Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 4th, 2007
As posted on Watching CYFSWATCH NZ
Sunday, March 4, 2007 pm31 6:09 PM
Posted by Watchingcyfs:
Firstly a word of encouragement to CYFSWATCH NZ
Keep up the good work.
With the closing down of the two CYFSWATCH NZ’s blogs, hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of people were denied an opportunity to have their stories told.
The New Zealand government’s attempt to silence them is completely a disregard of their right to Free Speech.
One must defend liberty at every opportunity, and never lose focus on its shining goal. One must live up to the courage that defied an empire.
It is not too late. One individual can re-ignite a revolution.
May that spark which re ignites that revolution be CYFSWATCH NZ
====================================================================
Secondly two interesting pieces, # 1 a news piece and #2 a commentary source unknownI was very interested to read the following article that I found lately while just surfing around on the net.
The following article was published in The Washington Times on 29/09/2000
=============================================
# 1
Paul Craig Roberts identifies the relationship between our universities ‘politically correct’??? And those of previous ideologies. He is right on target. His article appeared in The Washington Times (September 29, 2000).
“Tyranny is creeping up on us. If you don’t believe it, consider the most prominent hallmarks of the Nazi and communist regimes, which sought to supplant democracy in the 20th century.
”In National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union, there were no First Amendment rights. No one could voice an opinion contrary to the politically correct views enforced by the Gestapo and the KGB. Media and education were used to instill politically correct thinking and bring denunciation upon anyone who departed from politically correct thinking.
“This is precisely the situation that exists today in the vast majority of American colleges and universities. Verbal and facial expressions that are contrary to political correctness result in sensitivity training (a form of brainwashing) or expulsion for the offender, who may have done nothing more than laugh. If the source of mirth is an ethnic joke, a blonde joke or a hilarious claim by a multiculturalist, the hapless offender discovers that his constitutional protections do not exist.
”In Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, there were victim groups that were championed and oppressor groups that were suppressed. In Germany, the ‘victims’ were Aryans, who were said to be under the financial hegemony of Jews. In the Soviet Union, the hegemonic group was the bourgeoisie, who allegedly held sway over an oppressed proletariat. In both countries, victims were permitted to exercise violent language and actions against oppressors.
“In the United States today, white heterosexual able-bodied males constitute the hegemonic group. Everyone else is a member of a victim group.
”In Germany and the Soviet Union, the abstract and imaginary group roles of oppressor and victim were given a frightful reality by ideologues. Race and class categories became the basis for discrimination and new legal systems that favored victims’ groups with preferences.
“On American campuses, multi-cultural ideology has revived the concepts of race and class oppression, and added new ones based on gender and sexual orientation. Men oppress women, and heterosexuals oppress homosexuals.
”According to multiculturalists, our culture and values reflect nothing but the arbitrary domination of society by white heterosexual males. University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Kors says that, thanks to multiculturalism, ‘half a century after the defeat of Nazism, we distinguish by blood and we equate blood with culture.’ We now think like Nazis and explain our society and culture in terms of race (and gender) hegemony.
“Tyrannical states attack the family. Both the Nazis and communists are infamous for state intrusions in family affairs. In the United States, similar bureaucratic and political intrusions come from family courts. Most Americans are unaware of the existence of these relatively new ‘courts.’ Howard University Professor Stephen Baskerville is the leading authority on these courts. He says family courts are ‘the most dangerous institutions posing a threat to constitutional rights in our society. The only parallels are the ideological-bureaucratic dictatorships of the last century.’
”Family courts claim immunity from the Constitution and from scrutiny by federal courts. Mr. Baskerville describes them as follows: ‘their proceedings are secret and unrecorded. Their orders are enforced by bureaucratic police who do not wear uniforms and whose sole responsibility is to conduct surveillance over families and private lives. As such, these police are akin to secret police. By the very nature of their jurisdiction, these courts and police are the most intrusive and invasive arm of government, and yet they are accountable to virtually no one. Such an institution is intolerable in a free society.’
“Recently a family court judge ordered the parents of a 7-year-old boy in Berne, N.Y., to put their child on Ritalin, a behavior-control drug. The alternative was to be found guilty of ‘educational neglect,’ an offense that would open the possibility of their child being seized by Child Protective Services – a Hillary Clinton ‘village’ institution straight from the pages of the Gestapo. The child suffered serious side effects from the drug, but parents no longer have the right to decide what is best for their children. ”
Tyrannical states assault the individual in the inner recesses of his consciousness. He is not permitted to think certain thoughts or to express a prohibited thought privately to anyone. “Recently, Janice Barton encountered a Spanish-speaking couple while leaving a restaurant in Manistee, Mich. She turned to her mother and said, ‘I wish these [ethnic slur] would learn to speak English.’ An off- duty deputy sheriff over-heard the private remark, followed the woman to her car and noted her tag number. Janice Barton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for her thought crime.
