Back to the
Reading from the screen becomes easier if you make the sentences shorter. You can do that by narrowing the webpage frame.
A BBC presenter has suggested WHAT ??
Jenni Murray is a presenter of BBC Radio 4 and she belongs to the nobility of our remarkable times; she is a Dame. In October, she suggested that pornography should be studied in the classroom, in a bid to combat the porn culture (?!?). If you're interested in the arguments she put forward in a newspaper, then google 'guardian porn in the classroom here's why it makes sense'.
Does she really mean it? I find that hard to imagine. I find that hard to imagine, because every British woman born around 1950 spent her early childhood and adolescence in a Christian country, where valuable concepts like honour, dignity and a good reputation still mattered a lot to almost everyone. Like The Netherlands and others, Great Britain was once a country where people in authority knew that the minds of the youth ought to be protected from the smut that is pornography. Those constructive influences should have left some sort of positive residue in this BBC Dame, one would figure, "liberal" though she might be now. However, my imagination may be a bit poorer than the average person's of course, so perhaps she did mean it. Her suggestion has then to be denounced as an exceptionally bad idea.
The curves of the female body are attractive to men. It's the reason why we call two people 'mother' and 'father'. Ideally speaking, sexual intercourse is the physical expression of love, serious love. The love between a man and a woman and its physical manifestation is the greatest thing on the planet. (I am not politically correct, sorry.) From the most fantastic moments that a loving man and woman share, new human life will spring, and I've always felt that these moments are a reflection on a micro scale of what God's creation of the universe, of mankind on Earth, stands for on a macro scale. In the same way that the love of two individuals will lead to new life, the creative love of God led to the origination of all those billions of galaxies (ten times more than until recently assumed) and to the miraculous origination of life on Earth, and probably elsewhere.
That's the beauty we've been given.
Yet, unfortunately, the natural fact that the female curves attract men, can also be exploited commercially in several ways, pornography being one of them.
For the woman who lets herself go in front of a camera for money, goes that pornography is a trap. Pornography inaudibly locks a door behind her, when she walks into the studio. The pictures and the films will always exist, more true than ever since the rise of the internet. A porn prostitute - they are not porn 'stars', ladies and gentlemen of the old media, they are porn prostitutes - a porn prostitute will feel what that trap is like, when the year comes she will think of that particular day in the studio and feels regret. The money she 'earned' is long gone, but the haunting idea she did something irreversible will stay with her for the rest of her life. It will feel like a burden on all the moments that her contacts with the people around may intensify, a female neighbour who asks her over for coffee, a friend from school she meets in the street, proudly pushing a pram. If the regret comes right after the day of the shoot, she may in a desperate spur grab the phone and beg the pornographers not to publish the material, only to be told that the stuff is already on its way to the printer, or online, and that she signed a contract no quantity of tears can wash away. When a man in the bus or in the supermarket smiles at her, she may feel a unique discomfort, a feeling unknown to all the other women around her: does he recognize me from that? Her regret may turn sour, turn into a grudge against society, turn into an inclination to despise the "socalled decent" people, for the sake of her false self-justification. Pornography gives a past you don't want anyone to have.
Pornography can easily become a trap for those who watch it. Pornography fouls the mind in ways that can hardly be foreseen. When someone, after having seen pornography, notices the truth of that, it is too late. That what enters our minds can never be pushed out of it. What we see enters our memory and our memory plays us tricks of its own. Our thoughts lead from one to another, randomly. A scene or situation that's perfectly innocent to others, may suddenly trigger a pornographic memory in the mind of someone who saw porn. That can be a very saddening moment.
Watching pornography holds a big risk of getting addicted to it. The rush that pornography causes, will beg for repetition. I will now focus on three moments in the old media about this addiction.
In 2013, the BBC dedicated one of their Newsnight programmes to "wall to wall pornography", as presenter Jeremy Paxman had announced it. He quoted people as to have shamefully said that once you visited internet porn, you kept going back to it. At one point, Mr Paxman exclaimed: "It seems as if half of the country is masturbating!"
