AGENDA
As for the Trotskyite attitude towards the family and children, the
following quotes will show how the Green and Labour parties are
following the Trot line in destroying the traditional ‘power
relationships’ to be replaced by the all-consuming power relationship of
the State. Another aspect will presumably be the empowerment of the
State to intervene in the running of independent Christian schools which
insist on minor corporal punishment, opponents of the Bradford Bill
already being disparaged by Green and Government MPs as ‘right-wing
Christian fundamentalists’. Christians with strong convictions seem to
be particularly despised by certain sections of the present Government,
from the PM down .
Alexandra Kollontai, the USSR's first Minister of Social Welfare and a
member of the Bolshevik Party Central Committee, described as ‘a
historic contributor to the international women's movement’ , states of
the family: ‘The individual economy which springs from private property
is the basis of the bourgeois family. The communist economy does away
with the family. In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat
there is a transition to the single production plan and collective
social consumption, and the family loses its significance as an economic
unit. The external economic functions of the family disappear, and
consumption ceases to be organised on an individual family basis; a
network of social kitchens and canteens is established, and the making,
mending and washing of clothes and other aspects of housework are
integrated into the national economy. In the period of the dictatorship
of the proletariat the family economic unit should be recognised as
being, from the point of view of the national economy, not only useless
but harmful. The family economic unit involves (a) the uneconomic
expenditure of products and fuel on the part of small domestic
economies, and (b) unproductive labour, especially by women, in the home
- and is therefore in conflict with the interest of the workers'
republic in a single economic plan and the expedient use of the labour force
Under the dictatorship of the proletariat then, the material and
economic considerations in which the family was grounded cease to exist.
The economic dependence of women on men and the role of the family in
the care of the younger generation also disappear as the communist
elements in the workers' republic grow stronger. With the introduction
of the obligation of all citizens to work, woman has a value in the
national economy which is independent of her family and marital status.
The economic subjugation of women in marriage and the family is done
away with, and responsibility for the care of the children and their
physical and spiritual education is assumed by the social collective.
The family teaches and instils egoism, thus weakening the ties of the
collective and hindering the construction of communism. However, in the
new society relations between parents and children are freed from any
element of material considerations and enter a new historic stage.
Once the family has been stripped of its economic functions and its
responsibilities towards the younger generation and is no longer central
to the existence of the woman, it has ceased to be a family. The family
unit shrinks to a union of two people based on mutual agreement.
Once relations between the sexes cease to perform the economic and
social function of the former family, they are no longer the concern of
the workers' collective. It is not the relationships between the sexes
but the result - the child - that concerns the collective. .
The law ought to emphasise the interest of the workers' collective in
maternity and eliminate the situation where the child is dependent on
the relationship between its parents. The law of the workers' collective
replaces the right of the parents, and the workers' collective keeps a
close watch, in the interests of the unified economy and of present and
future labour resources. In the period of the dictatorship of the
proletariat there must, instead of marriage law, be regulation of the
relationship of the government to maternity, of the relationship between
mother and child and of the relationship between the mother and the
workers' collective (i.e. legal norms must regulate the protection of
female labour, the welfare of expectant and nursing mothers, the welfare
of children and their social education). Legal norms must regulate the
relationship between the mother and the socially educated child, and
between the father and the child.’
Of family ‘power relationship’ Trotsky himself states :
‘The revolution made a heroic effort to destroy the so-called ‘family
hearth’ - that archaic, stuffy and stagnant institution in which the
woman of the toiling classes performs galley labour from childhood to
death. The place of the family as a shut-in petty enterprise was to be
occupied, according to the plans, by a finished system of social care
and accommodation: maternity houses, creches, kindergartens, schools,
social dining rooms, social laundries, first-aid stations, hospitals,
sanatoria, athletic organizations, moving-picture theaters, etc. The
complete absorption of the housekeeping functions of the family by
institutions of the socialist society, uniting all generations in
solidarity and mutual aid, was to bring to woman, and thereby to the
loving couple, a real liberation from the thousand-year-old fetters. .
the immeasurable advantages of the collective care of children as well
as the socialization of the whole family economy. .’
This seems to be the doctrine enacted under the Labour Government,
pushed by the Greens, with some gullible support from some supposed
‘conservatives’ in the other parties, including National and NZ First.
The ‘rights of the child’, formulated by United Nations covenants, used
as a justification for the Bradford Bill, the UNO being another body
inspired by socialist doctrines, is aimed at destroying the rights of
the parents, under the guise of lofty sounding ideals. Nothing emanating
from the UNO should be uncritically accepted as laudable. The result is
the destruction of the family bond in the interests of economics. The
human being, whether under communist or monopoly modes of production
descends to a new form, Homo Economicus, an automaton uprooted from
family, cultural and territorial bonds, living at the behest of
centralised economic planning.
The Bradford Bill, we are assured, will not have any radical
consequences, and opposition is an over-reaction, like the opposition to
homosexual law reform several decades ago. However the Bradford Bill
should not be seen in isolation, but as part of a gradual process for
the radical transformation of New Zealand. It is one of a cluster of
laws enacted over several decades, including liberal abortion laws,
civil unions and even legislation supposedly aimed at ‘helping families’
economically, but which have the effect of replacing parents with
$500 fine for hitting son, Dominion Post, March 23, 07. Goodbye to
smacking - police prepare as bill set to get the numbers, Dominion Post,
March 14, 07.
... This is reminiscent of the Government obsession with integrating
women into the workforce by offering extended child care facilities.
Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed: pp. 144-145. The UNO doctrine on the
family was formulated by Alva Myrdal, wife of the anthropologist Gunnar
whose report on race relations in the USA continues to have a
devastating effect. Alva was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation in the
1920s to tour the USA and report that state schools and childcare should
replace the family, which has now become mainstream opinion. In 1934 she
and her husband, following the Trot-Red line stated that the traditional
family is ‘pathological’. They advocated liberal abortion laws,
contraception in schools, and the elimination of legal distinctions
between married and unmarried couples. In 1948 Alva became director of
the UN Secretariat Dept. of Social Affairs, and then head of the Social
Science Div. of the UN Economic & Social Council. In her manifesto The
Alva Myrdal Report, written for the Swedish Socialist Party, then in
Govt., she advocated the elimination of the special legal status of
marriage, such laws now coming into effect as ‘civil unions.’ The real
way to help families is to ensure that both parents are not obliged to
work to deal with credit card debt, mortgage rates etc. But the full
integration of women into the workforce is precisely the socialist aim.