”This couldn’t happen in a free country.“
Ends.
=========================================================================
Watching CYFSWATC NZ comments;
It has raised some very valid points, which needs to be discussed. It made me think of a few questions that I feel needs to be addressed.
Can & does the same sort of thing happen in New Zealand? If it does how wide spread is it?
How many lives and families are being destroyed by such a push by the New Zealand’s Government to bring about social change & equality by ” FORCE “ & ” COERCION “?
What part do the many varied social groups ( eg Women’s refuge etc )have in this process of change to our society?
What part does the Family Court, Justice system, CYFS and the Mental Health services have to play in especially the matter of Family & Domestic violence, Child Abuse and in general the destruction of the family unit?
Just the thought of this sort of abuse of power in New Zealand by different originations such as CYFS, Family Court, WINZ, IRD, ACC, Police, and the people who are in position of power (eg MP’s, Judges, Police, Social workers etc) is quite disgusting to say the least and should not be tolerated any longer.
You cannot bring about such changes by the misuse of power to control how people think & react with the use of FORCE & COERCION. In reality a big power struggle to which the strongest wins there is always a loser.
Where is the equality that it trys so hard to obtain when they use power and control to bring it about?
I suggest to you that Equality in this sense doesn’t in reality exist.
It all just seems to be people in these positions of power wanting to make up in their own twisted perception what they perceive is the best for everyone and then by whatever means available to then force people by the use of FORCE & COERCION to get what they want.
Is New Zealand going down this path to destruction?
========================================================================
# 2
In the Discovery of freedom
Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. To be cured against one\’s own will of a state we do not regard as a disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason, or those who never will, and to be classed with infants, imbeciles and domestic animals.— C.S. Lewis
In The Discovery of Freedom, novelist and historian Rose Wilder Lane described the man who fired the first shot against the British in the American Revolution:
Not acting under orders, not led, but standing on his own feet, acting from his own will, responsible, self-controlling, he fired on the King’s troops. He defied a world-empire.…
No one knows who began the American Revolution. Only his neighbours ever knew him, and no one now remembers any of them. He was an unknown man, an individual, the only force that can ever defend freedom.
Every individual, as a human being, is the source of productive, creative energy. Each individual is alone a moral agent, and that force from another can never induce creation. In a real sense, fundamentally, every human being is free. In practice, there is only one freedom in society: that of living one’s life as one chooses, and allowing others to do the same.
Moral responsibility cannot be applied to anything outside the individual’s choice - one cannot be judged for that which is outside one’s control. Nor can one judge others by that which is outside their control. Yet the individual is told that he must - automatically - love, value and respect people with whom he may hold nothing in common except the blood running through his veins. An individual’s values must be acquired by his own mind and his own choice.
In the physical sciences, many actions can be accurately predicted — in the case of astronomy, for example, the position of planets hundreds of years in the future can be calculated. But in the case of human choices and history, nothing is fated. Human beings operate with a unique faculty: volition. We choose our own fates. Freedom is not inevitable. But then, neither is tyranny. Liberty in New Zealand — and liberty in societies throughout the world — was won because it was recognised and valued. In order to regain and keep our birthright of freedom, we must never forget its nature or its value.
Freedom is a social requirement of man’s nature. Freedom is freedom from force. Force is justified only when used in retaliation against those who initiate it. But — “If I am wielding retaliatory force, my use of that instrument must be in strict accordance with publicly promulgated laws, and publicly observable judicial proceedings, so that people are not left wondering how, where and against whom I will use force tomorrow” (David Kelley). A is A — and Anarchism is the Arbitrary writ large.
Make no mistake, there is no idea bigger, or more important for the survival of this planet, than the liberty of the human individual; the idea that you own your own life & are accountable to no one but yourself. When you understand that, you will understand, as Kipling said: ’that mine is the Earth & everything that’s in it, & – which is more – you’ll be a Man my son!“
For too long, freedom has been absent from societyThe problem is that we live in a society, and a world, that is geared up to restrict freedom. As a result, true freedom is a concept that is scary to too many people - and this is where perception halts any such fight.
It is individual freedom that is the one thing, due to our inherent nature as thinking, choosing beings, that any proper society should recognise as man’s absolute right. To survive, freedom is what man requires above all else; it is his by right, and therefore what the government should do all in its power to protect. The right to my - and your - freedom does not come at anybody’s expense.
Today, in New Zealand, it is possible for a perfectly innocent man, who has done nothing outside the law, to be sent to prison on one person’s unsubstantiated word. It came about by a law passed in 1995 and put into force on 1st July 1996 — The Domestic Violence Act which replaced the old Molestation Act. It is a brilliant illustration of how ”philosophies“ such as modern feminism and its femi-nazi adherents can be used to subvert freedom.
