Will this tide ever turn?


Here is some common – and moral – sense from Peter Hitchens in the Mail Online. Why are there so few like him, ready to stand up against the corrupt forces of hedonism which are swamping our societies?

The mystery of sex education is that parents put up with it at all. It began about 50 years ago, on the pretext that it would reduce unmarried teen pregnancies and sexual diseases. Every time these problems got worse, the answer was more sex education, more explicit than before.

Since then, unmarried pregnancies have become pretty much normal, and sexual diseases – and the ‘use’ of pornography – are an epidemic.

It is only thanks to frantic free handouts of ‘morning after’ pills and an abortion massacre that the number of teenage mothers has finally begun to level off after decades in which it zoomed upwards across the graph paper.

In a normal, reasonable society, a failure as big as this would cause a change of mind. Not here.

If you try to question sex education, you are screamed at by fanatics. This is because it isn’t, and never has been, what it claims to be. Sex education is propaganda for the permissive society. It was invented by the communist George Lukacs, schools commissar during the insane Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919, to debauch the morals of Christian schoolgirls.

It works by breaking taboos and by portraying actions as normal that would once have been seen as wrong. Last week we learned that the Government has officially endorsed material which says sex at 13, ‘for those of similar age and developmental ability’, is normal.

This is, no doubt, a point of view. In a free society, people are entitled to hold it, even if it is rather creepy. But do you want your child’s school to endorse it? And how does it square with our incessant frenzied panic about child sex abuse?

If we are so keen on the innocence of the young – and I very much think we should be – then surely this sort of radical propaganda is deeply dangerous. We do not give schools this huge power over the minds of the young for such a purpose.

How odd it is that we teach 13-year-olds to go forth and multiply, but can’t somehow teach them their times tables. Shouldn’t it be the other way round?

And this might serve as a footnote to Hitchens’ piece. It was reported in the current issue of The Week.

Doctors have been urged to look out for children whose health may be suffering as a result of sexting or revenge porn, reports The Sunday Times. GPs have previously been warned that children who seem withdrawn, or who complain of mysterious stomach pains or headaches, may be being bullied or abused. Now, the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) has advised its members to be aware that the growing practice of circulating sexual images online can be similarly harmful, and that even very young children are being affected. “Children and young people today are facing unprecedented pressures at a younger and younger age,” said Dr Maureen Baker, chair of the RCGP. Research by the NSPCC found that 20% of 11 and 12-year-olds who are active on social media report being upset on a daily basis by trolling, cyberbullying and/or sexual imagery.

Of course we can expect plenty of outraged idiots to come forward and tell us that the is no connection between the kind of exposure which is going on in classrooms and this phenomenon.

That ugly face again



The ugly face of sexual ‘liberation’ was flagged on Channel 4 again last night and will be revealed in all it lurid detail today. This so-called liberation – unrestrained lust – was only ever going to end in slavery. Slaves enslaving the vulnerable.

The report: ‘More child abuse allegations in northern England’

‘Another day, another city – same old horrifying problem: child abuse. Ahead of a report tomorrow into child protection in the North of England – commissioned in the wake of the Rochdale grooming case in 2012 – we hear from a mother who says her daughter was repeatedly abused yet no-one has ever been prosecuted. The report is expected to be hard-hitting, revealing that grooming became the social norm on some Manchester estates.’

Northern light – Iceland to attack the porn plague

Has the penny dropped at a last? Are we all about to wake up to the fact that our tolerance of the porn industry – or at best, our inept efforts to deal with it – is the greatest and most devastating cooperation in the evil of child abuse that the world has ever seen. Are we at last ready to accept that if a blatant act of showing pornographic images to a child is a form of child abuse, then so also is the broadcast of such images through film, TV, or over the Internet – at any hour of the day – also effectively the destruction of innocence.

Last week police in Australia gave a stark warning to parents to wake up to this. Now the government of Iceland is drafting legislation in an attempt to confront the plague. It is probably a bonus that it is liberal-minded Iceland doing this. Were it some Catholic country attempting to lead the way the cries of “censorship” and moans about “conservative reactionaries” would have been the inevitable result. With Iceland taking the vanguard position the project stands a much better chance of success.

The current issue of The Week reports that Iceland could become the first Western democracy to attempt to ban internet porn under radical new proposals announced last week. It already has laws forbidding the printing and distribution of porn (and bans lap dancing and strip clubs) but these laws have not been updated to cover the internet. Under the legislation being drafted by Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson, Iceland would introduce internet filters and firewalls similar to those used by China. It is also looking at other ways to enforce the proposed law, such as making it illegal to use Icelandic credit cards to access pay-per-view sex sites. The rationale for the ban is the damaging effects internet porn is held to have on children and on attitudes towards women.

