The postmodern worldview wishes to celebrate festivals and holidays without the knowledge nor commitment to history and factual events. This world view is anti-Christian and espouses an ideal that humanity is god and is able to deny the reality of nature and natural processes. On the contrary, true Christians understand the fallen nature of humanity, how limited we are in controlling our destiny and how easily we are thrown hither and thither by the forces of nature. That is why our trust is in the King of Kings. Tucker Carlson sheds light on the current dichotomy of world views in our society below.
After a number of years without having the opportunity to teach about Christ in the elementary school, an opportunity arose to explore and discuss the historic nature of Easter symbols. The curriculum allows children to explore factual historic events and common cultural symbols in an impartial way, as long as this is prefaced with, “Christians believe…” This exploration easily led to reading ‘The Easter Story” which described, in a simplified manner, the last week of Jesus’s life and His Resurrection. Some students had a more detailed understanding of the life of Christ than others and I felt blessed that I was able to share a simple, factual explanation of the last days of Jesus and the hope of new life with Him.
The following day, in a follow up lesson on special days and celebrations, one young girl told me that her mother was “angry, very angry” because the lesson on Easter involved Jesus. Yet without Jesus, there would be no holiday, no hope nor forgiveness. I explained to the girl that it was part of the curriculum, and not religious instruction to explore special days and events in the study of history and the social sciences. She responded that her mother would prefer us to learn only about bunnies. With further prompting, she admitted that her family celebrated Easter with chocolate eggs, but without Jesus.
To deny a child knowledge of Jesus, the Son of God, who has shaped the culture and monumental events in history, is pure ignorance. Even pagans and atheists need to have knowledge of Christ and the eternal hope that Christians have in His works for our salvation. Otherwise history, celebrations and symbols become meaningless. An egg no longer is the symbol of the empty tomb and the risen Christ. A cross on the bun will no longer represent the sacrifice of the Lamb of God for our transgressions. Rabbits will no longer symbolise new life and fertility – but rather a mysterious purveyor of foetid chocolate.
“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Luke 18:15-17
And yet the post modern world is becoming hostile to all forms of conservatism and Christianity. An age of great persecution against Christians in the west is coming – be warned that this age wants to erase facts, gender, family, history and natural justice. But most of all, they wish to make man into god so as to glorify themselves above all else.
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Matthew 10:16
One can choose to deny objective truths as much as one wishes. However, this choice to deny objective truths does not change any universal objective truths.
One can announce their personal truth, as loudly and as often as one chooses to do so, however the objective universal fact is that a personal truth is no more than a mere opinion; and opinions cannot ever change an objective universal truth.
The situation has now arisen where it does appear that postmodernism has exhausted itself with its ongoing search for meaning; and this initial research, is what has now led to where postmodernism has become meaningless. That is because, the fact is, that the postmodern system (there is no point in using the word postmodern thinkers), has created and led to the actuality of what has become ongoing presentations of self-evident Western society hypocrisies’ and of the presentation of Western society words that are inane and pointless and have become and are meaningless, totally and utterly meaningless, meaningless and meaningless.
The thinkers of the past, prior to what became postmodernism actually searched for objective meanings, they searched for universal truths. The purpose of which was to advance knowledge and understandings pertaining to trying to make sense of human existence, and bring with it, at the same time advancements in learning, knowledge and associated social potential.
This ongoing search continued which eventually led to writing being developed, and writing led to all manner of social markers being found and then recorded. The purpose of which was to identify what had taken place at these times.
All of these different events and social markers, such as the Golden Age of Egypt, the invasions and the rule of Alexander the Great, the Golden Age of the Greeks, the invasions and the Empire of Rome, the invasions of Genghis Khan, the time what became known as the Dark Ages, the invasions of the Ottoman Empire; then there was the Medieval Period, this was eventually followed by the Renaissance. Over time, in all of these times, and in all of these societies, there were great thinkers and writers who continued to record their times and continued with their research. All of this social movement, with its associated writings, progressed to what became known as the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. This time eventually progressed to what became known as the Modern Age, and all of this eventually continued, as a result of ongoing thinking and research, to what became Postmodernism.
