In the last chapter we looked at the question of lawlessness in the Church of England, as seen by the breaking of various English Laws by Sovereign and Prelate. In this chapter we shall have to investigate how lawlessness has been at work in Parliament.
In the postwar years the plight of the survivors of the European holocaust was demanding and receiving urgent attention. Britain’s role was seen to be pivotal, because Palestine was under a British Mandate, and furthermore just 30 years before, the government had issued the famous Balfour Declaration of intention to make Palestine the “national home for the Jews.” It seemed clear therefore, that Britain should now be the front runner in ensuring that the Jews obtained what they were looking for. After all, they had been required to wait for 30 years. How much longer?
Britain’s record at this point is deplorable. The new Socialist Government in London was seen to be cultivating Arab friendship and thwarting Zionist aims. A crisis came when the Government declined to implement the unanimous recommendation of a joint Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry in 1946, that 100,000 Jewish refugees should be transferred immediately from Europe to Palestine.
The plight of the Jewish survivors of the holocaust was highlighted by the incident of the EXODUS 1947, a ship overloaded with some 4,500 refugees arriving at Haifa. The passengers were sent back to France under guard. After they refused to land in France, they were forcibly put ashore in the British Zone of Germany. This was seen as an act of heartless indifference, and the British were branded as fascists by Zionist propaganda. They were justified.
In August 1947 a United Nations Special Committee on Palestine recommended that the Mandate should be terminated and replaced by an independent Palestine. The majority of the Committee recommended partition of the country into a Jewish state and an Arab state, and this recommendation was endorsed by the UN General Assembly on 29th November. The Arab states opposed partition, and the British refused to implement it. It was therefore left to the initiative of the Jews in Palestine to establish their own independent state. This they did. The British response was to announce an immediate withdrawal, which took place on 14th May 1948. On that day the National Council met in Tel Aviv and issued a Declaration of Independence.
Looking back over these events, it was indeed shameful to renege on a previously warm proposal of “creating a national home for the Jews”, and the heartless indifference shown to the boat people caused a great and savage reaction from the rest of the world. The only people who agreed with the British were the Arabs, who had their own axe to grind. Truly this was an act of lawlessness. There is no other word to describe it. How many of the misfortunes suffered by the British since then, came about as a result of this? It matters not whether one believes the Jews still to be “God’s chosen race”. They were a people who kept themselves distinct from all other people on this planet, and were without a homeland. Purely from a humanitarian point of view, they deserved recognition. Wasn’t the holocaust enough to persuade people?
Lawlessness began to attack our land on the home-front as well. In 1957 the infamous Wolfenden report produced legislation allowing homosexual acts “between consenting adults.” Prior to this, homosexuals were imprisoned when caught. The law had previously been based on New Testament teaching contained, for example, in Romans chapter 1. This was the beginning of a down-hill slide. Many of us believe that the rise of the “Gay” society that emerged progressively after 1957, led to God’s judgment in the affliction of the AIDS virus.
Following on from this, came the abolition of the death penalty, passed by Parliament on 9th November 1965. Since then the country has become progressively subject to violence. Once again, a straight-forward Biblical injunction going back to the earliest history of the world, calls murderers to account by the loss of their own lives. To fly in the face of divine legislation is to incur penalties based on the fact that “whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.”
Almost exactly two years later, on 27th October 1967, Parliament passed the Abortion Act. The abolition of the death penalty on the one hand, led to the licencing of murder on the other hand. When this legislation is placed side by side with the rise of militant feminism, it can be seen why the number of abortions is rising steadily. In Britain, doctors carried out 167,376 “legal” abortions in 1991. Of these 3,158 were on under-16s. This is about 458 EACH DAY. Or, as the Daily Mail presented it, in large headlines on June 4th 1986, ONE BABY ABORTED EVERY 21 SECONDS. NOW EVEN DOCTORS SAY IT MUST STOP. Worldwide, almost 200,000 women die each year as a result of bungled abortion attempts. And in Britain, the abortion rate has trebled in the last 20 years.
As a spin-off from the abortion “business”, it has been found to provide a roaring trade for the cosmetic industry. Mainly French firms are importing literally tons of human tissue from Russia and other countries, as a first link in a chain that ends with the chic cosmetic giants of Europe. Well heeled women are paying up to $35 for a tiny bottle of cream which is claimed to smooth out facial wrinkles. According to the SUNDAY TIMES, such cream is now readily available in a leading London department store. But as long ago as 1976 THE WASHINGTON POST reported that staff at an American hospital had made $68,000 from the sale of organs removed from stillborn and premature babies. There seems to be little awareness of what is going on.
Since the introduction of the Abortion Act in 1967, more than THREE MILLION babies have been aborted in the U.K. [This statistic referred to the time of initial writing.] In the 16 to 24 age group, ONE IN FOUR women had an abortion. But as nearly half the women over 30, or their partners, now choose sterilisation, the abortion rate is kept down below what it might otherwise be.