Inevitably sceptics – and those with other agendas – argue that it would be impossible to enforce. Bravo for Iceland for at least trying.

Meanwhile, as though providing a preliminary statement for the prosecution of pornographers, a member of Australia’s Online Child Exploitation Squad (OCES), Detective Senior Sergeant Lindsay Garratt, said in an interview following the recent arrests of a sports coach and teacher whom police believe had been operating as online predators: “It wasn’t too many years ago that we were talking about stranger danger, the offender down at the playground” but now the internet “has brought the offenders into the house without parents being aware of it.

“Parents need to be aware of the enormity of the issues and do what they can to protect their own children. Parents need to take a lead role and educate kids.”

Advances in technology, he said, had expanded the dimensions of this problem enormously.

“We’re now in an environment where child exploitation material is really rife,” he said.

“In the early ’90s we were talking in megabytes and now we’re talking in gigabytes and terabytes and it won’t be long before we’re talking petabytes (one million gigabytes).”

He said that despite several warnings, “sexting” continued to be a major issue among teenagers and he was aware of cases involving children as young as 10 and 11. “As soon as a child is given access to a computer, the internet or a mobile phone, they really need to have a clear understanding of the risks,” he said.

The massacre of innocence

This one was too long coming, often thought but ne’er so formidably expressed. This is truth speaking to the entrenched liberal establishment, that is, the power of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century.

Who are the sexual abusers of our children asks Lisa Fabrizio, columnist in The American Spectator?  She doesn’t name names – because there are too many of them – but she mercilessly blasts the hypocrisy of the pharisaic establishment feigning scandal at the atrocities which they themselves have been perpetrating while pointing condemning fingers by the new time.

The last time we saw someone raise their head above this parapet and suggest that the permissive culture of the ‘sixties and subsequent decades had anything to do with the increase in the abuse of children there were screams of outrage from the defenders of the spirit that particular age who saw in it a threat to their precious “freedom” to engage in whatever “consensual” aberration grabbed their fancy.

Fabrizio will have none of it and shouts “stop!” to the hue and cry in the wake of the Pennsylvania State mess and the revelations of the heinous abuse crimes of the university’s assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky.

She writes: The unanimous war cry across the nation has been: ‘We have a moral responsibility to protect our kids; we must preserve the innocence of our children!’ Are they kidding? Can they be serious? How can our children be innocent or protected in a country that, rather than defining deviancy down, has defined deviancy up; up to the level of not only acceptance, but approval.

Penn States’ scandal is for her just another example of the putrefying infection that runs right through American culture. There are few of us who cannot also apply it to our own diverse cultures and societies. The price will be paid in millions of dollars by Penn State for its negligence – as the price has been paid by other institutions for their negligence. But how long are we going to have to wait for recognition of the responsibility of those driving the ideology of permissiveness for the corruption of the innocence of whole generations of children. When will they be confronted with the reality of the abuse they have perpetrated: the TV organisations, film producers, the entertainment industry, the political campaigners for so-called freedoms to indulge this, that or the other deviant behaviour – on the basis that no such category of behaviour exists.

Fabrizio asks: What are the messages that our culture daily delivers to our kids? That they don’t need fathers to nurture and raise them; the idea that males are essentially useless to the family unit has proven not only dangerous to society — it is no coincidence that Sandusky chose as his victims, boys with no fathers in their homes — but criminal. That any brothers and sisters they might have had are too expensive or inconvenient, and will either be chemically destroyed or murdered in the womb because in today’s America, the family budget prioritizes toys for adults over the desire and care for children.

How can innocence survive in any of our citizens — let alone the youngest and most vulnerable — when our very laws now define classes of people based solely on their sexual proclivities? No, the innocence of our children cannot be preserved until it is restored.

If we really cared about our children we would stop teaching filth and perversion in our public schools by brainwashing them to believe it is good for Heather to have anything other than one Mommy and one Daddy who are married to each other. We would stop promoting the idea that free and unfettered sex is beneficial for them in any way and stop glorifying it on TV, using children as straight men for any number of unfunny and repulsive sexual jokes.

Sandusky and others who physically assault the bodies of our children are indeed monsters, but as the lynching parties assemble, let them broaden their gaze to include those who wound the innate innocence of our children’s souls.

Until that happens, child protection in this or any other country will be little more than a sticking plaster on a hopelessly putrefying wound.