All of these times, all of invasions and all of these Ages – and much, much more of course – had their thinkers and their leaders. The search for objective truths was still the mainstay during these times. However, as history informs, and as objective truths informs in terms of inventions, when the scientific method came into use, this was when European thinking and action advanced faster than at any other time. This progression continued to what, as noted, became Modernism and also Postmodernism. It is here – at the Postmodern Age – where humanity has failed itself.
This is a self-evident truth in terms of the presenting behaviours and associated attempts to redefine objective truths, and all of this Postmodernism has led to where Western Civilisation is collapsing upon itself. That is because personal truths, i.e., opinions and subjectivity has developed to where objectivity is no longer regarded as having any meaning. And, amazingly these personal opinions have not been and are not being challenged. The media has openly and publicly – without any challenge taking place – where rioting has been reported as being peaceful; where observed looting has been reported as being non-existent; and where arson has been reported as being nothing more than a peaceful action, or any other euphuisms that hide the universal truths of what actually exists, and is actually taking place.
As a result of this Postmodern situation taking place, thinkers have been replaced by something else. The best way to describe this something else is neo-nihilism. Neo-nihilism has created a meaning without understanding that nihilism has led its own society on a path and to a path of unquestioned cultism and self-destruction. To which the majority of Western society (there is no point in using the descriptor Western Civilisation) now – again as is self-evident – refuses to acknowledge that neo-nihilism is the standard by which Western society is now conducting itself and which is being supported by an unquestioning media.
As such a great deal of objective behaviour-based lawlessness – as presenting behaviours informs – is now the result, which is either being ignored, not reported or is being celebrated as having social meaning and social benefit. One example is that a Western society allowed many churches to be vandalised and burnt to the ground, without one word of protest from anyone. With no protest taking place, to these church vandalisation and burning, indicates this type of lawlessness is now, as is self-evident, being socially and administratively sanctioned.
The self-evident social situation that now exists in Western societies is a path of denial, and this denial, self-evidently, is a path and a process of its own self-destruction; and that is because objective truths have been totally rejected. This rejection of objective truths will, that now includes where the United Kingdom has a situation where the universality of mathematics is considered as being racist; that fact is that all of this, and of course, much more has and is leading to what is already taking place, as noted, the ongoing self-destruction of Western Civilisation.
As history has informed, since forever, when a situation arises, where the deniers of objective universal truths and where inane and associated dangerous ideologies become the dominant driver of social behaviour, it is this type of social cult-type delusions and accompanying social malaise which has always eventually been conquered by other civilisations that live-by, value and apply objective truths in all of its forms; which self-evidently include, merit at every level of society, competence-based education that is based on the application of universal truths, and also universally knowing that one must have a well-trained merit-based military that adheres to applying immutable objective military universal prowess. The fact is that there never has been a single invasion has ever been achieved by having a social structure of fools, inept thinkers, unskilled leaders, or an incompetent military.
What sort of a nation is the UK? Is the government and the media of the UK protecting the children of the UK? Are the children of the UK safe? Is the presenting evidence providing the answers to these question?
Puberty blockers given to children ‘as young as NINE’ at Scotland’s Tavistock Centre: Sandyford clinic under fire for giving life-changing drugs to autistic and troubled youngsters who may have been ‘misdiagnosed’ as trans.
· The bombshell report has blasted the Sandyford sexual health clinic in Glasgow
· The dossier found that dozens of young children were put on puberty blockers
· Many patients were said to have been misdiagnosed when given the blockers
· A leading psychiatrist said the controversial clinic should be closed down
By Kate Foster, Health Editor for The Scottish Daily Mail and Alastair Lockhart For Mailonline, 1 November 2022.
The first universal priority of the human race is to protect life. In absolute universal terms this immutable absolute – to protect life – is and equates with the universal protection of children. If children are not protected, then humanity is doomed. When any individual, collective, culture, society or nation, that does not cherish, value and protect the innocence of children, this is when the society in question, and humanity itself will become a self-destructive dystopia.
