Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006: 29J Protection of Freedom of Expression
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system"

"When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing is to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed" [Theodore Dalrymple].

"In the universities, in the churches, in the corporations, in the professional associations, in the editorial offices, in the game studios, and just about everywhere else you can imagine, free speech and free thought are under siege by a group of fanatics as self-righteous as Savonarola, as ruthless as Stalin, as ambitious as Napoleon, and as crazy as Caligula. They are the Social Justice Warriors, the SJWs, the self-appointed thought police who have been running amok throughout the West since the dawn of the politically correct era in the 1990s"
[Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police].

"There is no 'Hate Speech'.  There are just immoral laws introduced recently, designed to restrict our rights to freely express ourselves.  Euripides was right: - 'It is slavery not to speak one's thoughts' ... All honourable men and women should reject the concept of 'hate speech' and act - speak - as though it is lawful to say whatever it is one wishes to say (but don't advocate violence). It is our duty to future generations.  Free speech - use it or lose it" [comment at source].

Equality, Diversity, Tolerance

"Progressives proclaim inanely 'Diversity is our strength'. Diversity is a cosmetic irrelevance. What matters is not the skin colour on the outside of an individual but what is inside that individual ... For progressives, diversity is a political tool. Diversity divides people into victim and interest groups and enables the Left to play the role of understanding saviour whilst garnering votes and staying in power" [source].

"No matter what their motives are, the internationalists who push for global governance and a borderless world are expending vast amounts of money to fool the European public and move millions of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe. Europe will become more diverse whether it likes it or not. And if, as a consequence, terror attacks have to kill hundreds or thousands of people, and women have to be gang-raped, why, those are just unfortunate side-effects. You cant make an omelette without breaking eggs, you know. Especially white European eggs" [source].

"As I suspected they would, the Christian hotel owners, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, came off worse in their courtroom struggle against Politically Correct Britain. The law believes such people have no right to follow their own morals, except in private. The law also now states that homosexual partnerships are equal to heterosexual marriage, which New Labour tried to pretend was not the case. Perhaps most importantly, the homosexual couple had their action paid for by us. Britain's embryonic Thought Police, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, provided the money on your behalf and mine, whether we like it or not. This is not the end of the revolution we are passing through. By the time it is finished, I will not be allowed to write or say this. Don't believe me? Wait and see" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 23 January 2011].

"It is time we were told the rules of the new game called 'Equality and Diversity', under which some thought crimes are treated more harshly than others. We know that homosexuals trump Christians. We know (at least I think we do) that animal rights campaigners, pagans and believers in man-made global warming are the equals of Christians. Thanks to the case of Emdadur Choudhury, whose Islamist grouplet deliberately set out to enrage any patriotic British person by burning replica poppies and chanting 'British soldiers burn in Hell', during a two minute silence, we know something else: the judiciary and the police are scared out of their socks by Islam. Even under the USA's very open free speech laws, this nasty piece of publicity-seeking bad manners would have been classified as 'fighting words' and denied protection. Yet here the consequence was a £50 fine, so small as to be barely worth the bother of collecting it from a culprit who is in any case living off the state he claims to despise. What I am waiting for is a test case in which (and how I long for this) two elderly Muslims, running a B&B, are sued by a funky homosexual couple for refusing to accommodate them. Both parties would have their costs paid by the Equality and Human Rights Commissions. Then at last we shall find out whether the law of England thinks Islam or the Sexual revolution should dominate our future. We can have one or the other (and we will). But not both" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 13 March 2011].

"Truth is the new hate speech" [comment at: source].

"What a waste of public money the Twitter joke trial was. A huge amount was spent on prosecuting Paul Chambers, who ended up losing jobs and income. All because he made a joke about blowing up an airport because his flight was cancelled. His tweet never resembled a terrorist threat and no one complained. It was clear the judiciary were not willing to understand the nature of social media - which is full of quips, ill-judged comments and daft observations. Rather like life. That is how we speak. And if you don't like it, you don't go to the police, you answer back. This is called free speech" [Suzanne Moore, Mail on Sunday, 29 July 2012].

"The intolerant, sanctimonious moral superiority that sustains the beliefs of the politically correct means that they are easily offended by the views of others. There are few as intolerant as those who preach tolerance" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 26].

"The vocabulary of the enemy has become the banality of polite society: those who recite words like 'diversity' do not have to justify or reinforce their viewpoint, whereas to break from convention and dispute these precepts risks societal excoriation" [source].