Mr Paxman specificly described the people he quoted as church-going Christians. I think that the same will apply for a lot of people in the Hindu community, the Sikh community, the Brahman community, the Sunni Muslim community, the Shi'ite Muslim community, the atheist community, the media community and - my anti-Semitic image requires me to mention them last - the Jewish community, but Mr Paxman didn't mention all of these other communities.
Back to the addictiveness.
According to Mail Online columnist Peter Hitchens, pornography "enslaved millions". He wrote it in an interesting rejection of the educational idea of the BBC Dame. Google 'the falling pound is nothing to do with your vote for freedom'. The comment begins with the words 'My favourite ghost stories'.
Now, an expert opinion. I heard it in a programme, broadcast by SBS6 in my country in 2012. Mary Anne Layden, a therapist, said:
"In this particular addiction, the addictive substance [dopamine] is permanently implanted in your brain. You will never get it out of your brain. In fact, most of the patients I treat can remember the first pornographic images they ever saw, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, so that there is no possibility of detox, in this particular addiction, and the addictive substance can be recalled up in a nanosecond, for the rest of your life."
After I heard Mary Anne Layden speak, I thought:
1) Is this an opinion about which there is much controversy among scientists, or is she now saying something that represents the general consent of opinion in the professional field?
2) If so, in which year did scientists arrive at this conclusion? In 2012, the year of this broadcast? Or earlier? Perhaps much earlier?
3) If science already established the truth of what she said some decades ago, how come the 'mainstream' political parties of the West never warn their nations against the addictive danger of pornography?
Addictions of any kind are very treacherous. Most people are inclined to think they are stronger than their desires, that an addiction is something only other people can succumb to. Yet someone may already be addicted to something, long before he or she realizes it, perhaps after long denying it, subconsciously. When one can't escape the bleak truth any longer, it's too late. In Christian thought, seductions and addictions pose a downward road you don't want to see anyone get lost on - especially not young people.
The desire of those fanaticly searching for 'kicks' may even lead them to descend into the absolute gore that is child pornography. I have the greatest respect for the police officers who are fighting it, and who therefore have to look at it. May God bless their very important work and comfort their souls. It amazes me how often you can read in the news that a child porn network has been rounded up.
"It's a free country", you can hear people say, "no-one forces you to watch pornography. It's your own choice".
I disagree. In the first place, freedom is phony freedom if you are not aware of the consequences of all your options. At present, there is absolute no opinion climate in the West that warns the people of the risks and dangers of pornography. By contrast, let me mention a few contemporary subjects that the media do constantly remind us of, I'll use their own words:
Radicalization of young Muslims. Climate change. Right-wing populism. International trade deals. The concerns of the financial markets. Racism. Celebrities filing for divorce. And the latest smartphone people are queuing for.
The risks and dangers of pornography are not one of those constantly repeated subjects in the Western media, are they? So (young) people may begin to watch pornography, being uninformed about the risks.
In the second place, in a country where pornography is legalized, children may inadvertently come in contact with it in many ways, and children are by definition not adults who can contemplate their choices.
In the third place, it's as good as certain that we Westerners are not free peoples, but for the substantiating of that, I hope you'll read my other texts. I think we are oppressed peoples, but realizing that is something we're intensely distracted from, as the media are always portraying nations outside the West as being oppressed.
I reserved the fourth place for the supreme counter-argument. We may be able to do things because the laws of our countries allow us to do so, but I believe that in the final analysis, we are all answerable to God, and although He never calls me up to share His views with me, I believe that the sight of a couple of thousand people, owning firms that make big bucks out of producing pornography, and the sight of tens of millions of people watching pornography, is seriously adding to His ire over mankind, an ever larger part of which seems to be spitting on His commandments in many other respects as well.