· “This cause … is the cause of all humanity.” (Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan).
· “There is no greater inhumanity in the world than hurting or belittling a child.” (Childinsider.com).
· There is no other greater crime against humanity than taking the life of another human, and the crimes that are inflicted upon children.
As such, it is crucially important to note the words of Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence – From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror).
“In order to escape accountability for [their] crimes, the perpetrator does everything in [their] power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the perpetrator’s first line of defense. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of [the] victim. If [the perpetrator] cannot silence [the victim] absolutely, [the perpetrator] tries to make sure that no one listens. To this end, [the perpetrator] marshals an impressive array of arguments, from the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization. After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened; the victim lies; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon [themselves]; and in any case it is time to forget the past and move on. [As the evidence above irrefutably informs] The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater is [the perpetrator’s] prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely [the perpetrator’s] arguments prevail.”
· It is time for world governments, corporations, organisations and courts of law to speak up. “When you have something to say,” [say it] “silence is a lie – and tyranny feeds on lies.” (Jordan B. Peterson).
· “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke).
· “Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.” (Mahatma Gandhi).
· “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” (Dr Martin Luther King Jr).
· “To be silent is to be complicit” (Richard Edelman).
· “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” — Robert F Kennedy.
· “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same. (Albert Einstein).
The universal protection of children and the universal truth about consent is the protection of all of humanity. These universal laws are immutable.
Those that violate these universal truths and who commit crimes against children must be placed before an international court to be judged accordingly. Anything less would, in and of itself, be a crime against humanity.
· “This cause … is the cause of all humanity” (Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan).
Note the words of Chrystine Oksana, Safe Passage to Healing: A Guide for Survivors of Ritual Abuse).
“Violators cannot live with the truth: survivors cannot live without it. There are those who still, once again, are poised to invalidate and deny us. If we don’t assert our truth, it may again be relegated to fantasy. But the truth won’t go away. It will keep surfacing until it is recognized. Truth will outlast any campaigns mounted against it, no matter how mighty, clever, or long. It is invincible. It’s only a matter of which generation is willing to face it and, in so doing, protect future generations from ritual abuse.”
· “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke).
· “It is time for world governments, corporations, organisations and courts of law to speak up. “When you have something to say,” [say it] “silence is a lie – and tyranny feeds on lies.” (Jordan B. Peterson).
Universal protection of all children
If a nation does not have the ethical and moral will to protect its children, that means that nation is a nation that should not be considered as a nation. That is because nations exist in accordance with laws that are based on the principles and application of ethics and moral principles.
· Anything less diminishes all of humanity.
· Anything less than this moral choice diminishes all of humanity.
· Therefore, in terms of the categorical imperative, ethics, morals, moral self-worth, collective moral self-worth, personhood, the universal human condition, and the immutable universal fusing of these imperatives, what all of this then irrefutably means – in absolute universal terms – and can only ever mean – is that all human lives and all of humanity matters.
· Therefore, and again the ethical and moral imperative is absolute: Anything less, diminishes all of humanity.
It is time for world governments, corporations, organisations and courts of law to speak up. “When you have something to say,” [say it] “silence is a lie – and tyranny feeds on lies.” (Jordan B. Peterson).
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke).
The universal laws of biology, chemistry, physics and child development
The immutable universal laws of chemistry, physics, biology and child development. The universal anatomical laws of the body and brain of a child. The universal biology and neurobiology of a child. The universal brain, mind and thinking of a child. The universal development of a child. The universal principles of ethics and morality. The universal truth about consent. All of these are immutable truths.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke).
Child development theorist Jean Piaget
Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development suggests that intelligence changes as children grow. A child’s cognitive development is not just about acquiring knowledge, the child has to develop or construct a mental model of the world.
Cognitive development occurs through the interaction of innate capacities and environmental events, and children pass through a series of stages. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development proposes 4 stages of development.
