No smacking Bill – what’s really going on?
The velvet underground-Labour’s quiet revolutionaries
It used to be said the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Now, people whose hands have never been near a cradle are deciding what’s best for children, and the country.
Margaret Shields says, “We began to reorganise the Women’s Section of the Party so that it became an agent for change; through organising, training and encouraging women to take a larger, more strategic role in politics”
She says things are not done by accident. John Tamihere agrees saying that these people think in timeframes of 10 to 15 years. They don’t have families so they plot because they have nothing better to do.
Feminist and Communist Kay Goodger attended the first-ever feminist United Women’s Convention as well as Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, Marilyn Waring and Silvia Cartwright along with nearly 2 thousand other women.
From this convention came the attack on the traditional family. It was concluded if they could crush the family, break it down or have it sidelined as irrelevant or portrayed as no better than other methods of child rearing, radical feminism could set the agenda for centuries to come.
Goodger’s 1973 plan was to make a utopian future for “Amazonian” reflecting what she believed was once a reality.
Family power is a real threat to radical feminism. It has been the plan of radical feminists to use anything in its power to destroy this power. Goodger called on the radical feminists to do all they could within political parties, government departments and communities. Everyone backing the bill for “No smacking” is most likely a part of this radical movement.
Goodger back in 1973 knew that if women could work and children were raised in childcare the family would suffer a body blow. Radical feminists following this woman are intending to have Government funded 24 hour a day childcare. As of 1st July we will have 20 hours free a week with women already separated from the family structure being forced to work else they will lose their benefits. The single mothers.
This was the 30 year plan the sisterhood made from their list of demands.
Abortion to be free and on demand DONE
Sex education/Birth control at all levels DONE
An end to coercive family laws DONE
De facto relationships to have same status as marriage DONE
The rearing and education should be from society not parents DONE
Discrimination of homosexuals outlawed DONE
Abolish laws victimising prostitutes DONE
Paid maternity of 12 weeks without loss of seniority or job DONE
Free Government paid 24 hours a day child care for all children from infancy
The only one left to go and Helen Clarke said she would go full steam ahead on this from the last election. So, is it over after this. No way.
From here on the Old School feminists are going after the young girls through an education system they have hold on. These old school feminists have been upset for a while that the younger women do not appreciate their fight and what has been done for them. A new batch is constantly being manipulated. There is a whole network and politicking going on behind the scenes.
However you look at it radical feminists are only swapping the patriarchy for the matriarchy. From one extreme to the other. Still there is no balance and there never shall be under their control. Don’t think for one minute that many millions of women and men are aware of this.
This movement is very cleverly dictated.
Reference: Investigate Magazine, May 2005, page 39.
Kay Goodger is now a senior Government advisor on policy initiatives earning hundreds of dollars an hour in pay, still mixing with Marxist organisations in Europe and is mentioned in dispatches on the website of the Portuguese Communist Party as recently as 4 years ago.
Margaret Sheilds is a former Minister of Customs and organised the 2005 conference for women.
Helen Clark is New Zealand’s Prime Minister.
Margaret Wilson first entered Parliament on the Labour Party list in 1999 and gained a Ministerial post immediately after her election. Her Ministerial positions included Attorney-General, Minister of Labour, Minister responsible for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Minister of Commerce. She was elected the first woman Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives in March 2005 and was re-elected Speaker in November, 2005
Marilyn Waring is Ruth Richardson’s replacement on the board of directors of the Reserve Bank.
Silvia Cartwright became the 18th governor general of New Zealand. She also became the first female high court judge.
Super work Julie! Nothing to say put praise.
Comment by Intrepid — Sat 24th February 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Thanx Intrepid
Comment by julie — Sun 25th February 2007 @ 2:42 am
Julie,
Awesome!
Looks like the agenda of the “Socialist Action League” from the mid 70’s.
These “feminists” (for want of a better term) announced in 2005 that they had marked the final item off on their original agenda: the successful destruction of the biological family unit in NZ society.
The destruction of The Family is also consistent with the teachings of Marx. He stated “The Family is the single biggest impediment to the teachings of The State”.
So, what did the communists in Russia do? They brought both Mum and Dad into the workforce and created State child care programs that reinforced the teachings of The State: impediment eliminated.
Remember Adolf Hitler created the “Hitler Youth” in order to create a generation schooled in the teachings of the Reich and “willing to die for their Fuhrer” (fuhrer literally means “leader”).
In light of this, think on the stated intent of Mrs Clark to “bring women into the workforce”.
Doesn’t this smack of removing another impediment to the teachings of The State?
Clark and her cohorts make Hitler and communist Russia look like Mother Theresa and a trip to Disneyland.
Comment by Mark Shipman — Thu 1st March 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Yeah that’s definitely interesting, a few questions though:
Surely prostitution would be abhorrent to feminists of all persuasions, particularly radicals, how would legalising it advance a feminist agenda?