How do such things happen? They happen because those who seek to control us are very good at playing on the unearned guilt which the innocent are all too willing to bear, and at using good motives as a cover for evil ones. No-one doubts that unfortunately there do exist violent, destructive men from whom their victims need legitimate protection, and urgency laws for such cases may well be the best way of handling these cases.
There are violent men, there are abusive husbands and fathers. But there are, also, violent women, there are abusive wives and mothers. Justice, as a system, is meant to enter into matters with an open mind. Yes, it is reasonable to ask who, if either, in a custody dispute is violent or abusive or negligent. And it is in the best interest of the child involved to be with the better parent though often who is better is virtually impossible to determine. But it is not in the interest of the child, the parents or our society generally to make this decision and place a child on the basis of faulty, gender-biased policies.
To portray men as violent and women as victims is to stereotype both sexes and harm both. There is already an ideological bias in this direction. False accusations of spousal abuse and child abuse are already a problem in custody cases. Too many therapists are already caught up in theories which cast women in these roles and cast suspicion on men.
In no way do I condon any form of violence and abuse that is perpetrated on any individual , man woman or child.However, there are hundreds of broken relationships occurring every year; it is demonstrable from the statistics that vicious men are in the minority. But the Domestic Violence Act 1995 acts on the assumption that all men are potentially violent — and this is a direct consequence of the culture of academic feminism which, via Universities, has peddled exactly that message for the past two decades.
There are thousands of lives in New Zealand and all over the world that are being destoryed by the Government , the Justice system , the Psychology Industry and the Feminist movment.
We are all inclined, when we think of ”power“ and ”abuse“ within the context of ”psychology,“ to focus on what we consider to be the abuse of power by individuals within the profession or to apply psychological concepts to identify individuals from other walks of life, such as politicians, celebrities, teachers and coaches, as abusing their power. For instance, when we hear of cases in which professors develop relationships with their students or therapists with their clients, we tend to view these as instances of something inherently immoral and coercive. And, when we think of any profession or any organization or institution, we tend to think in terms of an internal patriarchal power dynamic, citing evidence to support theories of male dominance and control.
While these may be issues to address, I want to suggest to you that each of these is like a ”tree“ that serves to obscure the view of the ”forest.“ And that in staying focused on these issues, we are failing to notice, and to address, a much larger problem. As we express outrage about individual cases of alleged abuse, what we lose sight of is a pervasive and rampant abuse of power by the profession of psychology. It is this abuse of power committed in the name of professionalism that devalues, exploits, trivializes and victimizes people throughout society.
When we hear of the abuse of power by individuals, we need to look behind these claims to examine the role of psychology and to consider how it may be misusing its influence. It is the profession itself which is victimizing people, particularly women, as it turns them into powerless, dependent and stupid ”adult children,“ unable to think for themselves, to take responsibility for their actions, to admit their mistakes, acknowledge their shortcomings, or even enjoy their romantic conquests.
Psychology is responsible for the creation of most of the concepts employed in accusations involving the abuse of power, it is psychology that coined the terms and formed the notions, and it is psychology that benefits most from the contamination of society by the uncontested acceptance of psychological ”expertise.“ How many times have you heard that the victims were referred for counseling, that the accused was ordered into treatment or that gender sensitivity training was made a condition of disciplinary action?
Psychology has a vested interest in identifying abuses of power in the broadest psychological terms possible. It is through this that ”victims“ are manufactured and then converted into patients/clients for whom psychological services must be purchased. And it is through this that psychologists come to be retained to testify in human rights hearings, civil proceedings and criminal courts. To put it in a visual form:
PERSON = VICTIM = PATIENT = PROFIT
Psychology promotes genderism and is actually guilty of victimizing women.It has become fashionable in the 90’s to be a victim. While I readily acknowledge that there are real victims who have suffered degradation, brutality and violence, I also know that there are many ”counterfeit victims“ who manipulate the system, intentionally lying with motives of revenge or greed or excuse-finding, and also, that there are vast numbers of what I call ”synthetic victims,“ those people who lie unintentionally, having been taught to think of themselves as victims and to make accusations and claims based on psychological interpretations of events.
Yvonne McEwen notes: ”The victim-makers in today’s world are inevitably the lawyers, doctors, psychologists, therapists, social workers and the radical left of the feminist movement.“
By turning all of life into psychological events, then pathologizing normal feelings and behaviours and generalizing psychological concepts so that ”trauma“ can refer as easily to having a fling with the boss as to being brutally raped, people are being persuaded to see themselves as victims. Rather than being allowed to assume responsibility for their own actions, they come to believe that they must be protected, nurtured and guided by others more powerful than them.
