Had a listen to the show last night. One of the comments made early in the show, this new aspect, control of the language with laws and such, indeed, it sure came about quickly, and I had not really paid much attention to it either. Perhaps there is a new divide and rule angle, as was also mentioned. As for the PC thing, I'm not a good follower, so hopefully I will not get a $250,000 fine as a violation.
Anyway, on a social level, went looking to see some of the roots of these matters, aside from the genetic/epigenetic possibilities, and came across this 1984 paper titled 'SEX AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING' by Valerie Riches - FAMILY AND YOUTH CONCERN (The Responsible Society) 1986, and had a read. Although this is couched outside "gender multiplicity" and contains it's focus to things like contraceptives and abortion, it also looks to the organizations that seem to steer societal education etc.
Here are a few things she touched on. Some of it links to the Kinsey Report as financed via the Rockefeller Foundation (1948 and 1953), which has been discussed on the forum. It might be worthwhile familiarizing yourself with his pathological work if not known. She also discusses Rev. Thomas Malthus (1798) who Charles Darwin latched onto - there is the eugenics issues within, too. She lays a lot of this at the feet of the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) and others. I also had a look at the IPPF's current stuff, which now brings into scope the issues of "gender". In general, much of what the IPPF does around the world seems sound, yet I don't know, especially given ponorolgy effects. Also, what is written for public consumption and what is reality may be two different things - here is one of the IPPF's look at the issue based on Hormone Therapy - http://www.ippf.org/blogs/supporting-transgender-people-realize-their-sexual-rights Without looking deeply, there is likely a great meshing between IPPF with vaccination programs and GMO agra in areas concerning third world families (yes, just looked and HPV vaccinations was mentioned http://www.ippfar.org/resources/ippf-cervical-cancer-scale-fund ).
Going back to the original piece, there is a forward written by one Professor Sir Bryan Thwaites, former principal Westfield College, University of London
Winchester, January 1986 in which he says:
http://www.amen.ie/downloads/26009.pdf
Much of this, given the particular context, might well light up some feelings to readers given what is currently thought of. In this respect, the mechanisms of social engineering should be more to the point.
Anyway, on a social level, went looking to see some of the roots of these matters, aside from the genetic/epigenetic possibilities, and came across this 1984 paper titled 'SEX AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING' by Valerie Riches - FAMILY AND YOUTH CONCERN (The Responsible Society) 1986, and had a read. Although this is couched outside "gender multiplicity" and contains it's focus to things like contraceptives and abortion, it also looks to the organizations that seem to steer societal education etc.
Here are a few things she touched on. Some of it links to the Kinsey Report as financed via the Rockefeller Foundation (1948 and 1953), which has been discussed on the forum. It might be worthwhile familiarizing yourself with his pathological work if not known. She also discusses Rev. Thomas Malthus (1798) who Charles Darwin latched onto - there is the eugenics issues within, too. She lays a lot of this at the feet of the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) and others. I also had a look at the IPPF's current stuff, which now brings into scope the issues of "gender". In general, much of what the IPPF does around the world seems sound, yet I don't know, especially given ponorolgy effects. Also, what is written for public consumption and what is reality may be two different things - here is one of the IPPF's look at the issue based on Hormone Therapy - http://www.ippf.org/blogs/supporting-transgender-people-realize-their-sexual-rights Without looking deeply, there is likely a great meshing between IPPF with vaccination programs and GMO agra in areas concerning third world families (yes, just looked and HPV vaccinations was mentioned http://www.ippfar.org/resources/ippf-cervical-cancer-scale-fund ).
Going back to the original piece, there is a forward written by one Professor Sir Bryan Thwaites, former principal Westfield College, University of London
Winchester, January 1986 in which he says:
http://www.amen.ie/downloads/26009.pdf
snip said:Valerie Riches’ account is starkly factual. She is recording, not evaluating. Yet she
speaks not as an academic who, all too often even in these hard days for academe,
pontificates from an ivory tower without offering practical solutions to the
problems he analyses. For she is also the driving force behind that remarkable
organisation, Family and Youth Concern (formerly The Responsible Society) which
saw the threat to the stability of society as early as 1970.
There are so many important lessons to be learnt from Valerie Riches’ analysis that
a Foreword can only hope to synthesise one or two of the highest significance. For
the general public, it may come as a surprise to learn of the close inter-dependence
of apparently independent and disparate bodies whose campaigns are, at first sight,
eminently worthy. The “radical establishment”, however; is not only small in
numbers but is highly organised; and the paradox is that it can flourish only in the
kind of free society which it seeks to destroy by the imposition of its own uniform
values and practices. This inter-twining of membership is, in fact, characteristic of
radical groups.
Much of this, given the particular context, might well light up some feelings to readers given what is currently thought of. In this respect, the mechanisms of social engineering should be more to the point.
Valerie Riches said:...It is not my intention in this paper to suggest that all those working in the
organisations mentioned are involved for malign purposes. Many sincere people of
goodwill who are involved may not realise what they are actually supporting. They,
and indeed most of us, live according to a new conventional wisdom laid down by
a relatively small number of radical men and women whose driving force is a
mixture of new-found ideology, power and economics.
The assault on the family is not simply a national phenomenon, it is going on all
over the globe. Until we can grasp the fact that the problems Britain faces are – or
soon will be – the problems of the family worldwide, we will not understand what
we are dealing with, or the size of the issues at stake, or how to find solutions.