Also the same with anti-smacking; how would that advance their agenda as it is “dis empowering” both men and women, and could arguably strengthen the family (as most children experts would agree)
I would be useful if you could provide better references, ie, a source for the list of demands made in 1973 to back up your claims.
Comment by Ben — Mon 21st September 2009 @ 4:48 pm
“Surely prostitution would be abhorrent to feminists of all persuasions, particularly radicals, how would legalising it advance a feminist agenda?”
Prior to this reform, prostitutes were engaging in crime, but their clients weren’t. This was the accepted sense of justice across broad society at the time.
The feminist aim was to reverse this perception – they wanted to criminalise men and the masculine expression of sexual desire, and make the prostitute guiltless. This intent had been made known for decades, and for all that time feminists had tried their hardest to bring about change by portraying prostitutes as unfortunate women driven to the profession by hardship, often against their will. They were being exploited by men and capitalism (they fact that most prostitutes had poor work ethics and a similar attitude to work and money as drug dealers was hotly denied).
This approach wasn’t working, so the two-step approach was adopted instead. First take advantage of most men’s indifference to the legal status of the prostitute and decriminalise it, making no change to the status of men using their services. The second step hasn’t been enacted yet, but it’s not far off – the criminalising of all men who purchase sex.
Sweden was the first country to do this in 1999, with stiff penalties of 6 months imprisonment. It has only recently been enacted in Norway and Iceland. New Zealand is probably sufficiently softened up now so that the same legislation could be introduced here with not much outcry from the public – I expect the most annoyed would be the prostitutes themselves.
But the key issue all along wasn’t prostitution. It was the embedding in the public mind that masculinity is criminal at its foundation, and that all law should be re-aligned to affirm that view. The ultimate aim is the complete disempowerment of men. This has already begun in the UK, where the Labour party has banned men from standing for selection as MPs in some of its electorates. It can only be a matter of time before someone influential suggests in all seriousness that men be disenfranchised and unable to vote. If that sounds fantastic now, it probably won’t be in a few years.
I’m almost ready to suggest it myself, given how careless men have been in looking after their own interests.
Comment by rc — Mon 21st September 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Is it prositution if you have sex with the same woman for several years; then have to pay her off in a single lump sum as you go your seperate ways?
Comment by Fearless Frank — Mon 21st September 2009 @ 8:21 pm
It is a law that all people have to abide by so that children are being raised collectively rather than by families who have different opinions and beliefs.
See…
They beleive that Psychologists should sit up the top and decide children’s welfare from THEIR research and THEIR opinions. And that this should flow down through all outlets to the child whether parents, childcare workers, teachers, coaches and so on.
In the UK anyone who works with children under all circumstances including voluntary as coaches and possible parents driving other parent’s children to school have to be approved through certain security groups.
In Sweden they have childcare from age 1 which is basically compulsory. And they also have 50/50 shared parenting.
This is a great reference. This was in the Investigate Magazine, May 2005 issue and these people were interviewed and the information comes from credible sources.
Comment by julie — Mon 21st September 2009 @ 10:07 pm
I suppose that depends if you marry for sex.
Marrying for sex was something people did prior to contraception. Now people marry for tax reasons, children, love, companionship, business, security…… and…..
Comment by julie — Mon 21st September 2009 @ 10:14 pm
“Is it prositution if you have sex with the same woman for several years; then have to pay her off in a single lump sum as you go your seperate ways?”
Interesting you should mention it. It might not be called a crime, but going by the steep fines and long sentences imposed by the courts, marriage is one of the most serious crimes any man can commit.
Comment by rc — Mon 21st September 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Yes, an insightful analysis. Unless men start to become politically effective, “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet”.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 22nd September 2009 @ 10:41 am
When I wrote this post, I was looking from an ignorant perspective in that I thought of what I considered the so called right ‘way to do life’. I write ‘ignorant’ for the world isn’t going to stop, pack up all the past and live Julie’s way of life.
Also, 7 years has passed and I’ve learned a lot since I wrote this post. Learning is great fun. 🙂
These goals that feminists put together are important in our present ‘way of life’.
NOTE: Not everything activists and advocates do are bad, lol. We do get some things right.:)
However, I still don’t believe we should have a hierarchy between the sexes so I don’t support activists and advocates, men or women, who support a hierarchy. I know very well that people can respect people as people and the importance of having teams with equal amounts of representation. (I don’t buy into women are 51% of the country so we should have 51% of female politicians. I know this is a way to get women over equality (50%) and that feminists want 100% while they say, “Realistically, we will get around 80%” because that’s what they’ve done in middle management……. I write the above because I know where I am and like to contribute positively. 🙂
Comment by julie — Mon 14th July 2014 @ 8:17 am