And speaking of rulers setting us free to do this or that: if a nation has malevolent rulers, many of their laws are bound to be bad laws.
Like abortion and euthanasia, pornography is one of the slow nation killers. Just think of the difference between men giving their best in a marriage that hopes to become a family, and men wasting their best behind a computer screen. Combine that with the scale Mr Paxman was exclaiming about in the above, and you'll understand what I mean.
And then, the role of the old media: film, TV, radio, newspapers. Rarely, they do offer constructive thought on the subject, but when I reminisce on the past, say, four decades (I was born in 1958), when I think of how the old media have usually been talking about it, I find that they have been reinforcing misleading, deceptive ideas about pornography. In this tone:
"Pornography isn't such a big deal;
The authorities shouldn't assume the role of being society's moralist;
Oh well, men watch it, that's just the way it is;
Watching pornography is something you shouldn't forbid your children to do, because if you forbid them, so much the more they'll want to see it;
It's a billion-dollar industry;
The opponents of pornography are often Christian hypocrites."
Let me focus on one specific example from the TV world: the series 'Friends', produced from 1994 till 2004. A widely acclaimed series, according to Wikipedia, lots of awards and stuff. I didn't watch 'Friends' when it was firstly shown, but I have been seeing re-runs of it, and I noticed that the series contains many 'roguish' scenes involving pornography. On October the 14th, I saw this:
The actor paid to play Chandler is sitting alone and unwraps a gift: "Did Monica buy me porn? Girl-on-girl porn? Monica does love me!" Audience laugh.
Some scenes later, the viewers see him and Monica together.
The actor paid to play Chandler: "I thought you maybe bought me porn for Valentine's Day."
The actress paid to play Monica: "Chandler, if you think I bought you porn for Valentine's Day.... you're right!" Audience laugh. Then, she describes the content of the porn tape.
Such scenes are influencing the viewers. It may trigger a man to suggest to his wife or girlfriend to watch porn some day. Until then, she respected him, but as from that moment, she's disappointed in him. A female viewer who, before watching this scene, never would have dreamed of giving her husband or lover pornography, is now shown it's something 'modern' women can do. Many viewers may always have thought of Valentine's Day as an opportunity you can do something nice and surprising for the people you love, but after watching this episode of 'Friends', their idea of Valentine's Day is now stained by the thought of pornography.
In one episode, Chandler and Joey are beside themselves with joy when they notice by chance that their TV set can receive a pornography channel. In another episode, Chandler discovers that Monica made a sex video with her former lover. There is an episode in which Joey has to write a letter on his computer to help Chandler and Monica out. He gives the completed letter and says: "Longest time I spent on a computer without watching porn!" And again, the soundtrack lets the viewers listen to a laughing audience.
I regard TV influences like these as mind pollution, as psychological vandalism. This is what broadcasters Veronica in my country are transmitting around half past six in the early evening, when many children are watching TV. It's giving boys and girls, adolescents, and a lot of adults too, totally wrong ideas in their unsuspecting minds, in my opinion.
A series like 'Friends' offers many moments that are funny, sure, but that's exactly the problem. People watch it and laugh, but in between the funny lines and situations, the wrong kind of ideas are being slided into their minds.
"Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there is an on/off switch on your TV", I've heard that one many times of course, from the TV crowd themselves and from people parroting them, but what do they actually mean when they say that? Are a mother or a father supposed to stand on guard next to the TV set, with their finger right near the switch, when their children are watching? That's not realistic. Besides, the harmful moment will of course always precede the switching off. I find that the broadcasters should show their own sense of responsibility, and if that's too much to ask from them, I find that a government then should intervene. A nation that lets its ethics and morale destroy, will slowly destroy itself, in the long run. The earlier generations in our countries were blessed to be far more aware of this.