The aim of this booklet is to reveal some of the driving intellectual forces in the
concerted attempt to alter the future destiny of the family through the sex
education of children.Given that this is, as said, looking at issues such as birth control and abortion from back in 1986, take it forward with some of the content in other contexts:
A remarkable book was also published in America which documented the activities
of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). It
was entitled The SIECUS Circle – A Humanist Revolution (6). SIECUS was set up in
1964 and lost no time in engaging in a programme of social engineering by means
of sex education in the schools. Its first executive director was Mary Calderone,
who was also closely linked to Planned Parenthood, the American equivalent of the
British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone supported sentiments and
theories put forward by Rudolph Dreikus, a humanist, such as:
– merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles;
– liberating children from their families;
– abolishing the family as we know it (7).
Even though the authors of the books mentioned above had begun their
investigations from different angles, the almost universal conclusion was that there
is a carefully planned international attack upon the nature of the family and the
value of human life.
...
THE IDEOLOGY OF CHISHOLM
There is no better example of the ideology lying behind the pressures for sex
education than that contained in Can People Lean to Learn? by Dr. Brock Chisholm,
humanist, and first director of the \\World Health Organisation and subsequent
President of the World Federation for Mental Health (8).
Chisholm was wedded to the idea of world government, and believed that those
who opposed him were neurotic, selfish or mentally sick. He believed the most
persistent barrier to developing a civilised way of life in the world was the concept
of “right and wrong,” a concept which he thought should be eradicated. Codes of
belief, fixed rules or dogmatism, were anathema to him. Children had to be freed
from national, religious and other cultural “prejudices” forced upon them by
parents and religious authorities. He saw parents as dictators and suppressors of
the child’s better nature, and believed that sex education should be introduced in
the fourth grade, eliminating “the ways of elders” by force if necessary (9).
Chisholm’s ideology is deeply embedded in the thinking of the sex education
missionaries, as can be seen in many fashionable sex education publications and
aids.
A BLUEPRINT FOR THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION
{snip}
In spite of the inadequacies of the methods employed by Kinsey, the revelations in
his reports quickly came to be treated as fact and were used by the media, “sexual
minorities” and vested interests as an excuse for sexual freedom. Sex became a
commodity to be exploited and love a subject to be avoided. It is impossible to
underestimate the far-reaching influence these oft-quoted reports have had on
sexual attitudes, sexual behaviour and sex education policies. The Kinsey reports
provided the blueprint for the sex education missionaries – and the long term
effects on Western societies are obvious.
........
The FPA also provides courses for the training of teachers, youth leaders, social
workers, doctors and others. Many of these courses are funded by the Department
of Health. In 1974, the FPA issued a statement on sex education which said that
one of FPA’s goals was to create a society in which “archaic sex laws and irrational
fears of sex and sex exploitation are nonexistent.” (29) To this end, it should be
noted that the FPA tacitly supported a report from the Sexual Law Reform Society
which advocated, among other sexually liberating proposals, that the age of
consent should be reduced to fourteen years of age, including consent to incest,
the fear of which was regarded as “irrational” (30).
Throughout the 1970’s, the FPA enthusiastically supported every radical book that
came onto the market, including The Little Red School Book, later judged obscene by
the Courts. Another book Sex Education The Erroneous Zone, published by the
National Secular Society, was promoted by the FPA. This advised that economic
freedom would give girls the ability to choose as many lovers as they wished, of
either sex. It also suggests oral and anal intercourse as methods of contraception, a
suggestion which occurs more and more often in sex education publications for the
young.
The FPA was also involved in the promotion of Make It Happy, by the Secretary of
the Sexual Law Reform Society. This book seeks to undermine laws and social
constraints which regulate sexual behaviour in any civilised society. Oral and anal
intercourse, group sex, communal masturbation, incest between brothers and
sisters, and sexual contact with animals short of actual coupling are put forward,
with the suggestion that those who oppose such activities are old-fashioned and
killjoy (31).
The FPA’s attitude to parents is entirely consistent with Chisholm’s view that they
are suppressors of their children’s better nature. “Parents – they’re the most
dangerous people of all,” said an FPA spokeswoman (38).
The FPA advised the Department of Health on the memorandum on family planning
services published in 1974, which removed parental responsibilities for their
under-aged children. But even before that, the FPA advised adolescents to go to
advisory clinics which would “treat your problems sympathetically and not tell your
parents unless you want them to know:” (39) The FPA and its offshoots bring all
their power to bear upon parental moves to have their rights restored. The reason
is clear. Lady Brook, founder and President of the Brook Advisory Centres, wrote in
reply to criticism of the sex education missionaries:
“It is now the privilege of the Parental State to take major
decisions objective, unemotional, the State weighs up what is
best for the child ...” (40)
Like I said in the beginning, this all kind of came up without a great deal of focus, and I'm still just digesting what it all means. Given epigenetics, toxins, behavioral modification and all the programing that goes on, and mostly, the ponerology that comes out of the pens and mouths of people like Kinsey, there is likely a lot going on here.
Amendment: Just looking into what is current on Valerie Riches, the Irish Times (IT) had this to say: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/why-ireland-became-the-only-country-in-the-democratic-world-to-have-a-constitutional-ban-on-abortion-1.1907610
The Irish Responsible Society, of which five key PLAC leaders were members, was the Irish branch of the group led by the English right-wing Catholic activist Valerie Riches (now a papal dame). For Riches, the degeneration of society through sexual permissiveness was a conspiracy driven by International Planned Parenthood.
Okay, so the IT refers to her as a "right-wing Catholic activist" and a "papal dame", along with the title of conspiracy theorist against IPPF. I read also, she is a homophobic, I guess, which might be so.
More research is needed.