"'Promoting tolerance' is key to the paradigm shift from biblical to earth-centered beliefs and values. The 1995 UNESCO Declaration on Tolerance, signed by member states, defines tolerance as 'respect, acceptance and appreciation' of the world's diverse cultures and lifestyles - an attitude that 'involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism'. It is 'not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement'. Since 'intolerance is a global threat', UNESCO demands an international 'response to this global challenge, including effective countermeasures'. ... Intolerance implies resistance to the new global values and solidarity, it is a threat to the implementation of the whole UN plan. Therefore intolerance must be quenched, while 'tolerance promotion and the shaping of attitudes should take place in schools and universities... at home and in the workplace. The solution ... is the consensus process, also called conflict resolution, Hegelian dialectics, and the Delphi Technique. To unify people who embrace opposing values, the public must be engaged in 'participatory' dialogues. Led by trained facilitators, these dialogues produce the collective thinking which prods participants beyond the old truths into the ambiguous realm of imagination and evolving truths. The ground rules demand that everyone participate and find 'common ground'. They forbid dissent and argument, no matter how unsound the 'scientific' evidence used to back the preplanned consensus. 'Adversarial processes' must be replaced with 'collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts' through education, information and communications' until people, bonded by a shared purpose' learn to comply. ... It's already happening ... Young and old are being trained to blend their values, adapt their beliefs, think as a group, and conform to the new standards. ... following the Pied Piper into a new world order whose architects may sound wise and compassionate, but are neither rational, factual, honest or tolerant" [source].

"What Christians in Britain have to understand is that this is not a Christian country any more. It's no good going to the Court of Human Rights. Harriet Harman's Equalities Act 2010 (backed, as I ceaselessly remind you, by the Useless Tories ... ) made all religions equal. That means Christianity in this country has no greater legal status than Mormonism, Buddhism, Jainism or Scientology - and rather lower status than Islam, because our Government and Establishment are scared stiff of Islam. Precisely because Christianity used to be dominant, that means that the authorities will seize every chance they can to take it down a peg or two. This process is only just beginning. You'll be amazed by how much more there is yet to come, in schools, laws, broadcasting, policing and - I hesitate to mention it, but it will come - the Coronation of our next Monarch" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 09 September 2012].

"The European Convention on Human Rights was developed in 1949 to stop a repeat of the atrocities of World War II, notably Hitler's persecution of the Jews.  This week, it was invoked - unsuccessfully - in a bid to convince a judge that the unpaid work a 24-year-old woman, Cait Reilly, did in Poundland as part of a back-to-work programme was 'forced labour'. It is grotesque to compare stocking shelves in a supermarket with being pressed into the most brutal slave labour at a concentration camp before being murdered. Can we get on and reform the human rights law, please?" [Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 16 February 2013].

"As a former Trotskyist, I'm always amused to see Tory politicians actively pursuing the revolutionary policies I and my comrades used to campaign for.  Having no ideas of their own, these vacuous careerists have no idea that they are in the grip of Marxoid beliefs.  At least the Labour politicians, many of them unrepentant if coy ex-Trots and ex-communists, understand that they're wrecking the country and why.  But Maria Miller, Commissar for Culture and Equalities, plainly hasn't a clue.  When she wrote to the BBC demanding further persecution of a sports presenter for uttering an unfashionable thought, she didn't even know that she was committing a constitutional outrage.  How can anyone not know that governments in free countries don't try to tell journalists and broadcasters what they can or cannot say?  Still, the fault is also partly ours for submitting to having a 'Minister of Culture' in the first place [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 21 July 2013].

"The fact that most Social Justice Warriors would genuinely deny that they are socialists or that they seek to destroy Western civilisation means that sooner or later, they will be forced to confront the fact that the goals the seek, Equality, Diversity, and Inclusiveness, are utterly incompatible with personal freedom, societal wealth, and advanced technological civilisation" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), p.182].

"Consider the four primary ideals of social justice: Equality, Diversity, Tolerance, and Progress. They are not even remotely complementary, as Equality and Diversity are mutually exclusive as well as standing directly in the way of Progress" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), p.186].

The Tolerance Brigade Lexicon:

• Tolerance  =  Embracing everyone's views except Christianity;

• Free Speech  =  The expression of any opinion as long as it is not Christian;

• Bigot  =  A Christian;

• Bigotry  =  Any belief from the Bible;

• Homophobe  =  Anyone who champions traditional marriage. Especially a Christian;

• Hate  =  Opposing non-biblical opinions and actions. Even when done in love is still hate. Apparently;

• Civil rights  =  Getting whatever feels good legalised despite moral repercussions" [quoted at source].

