No, I don’t hate Sheryl Sandberg because she is successful and rich, or because she is Jewish (on the contrary). I don’t hate her because she is a woman; I don’t even hate her because she is an American.

What I hate is her mission to democratize the world.

Having been born in the country which was the first to give women the vote I make these observations :

Any culture which does not have clearly defined sex-role expectations and which does not value and enhance the differences between the sexes is a culture which will fragment and collapse within a generation.

 I believe it to be self-evident that those who aspire to be equal are clearly not equal. If they were equal they would not seek what they already possess. In fact they covet that which is not theirs. 

This is the content of the presentation I made in person to the Select Committee.

Madame Chairman and committee members,

5 minutes is a very short time to treat in any depth such an important and fundamental topic. I struggle to think of a more important social topic than this one.

I make no apology for anything I have said in my submission or will say here today. The truth in any absolute sense (the kind raised automatically by the introduction of this bill) is extreme. The truth is not found in the middle ground of public opinion.  (where politicians love to dwell)

I have said that this bill is evil- I believe it would be impossible to overstate the extent of that evil. Evil does not come out of some black hole in the ground. No, evil is the corruption and subversion of good. This is the heart and the purpose of this Bill.

This bill is a direct result of the outworking of the Human Rights concept. In particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a more socially destructive and subversive mechanism this world has never seen. It emerged 64 years ago from that world body co-founded by Joseph Stalin (a man credited with killing more people than Adolf Hitler did. A more apt working meaning for the letters U.N would in my opinion be “Ultimately Nasty”). Jesus said “either make the tree good and its fruit good or make the tree evil and its fruit evil for you cannot get good fruit from an evil tree”. This Bill is the fruit from that evil Human Rights tree.

This bill if passed will effectively destroy marriage. A population can have a water supply- reservoirs, pipes etc; but if a sewer pipe is connected directly into the fresh water main of that water supply then that population has no fresh water supply. Discrimination is not just desirable it is absolutely vital! That is because nothing is in fact equal as the human right ideology asserts. It is inequality which gives shape and colour and order and purpose to creation. You can have a heterosexual society or a homosexual society, you cannot have both. If this bill passes then in a very real sense we will have a homosexual society.

If successful this Bill would also shred the remnants of the elemental fabric of our society. The most fundamental element of society is not the people but is rather this: a shared belief in what is sacred and what is profane. Marriage is the most sacred institution we share as a society. This Bill seeks to profane that institution. Those who remain resistant to the redefinition of marriage and who continue to speak out against this evil thing, will themselves be labeled evil and their beliefs also, notwithstanding that our society was largely founded on those same beliefs. Hate speech legislation must follow to enforce those new beliefs.

Homosexuality is not some fixed state in a society. The only things which prevent, over time, a whole society being given over to homosexual conduct are:

The repugnance of it, which is a natural outcome of being brought up in a heterosexual society; legal and moral proscription (in other words, thou shalt not) and spiritual condemnation of homosexual conduct

What we are witnessing in Whangarei, on a personal level and among a wide group of friends and acquaintances is a growing flood of young people identifying themselves as homosexual. This is unprecedented in our society and very worrying, but confirms absolutely what I am saying and also confirms the wrongness of the path our society is following.

What a society allows is what a society becomes.

This bill if passed invites the judgment of the God who made us all and created marriage to be a sacred and honorable state. He has made His mind and judgment on homosexual conduct known unequivocally in His word.  That judgment will not be long in coming. 

Those who live on shaky isles should not thumb their noses at God.

This is a submission I made to the select committee on the Marriage Definition Bill being considered by the New Zealand Parliament.                                       

To the select committee looking at the Marriage Definition Bill I submit the following:
Marriage is the most precious institution that we have. It has not been instituted by the State or even by society, but is given to us as a gift, like life is, from God our Creator.
This would be the most evil piece of legislation ever contemplated in the history of this country. Indeed it would be hard to imagine a more evil or a more destructive course than the one being proposed in this bill.
I have for many years studied Human Rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), looking at their origin, formulation and implementation. I find them to be human in origin, ideological by nature and opposed to God’s created order. They would appear by their very design to be a mechanism for the overturning of the created order.
Equality is the central idea of the ideology behind Human Rights. However nothing in creation is equal in the sense this ideology promotes. It is inequality which gives form and shape and order. This is why discrimination is absolutely vital. The ideology which inspires this Bill is an ideology which attacks discrimination and turns it into some evil thing. By this subversive mechanism 'good' becomes evil and 'evil' becomes good. What is needful is to know what is good and what is evil and discriminate (choose) accordingly, not only on a personal level but especially as a society. And most importantly, whatever decisions the adult population make, they make for their children and their childrens' children.
Non – discrimination is a nonsense created by this subversive HR ideology. It is impossible to not discriminate. To consciously not discriminate is a discrimination for the thing not discriminated against. All discrimination involves a choosing and a rejecting. This is how all process works. Subvert this natural mechanism and you subvert process.
Homosexuality is not like left-handedness which occurs constantly in the population at a certain rate, more or less. Homosexuality can and does change its rate of occurrence within a population. It flourished in ancient Greece where this Human Rights ideology originated. It flourished also in Sodom and Gomorrah where almost the whole of the male population were given over to this unnatural practice.
Passing this Bill would confirm New Zealand on a course from which it will not be possible to turn back. The redefinition of marriage will also redefine family and society. Over time marriage, family and society as we know them will be eroded to the point where children growing up will not have the understanding of normal as we have known it. The ‘choices’ they make will not be choices; they will be following the pattern they have observed from their early childhood.
International declarations, covenants and laws are no match for the laws of God, especially when they are in absolute conflict. God has and will judge nations and societies given over to homosexual practice. Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a nation sows; that is what it shall also reap.
Many submitters I am sure will make reference to the Biblical condemnation of homosexual practice, both from the Law of Moses and the heavy warnings in the New Testament. I would urge anybody reading this to check them out for themselves. And further I would urge them to “not follow a multitude in doing evil”, but to reject this evil Bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to share a little on this profoundly fundamental and weighty subject. 