What too many people in today's West are not aware of, I fear, is the creeping danger of this whole development. I'm from the generation that can vaguely remember a TV comedy like 'The Lucy Show'. There may have been some sexual innuendo in it I was too young then to observe, but I'm sure it was a far cry from today's 'comedies' with their relentless obscenities. This is what happened, in my view: as from the 1960s, the TV brought one level of immorality in our homes, the people were too passive to resist it, they got used to it, the TV makers pushed the boundaries a bit further, to a worse level of immorality, then the people got used to that, and step by step, we are now at a point where re-runs of 'Friends' and other series make the viewers think of genitals, sex and perversions perhaps fifty times per episode. Young people however, who of course have no memory of earlier decades, will think of this as normal. They lack the overview that earlier generations have, and they therefore lack the awareness how popular culture became ever more vulgar and obscene.
And it gets imposed upon us from the top down. No-one asks us anything beforehand. Suddenly it's there, on television.
You've been keeping up with me until here, and I'm grateful for that. Before I can go on, I have to ask you some questions first.
While reading the above, did you think: "I have been saying or thinking the same for years"?
Did you perhaps think: "He didn't mention this or that"?
Maybe you said to yourself: "Yes, I never thought of that before, but he's right."
If so, do you realize then that those who should tell you these important things, namely the wellknown politicians whose faces we always see on TV, the wellknown politicians, trusted by millions of voters to lead the country in the right direction, do you realize then that those who should tell you this, are the ones who never do?
In all the Dutch election campaigns I can remember, since 1977, the first year I could vote, the risks and dangers of pornography were neither raised by the candidates of the major parties, nor by the TV presenters.
With one exception: I can only think of Dries van Agt, a former Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, of the KVP/CDA party, who spoke out against pornography. I can remember a 1970s interview in which he adequately described porn as "mensonterende rommel" ("degrading junk"). In an interview with the VN magazine, in 2010 I believe, he rightly claimed he was proven to be right warning against it, in a country where matters have grown from bad to worse.
In 1967, a naked woman was shown on Dutch TV for the first time and there was a massive protest from the general public. Yet, the TV makers didn't care, and no politician stopped them, and so, the decline set in, resulting in, for instance, broadcasters BNN transmitting the pornographic movie 'Deep Throat' in full on public TV in 2008, and I haven't noticed much upheaval because of it (but then again, the indignation may well have been greater than the old media cared to show). I have no memory of the 1960s public debate about nudity on TV, but there must have been many sensible Dutch men and women warning against the slippery slope, and retrospectively, they too were all proven to be right.
(So, dear Muslims, please realize we haven't always been like this.)
The socalled 'centre-ground' politicians are also silent in Britain. In 2011, in one of their The Big Questions talkshows, the BBC brought the question 'Is pornography bad for society?' into the living-rooms. Introducing the item, presenter Nicky Campbell said: "Pornography is everywhere, with the click of a button, so it is no wonder that 80% of the 14-to-16-year-olds admit to have watched it online, and so have a third of the under-10s"
One of the guests on the programme was Catherine Harper, speaking on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography. She took issue with the belief that the availability of pornography diminishes the risk of rape, the belief that pornography is some sort of safety valve that benefits society. That belief was denounced by her as a myth. She said:
"Itís extremely important you brought up the safety valve thing. Itís one of the biggest myths in pornography, that the use of pornography reduces sexual crimes and sex offenders from committing crimes. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. I have the evidence." She then mentioned a name I didn't hear well, of someone who has worked with sex offenders since the 1970s. She continued: "His research is very very clear; that the use of pornography actually fuels sex offenders and increases in the two weeks prior to committing the sexual offence. So it is the very opposite of a safety valve. It is actually validating and legitimizing those vilous acts."
Furthermore, it was said in the programme that a report of the Scottish Ministry of Justice confirmed what Catherine Harper had told.
So, young children watching pornography was highlighted. And pornography as a sex offenders' means to heat themselves up, was highlighted. The Tory-LibDem coalition announced in 2013 to take measures against internet porn, but those measures, if taken, haven't helped, as I deduced from the article in The Guardian. Pretty alarming information, isn't it?