Equality, Diversity, Tolerance, Progress:

• "The truth is that there is no such thing as Equality. It does not exist in any physical, material, legal, philosophical, or spiritual sense;

• As for Diversity, it is an intrinsic force for societal upheaval and collapse: Diversity + Proximity = War;

• If the Social Justice Warriors truly believed in Tolerance as the ideal they profess, then surely they would practice it themselves. They don't even pretend to;

• Regarding Progress, you must ask yourself the question: Progress towards what? Since the true SJW answer is towards more socialism, more speech policing, more thought control, and more SJW control of society, and its institutions, then the rational response must always be no" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), pp.186-187].

Truth, Liberty, Justice:

"Our ideals of Truth, Liberty, and Justice are not only sufficient, but they are considerably superior to the nonsensical ideals of social justice. The ideals of social justice are not virtues; they are evils in disguise. Reject them without hesitation, reject them without apology, and reject them in their entirety" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), p.187].

Re-Education Camps (aka: 'Equality Courses' and 'Diversity Training')

"The Utopian quest to perfect human nature drives the promotion of re-education, from the classroom to the workplace. it occurs in PC children's books, ... It occurs in the school curricula, ... In workplaces across the country, from companies to army bases, from hospitals to TV stations, people are being subjected to 'diversity training' to re-educate them and make them more politically correct. ... Like the belief in the perfectibility of human nature, the passion for propaganda and re-education has powerful similarities to the practices of communist societies. While Soviet Socialist Realism promoted the virtue of the proletariat, the BBC promotes the virtue of the multi-cultural society" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 17].

"[Mr. Page's decision] was taken for objective reasons in the interests of the child and for the common good. The highest law officers of the land have not only issued a reprimand to Mr. Page but require him to receive remedial training. This smacks to me of the 're-education' camps so beloved of totalitarian Marxist states. Is this the way to promote liberty or is freedom of speech and belief only for a liberal elite with politically correct views?" [source].

Freedom of Speech and Religion

"In the universities, in the churches, in the corporations, in the professional associations, in the editorial offices, in the game studios, and just about everywhere else you can imagine, free speech and free thought are under siege by a group of fanatics as self-righteous as Savonarola, as ruthless as Stalin, as ambitious as Napoleon, and as crazy as Caligula. They are the Social Justice Warriors, the SJWs, the self-appointed thought police who have been running amok throughout the West since the dawn of the politically correct era in the 1990s" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), p.26].

"These days, it is almost de rigeur to refer to any SJW target as racist, sexist, and homophobic in addition to any specific qualities that may be relevant to the matter at hand; some adventurous SJWs are already adding 'transphobic' to the standard list. In fact, this set of accusations is so common now that if you merely type 'racist se' into Google, Google will offer to autocomplete the phrase as 'racist, sexist, homophobic'. Indeed, the mere act of belonging to a seemingly innocuous group is now sufficient to render one a hateful hate-filled hater" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), p.64].

"It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf; they can only call you racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or ... bigoted ... so many times before neutral observers who don't see anything out of the ordinary in your behavior begin to wonder if perhaps it isn't the accusing SJWs who have something wrong with them" [Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, (2015), p.146].

"When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing is to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed" [Theodore Dalrymple].

"Curious how slow the judiciary are to understand what the Great Gay Cake issue is about. It has nothing to do with who asked for the cake, or even why. It has very little to do with cakes. It is about whether anyone can be compelled to say something he disagrees with. The bakers who refused to make the cake did so because they did not agree with the wording they were being asked to put on it. If someone can be forced by law to say something he disagrees with, we are not a free country. The nearest parallel I can think of is the way in which people in communist countries were forced to display red flags from their flats, or to carry placards bearing Marxist slogans they secretly hated" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 24 May 2015].

"Elements of hate speech include:

• Drawing a distinction between one's own identity group and those outside it;

• Moral comparison based on this distinction;

• Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the personal superiority of one's own;

• The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership;

• A call to violence against members of other groups.

"The Koran qualifies as hate speech on each count. Why are imams and those who preach from the Koran not prosecuted for hate crimes?" [comment at source].

"There is no 'Hate Speech'.  There are just immoral laws introduced recently, designed to restrict our rights to freely express ourselves. Euripides was right: - 'It is slavery not to speak one's thoughts'.  Truth from more than a millennium before the barbaric pederast and thieving murder Mohammed invented his cursed cult. All honourable men and women should reject the concept of 'hate speech' and act - speak - as though it is lawful to say whatever it is one wishes to say (but don't advocate violence). It is our duty to future generations.  Free speech - use it or lose it" [comment at source].