This was a response to an item on Radio New Zealand 'celebrating' 25 years since the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passed, legalising homosexual acts.

 Last week's documentary ‘Homosexual Law Reform 25 years on’ contained no insights.

That was not journalism. That was the media telling the citizens that the media had been right all along; that their one sided war had been won and that there were none left standing on the other side. This was a view from the Human Rights war machine driven by the media on behalf of the UN which destroys everything in its path.

There was no conservative voice to point out that the dire predictions made 25 years ago by those opposing the bill had all come to pass: adoption of children by same sex couples; marriage in all but name by same sex couples (soon to be same in name also); homosexual relationships depicted in the media as totally normal; and the huge rise in the numbers of people, especially younger people identifying themselves as homosexual, trans-gender and increasingly as bisexual. These predictions were 'scaremongering' according to the Bills’ supporters.

Of course Fran Wilde thinks that everything has turned out fine. Of course she doesn’t see that anything negative has happened as a result of her Bill being passed.  And if John Banks had come on the program it would only have reinforced the ‘correctness’ of the liberal position. John Banks is not a conservative with a fixed position, informed by solid conviction; he is a politician.

I helped gather signatures for the 700,000 plus partition against the Bill to legalize a gross moral and spiritual offence. I must have believed then to a degree in the democratic process. Not any more. I was awakened 25 years ago to the true evil nature of Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.

The 2001 UN conference on racism in Durban S.A., at which there was a walk out by the Israelis and Americans, opened with the question “Is ‘racism’ a valid concept?” This question was never answered. Instead people came forward and delivered personal stories of how they had been harmed by ‘racism’ thereby putting flesh on the concept. However there is a serious logical flaw here. It’s like saying , “The concept of racism is valid because racism exists”.

Racism is first and foremost a concept. A concept which I believe has no validity. That is not to say that people don’t suffer bad things because of race, but those things need to be called for what they are, whether fear or hatred or war or slavery or murder or genocide or ethnic whatever. The concept of racism is based on an ideology. Without the ideology the concept would not exist.

What is an ideology?

Ideology was identified and the word invented, interestingly, by Karl Marx, around 1850. The word describes the foundational idea on which a society or group is based - i.e. an idea rather than a spiritual or religious belief system. Ideologies tend to be aspirational (utopian) in that they explain the way reality ‘should ’  be. They are rational (non- supernatural) and empirical ( based only on observable, measureable evidence). They are at their core self referencing. This makes them very dangerous.

The concept of racism and the word was invented by another German, Magnus Hirschfeld who like Marx was Jewish. He was an avid Marxist who believed the Soviet Union to be near perfect. Dr. Hirschfeld worked to promote acceptance of deviant sexual practices (esp. homosexual) and ‘liberate’ people from ‘repressive’ attitudes brought about by religious belief. The use of racism in his book ‘Racism’ printed in 1933 was the first time the word appeared in print. The concept was important to Hirschfeld because he believed that humanity should not be divided into racial groupings but should be seen as one. He did not want to own his Jewishness. He rejected his racial identity. So he developed the concept of racism to promote a notion of racial equality in the face of the eugenic ideology of the Nazis.

 The link between words and concepts is an important one. There is no developed concept without a word to describe it. Prior to 1933 racism did not exist.

The destruction of six million Jews during the Holocaust, caused by another utopian regime, provided ‘unassailable’ evidence of ‘racism’ and became the lever to install a global ideology. This ideology is the foundation of the UN and the UDHR and is the basis of the concept of racism. I believe this ideology will prove nastier than Nazism. The UN, set up as the hope and salvation of the world, was co- founded by Joseph Stalin - a man eclipsing Adolf Hitler in murderous infamy, numerically at least.

 There are three other concepts sharing almost identical DNA with racism: sexism (1968) homophobia (1972) and now Islamaphobia (?) These concepts are based on the accepted ‘rightness’ of the concept of racism. These  false, destructive concepts are built upon an ideology which is founded on a lie - ‘equality’.  This is the lie expressed as a ‘truth’ in the American Declaration of Independence, 1776 : “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights….”      This is the real heart of this issue.      All men are not created. Only one man was created, from him the woman was formed and from them, by a process of procreation all the rest of humanity descend. We are all born, but we are not born equal; equally human of course, but not equal in status or rights. This notion of ‘equality’ is an ideological and aspirational one which describes the way things ‘should’ be. Hence the progressive nature of  the push for the universal acceptance of  Human Rights.

Any ideology, concept or law which makes God an offender is evil at its core. The concepts of racism, sexism, homophobia and Islamaphobia all make God a principal offender. If God has chosen one people (the Jews) from all the tribes of the earth and elevated them above all others and given them His one true religion (via Moses) then by the ideology which gives us the concept of racism, God must be a racist!

The concept needs to be rejected forthwith and with it the ideology from which it springs. It is evil.