However, all this information was apparently not disturbing enough to play a role in the 2015 elections of Britain. I've seen much of the BBC's coverage of those elections, but I haven't seen one broadcast in which these disturbing issues were addressed, either by the politicians or by the interviewers. The risks and dangers of pornography surely didn't get the elevated status of a recurring topic, like the economy is always getting.
Pornography is an evil. It deliberately seeks to turn the natural feelings of lust into depravity, into an addiction, for the sake of making money. It pollutes the mind. It destroys self-respect. It destroys happiness. It is known to fan sex crimes. It corrupts the morale of nations and unnoticedly, it contributes to the slow death of nations. It's the ultimate insult of love, and it is therefore an abomination in the eyes of God, I believe. It makes many addicted people lead a life in the shadow of the humiliating knowledge that something they consider disgusting most of their days, can suddenly become their master again. That is a silent sadness, in most cases.
So pornography is the last thing sensible and caring people want to confront children with.
Let's teach our young people the beauty of getting to know the other sex in a civilized manner, with respect for one another's feelings, let's teach them how to get acquainted honourably, let's teach them the importance of character and personality, and the virtues of responsibility and chastity. Such are the values that have been working very well for the European countries, during many centuries.
The hearts and minds of its children and grandchildren are every nation's most precious treasure, and I find that that should be one of the leading principles for building a better society than what we have now.
Richard Schoot, 18th November 2016
Britain, The Netherlands, the other European countries are in very big trouble, in my opinion, as there are solid reasons to assume theyíve turned into Torahist dictatorships. Itís very important to know what Torahism is. Please read
my main text
If you come to agree with my views, please remember that the only way out is a patient and peaceful way. Not a single person can be held solely responsible for the present situation. It looks like we are ruled by people who actually canít help themselves they are misleaders, and we are letting them mislead us on and on.
Avoid confrontations that can easily turn overheated. Don't react to provocations. Please don't view the avoiding as cowardice. It isn't. Be strong, be calm and calm down others, before their anger causes them to do foolish things.
Our countries urgently need new political parties, Christian Patriotic parties, and so the more people will get to know about this initiative, the greater the chance some true, constructive change in politics will ever come about.
So your drawing this website to other peopleís attention would be very welcome, but now a warning is due. Since the 2013 revelations about the secret surveillance of our e-mails, phonecalls and internet surfing, sending an e-mail or calling someone up has become something you should think twice about. Thatís the bitter and disgusting reality the Western world descended into, in the past half of a century, despite the sacrifice of nearly a hundred million lifes in two world wars, and despite the huge defence costs it took to hold our own against Communism.
So I am a bit between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, I donít want to see people land in trouble, and resisting malevolent rule has always been a very short road to trouble for peopleís personal lifes.
Yet on the other hand my initiative needs people to spread the word about this website, because the old media ignore it, and not for noble reasons, I fear.
If you are in a dilemma, my best advice to you would be to pray, and to ask God to help you choose between passivity and activism.
In my article
Suppose, the reversal takes place next week. Then what?, as well as in the main text, I am exploring how the political change can be brought about, once the nations have become aware of Torahism.
Torahism is the forgotten evil in politics. It is forgotten because the Nazis were terribly aware of it, and Hitlerís crimes against the Jewish people were abysmal enough to make everyone with a heart ignore Torahism, let alone criticize it. That however created a unique window of opportunity for Torahism, and it is most probably exploiting that to the full, from the 1960s to the present day.
I sent my digital book to the academic world of Great Britain instead of my own country, for the reasons I put forward in the text ĎIt is time to introduce myselfí, 9th June 2005, on the initial page.
I am trying to conduct this initiative in the spirit of the Jew I am mentioning in the first line of this website.
Long live the Jews, down with Torahism.
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 9 SHEETS
Back to the