Opinions, Views, Biases, Perspectives, Biases, Objectivity, Subjectivity

Opinion: "a belief or assessment based on grounds short of proof", "a view held as probable", "what one thinks about a particular topic or question" [OED].

Perspective: "a mental view of the relative importance of things", "regarded in terms of relative importance" [OED].

View: "an opinion", "a mental attitude" [OED].

Bias: "a predisposition or prejudice" [OED].

Objectivism: "the belief that certain things (esp. moral truths) exist apart from human knowledge or perception of them" [OED].

Subjectivism: "the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth" [OED].

The issue is not that someone has an opinion, or a view, or a perspective, or a bias on a subject - everyone does.  Or that they are entitled to it - everyone is; all that goes without saying. The issue is what that opinion/view/perspective/bias is based upon.  The issue is whether it is based upon facts or upon ideology; upon truth or upon falsehood; whether it is evidence driven or emotionally driven; is objective or subjective; is informed or uninformed.

"Any system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true" [Plato].

"Orwell said that freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. It is that most vital of freedoms we have now lost. How does one crush truth? By pretending there is no such thing - this is done through the transformation of objectivity into subjectivity. The objective truth replaced by perception or opinion. Everyone's opinion being equally valid of course. This piece of paper is white. That's an objective truth. But if I say that in my opinion this piece of paper is blue, that opinion is apparently valid. There is no truth...  War on truth has been declared. Our language has been neutralized so objective understanding is under threat. Objective reality itself is under threat because reality is problematic in the pursuance of fantasy" [source].

"When one contradicts someone these days, one often hears: 'I'm entitled to my opinion.'  To which I sometimes unkindly reply: 'Yes, but you aren't entitled to an audience. I don't care about your opinion. I would be interested to hear your judgement presented in the form of an argument.'  An opinion, which any person is indeed entitled to have on any subject, doesn't require any support. It is what it is. Thus in my opinion, all those parallel universes are tosh. However, I can't turn this opinion into a judgement because I don't know enough astrophysics. Such knowledge would be required because, unlike an opinion, a judgement requires solid support that can only come from ratiocination based on extensive knowledge of the relevant facts. Should I take the trouble of acquiring such knowledge and thinking it through, I could conceivably be ready to make an argument, which is a logical, coherent and persuasive presentation of a judgement. This basic rhetorical path has now been overgrown with the weeds planted by the Age of Reason. Most people are now unaware of its existence, which is why they feel that any opinion, no matter how unenlightened and rash, must enjoy equal rights with judgement and argument. In fact, they feel that all three are the same. But they aren't" [source].

"I've always found it a strange thing when the response to someone expressing their view on a subject is, 'Well, that's your opinion; you're entitled to your opinion.'  Strange, because it is stating the obvious and gets us no further on in the discussion; of course it is my opinion otherwise I wouldn't be espousing it, just as the responder has his opinion which he espouses. And strange because the assumption underlying it is that opinions aren't formed from and grounded in truth or fact or evidence or experience or morality or a higher authority, but are merely matters of personal taste, chosen in the same way as one might choose running over swimming to keep fit ... The reality of course - notwithstanding the prevailing 'opinion' that all views are 'relative' and that every man may do (or opine) what is right in his own eyes - is that some opinions are right or true or moral and effect great real good, while some views are wrong or false or immoral and cause much tangible harm. To put it another way, there is a difference between objective and subjective opinion. For some issues an opinion can be easily shown to be true or false when measured against the facts, and it is of no real consequence. For example, if I was of the opinion that 2+2=5, I would be entitled to hold such an opinion but it would be factually, or objectively, wrong, so no need for further debate (except perhaps for a few basic maths lessons). But in other matters where the consequences of holding to a wrong opinion are much more serious, such as when it will affect the intricacies of real people's lives for their good or harm, then it's not enough just to shrug off a differing opinion with a meaningless phrase used purely as a device to close down further debate on the issue; it is incumbent upon us to be absolutely sure that our opinion is not merely 'politically correct', but is right - and demonstrably so" [Elizabeth McDonald, The Camel's Nose: Daybreak Family Group Conference [date], Matters Arising, Observations, and Questions, 'Section H: Concerning Opinions', (2015/2016), pp.23-24].