Each and every week, our papers carry articles describing victims of one type or another and many of these reports conclude that counseling should be provided, laws put in place, funds set aside for a healing process, or programs established to increase self-esteem, teach parenting skills, or combat violence.
Most of these reported victims are women and, interestingly, statistics show that 2 out of 3 psychotherapy consumers are women. It is women by and large who are being persuaded that they are weak, vulnerable, manipulated and fragile. And, contrary to common assumption, much of this persuasion is being done by women who themselves benefit from casting their fellow women in victim roles. It is largely female therapists, lawyers and advocates who encourage women to see themselves as victims and to complain, and to seek special consideration and compensation. It is also often female ”experts“ who use fear appeal to persuade women that they are victims.
For instance, the report prepared by the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, employing a ”feminist lens“ (more commonly labelled as ”bias“,) presented finding which made it seem that women across Canada stand a good chance of becoming crime victims. And, while mentioning that 52% of women in their study attributed their decreased sense of safety to media reports on violence against women, they chose to ignore recent sociological studies which suggest that it is the fear of violence rather than violence itself which is harming women by creating fear and causing them to see themselves as victims.
Psychology is an industry masquerading as a scientifically-based profession, and no matter how strongly psychological beliefs and theories are expressed as facts, there is little-to-no certainty in the field. My key point is that anything said by psychologists needs to be scrutinized carefully.
While undeniably, some individuals within the profession of psychology will violate current ethical codes; some will do their jobs poorly; some will make mistakes; and, some will even seduce or be seduced by their patients or by their students; please remember that these are only the ”trees.“ My hope is that your attention will not be forever diverted by these individual, and often sensationalized, cases because they serve to obscure our view of the bigger issue. The ”forest,“ in this instance, is the pervasive and socially sanctioned abuse of power, in the form of the profession’s influence on the public, the media and the courts. If we remain focused on the trees, the Psychology Industry will go unchallenged. Take a look at the larger picture and ask yourself whether we can afford, any longer, to remain blinded by the trees.
”Politicians are not born, they are excreted,“ said Cicero.
However unsanitary the metaphor, it is not gratuitous. Anyone who seeks coercive power over others (for reasons which include living off those others’ earnings), is truly despicable. By far the greater number of politicians the world over are in this category. In New Zealand, there are few who are not.
To anyone who holds freedom as sacred, the most urgent problem facing this country is the vile anti-individual philosophies of collectivism and statism that have given rise to this relentless onslaught of the government’s violation of individual rights, which includes the proliferation of intrusive, politically correct, government agencies charged with the ”responsibility“ of fixing all our problems.
To have the courage to see things as they are, in the light of lost freedom, is to acknowledge a grotesque level of corruption and injustice. To open one’s eyes and name these programs, agencies, and restrictions for what they are is to face up to a very difficult conclusion, one which offers little immediate comfort. Truly, that the New Zealand has reached this point is not easy to admit — and most have lost the knowledge of freedom along with their actual freedom. This is precisely the way the tyrant wins. What must it have been like as a citizen in the early Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? ”Surely,“ they must have thought, ”we won’t take things to extremes. Of course a Stalin (or a Hitler) is impossible! After all, this is Germany (or Russia, or Cambodia, or China …).“ How many cried out at the loss of their freedom, such as it was where there was any? This is the way the bloodiest oppression begins, unanswered by cries of protest.
What is being destroyed? It is very simple. The government is now operating on the assumption that you are not in control of your own life. What is being lost is your freedom to act, to live your own life, to find your own success. The means of the loss of this freedom is physical force — that is the only thing which destroys freedom.Politicians and journalists side-step the issue of freedom when identifying New Zealands essential nature.
Today, a law is seen as just, not because it protects liberty, but because it was democratically established. If you don’t like a law or official, one is told, too bad, you had a chance to vote against it. Thus, all that comes from government is good, for it is blessed by the ever-righteous vote. Not surprisingly then, politicians and the tyrants of the status quo eagerly embrace democracy alone as an ideal. To name the actual principle of liberty would too obviously condemn their own policies and positions, let alone the despotism of other countries. And while they clamour for ”social democracy” throughout the world, human lives are torn and destroyed.
The fast erosion of our rights and dignity on the part of ever-increasing government is testament to our neglect — not only in New Zealand, but world-wide.
I put it to you bluntly, that if you ’re too scared to openly argue for the merits of your goals - & would rather fudge them - then you neither believe in your purported goals, & nor do you understand them - and after all, if you’re too embarrassed to hold your ideas openly, then why the hell should anyone else give them any credence?
One must defend liberty at every opportunity, and never lose focus on its shining goal. One must live up to the courage that defied an empire. It is not too late. An individual can re-ignite a revolution.
=========================================================================
Have a nice day
watchingcyfs
No comments:
Post a Comment