Coupled with these dreadful statistics is the fact that 27% of all live births are now outside wedlock. 41% of conceptions are occurring outside marriage, compared with 25% in 1978. But 20% of these conceptions are being legally terminated by abortion. These were statistics revealed in an official report in 1989. No doubt more recent figures would be even more depressing.
What evidence, if any, is there of God’s judgment on Britain for these scandals? The divorce rate has now reached 50% according to the Daily Express, September 1992. Has this any correlation? Or is it just an associated trend in society? Or what about the science article in the Daily Telegraph of November 30th 1992, headed “Goodbye Macho Man?” Apparently there has been a dramatic fall in the human sperm count, triggering off alarm bells. “Could the Western male become sterile in the next century?” asks the Science editor.
Back in the pre-war years, male semen contained something like 115 million spermatozoa per millilitre. In 1990 this figure had dropped to around 66 million. Put another way, the percentage of men with sperm counts in excess of 100 million/ml was 50% in 1945. But today it is less than 20%. The article went on to analyse this trend, and ask what the probable causes were. But apparently none are known. All sorts of things have been considered, from the use of modern insecticides, to the effects of hot baths. But there is no clear correlation. The steepest rate of fall occurred in the decade 1961-1970, and this was the decade that included the Abortion Act.
I mentioned Militant Feminism. In 1969 the “Women’s Liberation Workshop” was formed. In 1970 they put forward their four basic demands. Equal pay, Equal educational and job opportunities, Free contraception and abortion on demand, and 24-hour nurseries. In 1970 they achieved their first “victory” in the Equal Pay Act, and in 1975 their second in the Sex Discrimination Act. But women’s groups throughout the world are still actively campaigning for childcare, contraception, and abortion facilities, as well as for refuges for battered wives, rape crisis centres, and women’s health clinics.
Regardless of how necessary it is to look after the needs of women, one has to ask the question, are they themselves responsible for some of their problems? When young women flaunt their bodies before cameras, to provide stimulus for men who pore over glossy magazines and over-indulge their sexual energies, is there any wonder that rape is on the increase?
Things cannot go on indefinitely as they are at the moment. All the statistics relating to abortion, divorce, rape, AIDS, everything to do with male/female relationships and sexual perversion, show alarming signs of multiplication. They cannot increase indefinitely. There has to be a point where society as we know it just ceases to exist. Before that happens, undoubtedly there will be a divine intervention in this world’s affairs. It will come as a nasty shock to many, the sickening cold light of day after the long night of revelling.
To conclude this chapter we must reveal the presence in this land of Government legislation that favours, and is working towards, World Government. This may come as a surprise. But I have before me a document issued by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in 1977 entitled “Parliamentary Group for World Government, 1947 – 1977.” (See next page for picture.) It begins as follows:-
“Some aspirations of the Parliamentary Group for World Government and the One World Trust, 1977 – 2000. These assume that the aim of world government is generally accepted, and that the problem now is how to move towards it.”
The document contains a long list of those who were members in 1977, and includes people from both main parties in the House of Commons, men in high office in various institutions in this land, such as banking and commerce, (there is mention of “The World Bank and World Government”) and those high up in the church. A friend who tried to obtain a copy of this report found the staff at HMSO perplexed. They knew nothing of its existence!!
1947 saw the creation of the group on an all-party basis. On November 7th 1957Her Majesty’s Government declared themselves “fully in agreement with world government.” In 1960 world government first appeared in the Labour Party manifesto. In 1973 the Speaker of the House of Commons gave a Reception for the Group, and this was attended by the Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and had messages of goodwill from the Queen and the two other party leaders.
But although this document was freely available at the time, and has a House of Commons telephone number, and a London address, I understand that it is virtually impossible to obtain any further information about the Group or its activities. Like our friend found, they seem to have gone underground. But the Queen knows about it, and gave it her blessing. These things are going on under our very noses, without our knowledge. Some are troubled by our presence in the European Community. But how many have realised that this Community is merely the beginning of the formation of World Government? How many have realised that the apparent demise of the Soviet Union was not just an accident, or the termination of Communism, or a power struggle in the Kremlin, but part of an organised plan to bring about world government? The whole of the Eastern Bloc is now ready to integrate. The Common Market set up in 1957 was just the beginning of a process. The larger the Community gets, the greater is its power. It will gobble up one state after another, because to stand out against it will only end in economic suicide for a country.
Few people realise what is involved in the extension to the Treaty of Rome. In THE TIMES, Sir Edward du Cann wrote (1986) “Ministers in the U.K. do a disservice in attempting to conceal the fundamental purpose of the Bill.” And in THE DAILY TELEGRAPH of 21st June 1986, Professor S.F.Bush declared the Bill “a tactic adopted by the European Federalists to achieve by stealth what would be rejected by the British people if they were ever given the chance.” In the next chapter we shall look into this in a little more detail.