Identity Politics

The following extended extract is from the article: The Origin of 'Identity Politics' & 'Political Correctness'

"Identity politics (sometimes dubbed 'political correctness') is the result of a political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people (in Europe and 'the West'), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake of the persistent failure of Marxist theory to be realised in European 'revolution' or any real change through democracy. In shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and those gullible enough to adhere to it, and on to those the theory had prescribed and predicted would have been the beneficiaries, if only they had responded accordingly ('the [white, male] workers'); then the cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by this crisis to an extent was salved"

"As with any fervent ideology, a hallmark of the political-Left is interpreting anything and everything in its own ideological terms to claim as a manifestation of the ideology and its prophecy - jumping on a bandwagon, so to speak; though here only to hijack it. The bandwagon here was, of course, the American civil rights movement, which though enjoying ubiquitous support within black communities - to the point often of various forms of extremism - featured virtually nil endorsement of socialism ... It is from the time of this co-option that 'identity politics' dates; many considering that the movement was incorporated into the Left in the wake of King's assassination in 1968 - the major turning-point year in political-Left politics generally"

"'Civil rights', as the first great 'single-issue' campaign, served not least to provide an acceptable cloak for the Left to avoid provoking a resurgence of McCarthysim. The major social upheaval of 'civil rights' with its large-scale and widespread rioting was easily the nearest thing in then recent US history to look like the promised Marxist 'revolution', and obviously was just the practical application the 'theory' was seeking. Moreover, the protagonists (black Americans) were eminently separable form the now despised 'workers' per se, in being presentable as a new 'group; from outside of the former fray of 'boss' versus 'worker'.

"This accident of history served to add 'black' to 'woman' as 'the new oppressed' ... 'The worker' in effect was retrospectively stereotyped as both 'man' and 'white'. With the inverse of this stereotype of 'white' being not just 'black American' but 'black' - that is, ethnic-minority generically ... so it was that the new 'agents of social change' / 'disadvantaged' / 'oppressed' were extended from women to also include all ethnic minorities"

"It is only with the knowledge of how this developed that sense can be made of why ethnicity is held above the myriad other possible differences that could be utilised as in-group markers, when in fact there is nothing inherent in ethnicity as an in-group marker to produce inter-group prejudice that is particularly more pernicious"

"Indeed, the worst inter-communal conflicts nominally between different ethnicities usually are between different cultural heritages with no discernible 'racial' differences of any kind - and what (non-ethnic) differences there are can be minimal; the lack of contrast actually fuelling the intensity of conflict, such is the need for groups to feel distinguished from each other"

"Furthermore, ethnic prejudice is anything but restricted to or even predominantly 'white' on 'black': inter-ethnic (eg, 'black' on Asian) and ethnic-on-'white' 'racism' can be, often is and may usually be the greater problem; and a negative attitude to a certain ethnicity does not imply a similar attitude to other ethnicities"

"The specific US experience, given the highly divisive politics in the wake of the American Civil War over the basis of the Southern US economy in African slavery, does not translate to elsewhere; notably not to Europe - as was starkly evidenced in the experience of World War II 'black' American GIs stationed in England in how they were favourably received by locals, who sided with them when discriminated against"

"'Racial divides' in European 'white' host countries are the result not of mutual antipathy but affiliative forces, principally within migrant enclaves and secondarily within the 'host' community; in both cases being through in-group 'love', not out-group 'hate'" [EMcD: though the latter part of this observation is indeed true in normal circumstances, this does not, of course, take account of the Islamic/Koranic doctrines of Al-Hijra (Immigration), Taqiyya (Lying and Deceit), and Razzia/Ghazwa (Rape and Slavery), Dawa (Cultural and Stealth Jihad), and Terrorist and Violent Jihad, carried out by fundamentalist Muslims as they settle in increasing numbers in Western countries with the sole and deliberate purpose of making every remaining Dar al-Harb ('House of War': i.e. any non-Muslim country) into a Dar al-Islam ('House of Submission': i.e all Muslim countries) until Islam finally achieves its longed-for global Caliphate.]

[End of Extract]

The Frankfurt School

"The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution.

Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the 'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School recommended (among other things):

(1) the creation of racism offences,
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy identity,
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of churches,
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime,
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
(10) control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of the family.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism' - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

(a) attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."

Programmes of Treason

"There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state:

• Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people;

• Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live;

• Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;

• Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;

• Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income);

• Education - Take control of that people read and listen to - take control of what children learn in school;

• Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools;

• Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

© Elizabeth McDonald     https://www.bayith.org     bayith@blueyonder.co.uk