· Sensorimotor stage: birth to 2 years
· Preoperational stage: 2 to 7 years
· Concrete operational stage: 7 to 11 years
· Formal operational stage: ages 12 and up
The sequence of the stages is universal across cultures and follow the same invariant (unchanging) order. All children must and do go through the same stages in the same order (but not all at the same rate).
Piaget in his research noted that children’s intelligence differs from adults. This means that children reason (think) differently from adults and see the world in different ways.
The Sensorimotor Stage
Ages: Birth to 2 Years
Major Characteristics and Developmental Changes:
· The infant learns about the world through their senses and through their actions (moving around and exploring its environment).
· During the sensorimotor stage a range of cognitive abilities develop. These include: object permanence; self-recognition; deferred imitation; and representational play.
· They relate to the emergence of the general symbolic function, which is the capacity to represent the world mentally.
· At about 8 months the infant will understand the permanence of objects and that they will still exist even if they can’t see them and the infant will search for them when they disappear.
The Preoperational Stage
Ages: 2 – 7 Years
Major Characteristics and Developmental Changes:
· Toddlers and young children acquire the ability to internally represent the world through language and mental imagery.
· During this stage, young children can think about things symbolically. This is the ability to make one thing, such as a word or an object, stand for something other than itself.
· A child’s thinking is dominated by how the world looks, not how the world is. It is not yet capable of logical (problem solving) type of thought.
· Infants at this stage also demonstrate animism. This is the tendency for the child to think that non-living objects (such as toys) have life and feelings like a person.
The Concrete Operational Stage
Ages: 7 – 11 Years
Major Characteristics and Developmental Changes:
· During this stage, children begin to think logically about concrete events.
· Children begin to understand the concept of conservation; understanding that, although things may change in appearance, certain properties remain the same.
· During this stage, children can mentally reverse things (e.g. picture a ball of plasticine returning to its original shape).
· During this stage, children also become less egocentric and begin to think about how other people might think and feel.
The Formal Operational Stage
Ages: 12 and Over
Major Characteristics and Developmental Changes:
· Concrete operations are carried out on things whereas formal operations are carried out on ideas. Formal operational thought is entirely freed from physical and perceptual constraints.
· During this stage, adolescents can deal with abstract ideas (e.g. no longer needing to think about slicing up cakes or sharing sweets to understand division and fractions).
· They can follow the form of an argument without having to think in terms of specific examples.
· Adolescents can deal with hypothetical problems with many possible solutions. E.g. if asked ‘What would happen if money were abolished in one hour’s time? they could speculate about many possible consequences.
Nota Bene
At none of these stages, as noted by the research undertaken by Piaget, and others, such as Erik Erikson, John Bowlby, Albert Bandura and Lev Vygotsky, in their extensive child development research, presented anything else than the universal truths pertaining to what a child is, what a male is and what a female is. These theories are universal in all cultures throughout the world. These theorists presented universal truths. However, what is taking place now, in relation to children, are, in factual fact, crimes against humanity.
Crimes against humanity
Any adult, or any organisation who are initiating and/or administering any form of chemical or hormonal treatment, and/or if they are undertaking physical amputations, or any form of genital mutilations on children; this means these adults are doing so unethically and immorally. What this irrefutably means is that these adults and organisations are acting out behaviours that are illegal, which means they are carrying out crimes against humanity. This point of view of what is a crime against humanity was proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, in an international court of law.
Laws and Superior Orders
In 1945, as World War II was nearing its inevitable conclusion the Allies suspected that a Superior Orders defense might be employed by the Axis forces in relation to the unethical and immoral actions that had been taking place. As a result of this insightful ethical and moral insight, the Allies brought into existence and legally issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). This ruling unambiguously and universally declared that the following of or the undertaking of an immoral act or order (which makes the order unlawful) cannot be used as a defense.
Nuremberg Principle IV
As a result of this London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, ruling, it was then declared that this ruling would be placed under the directive and title of: Nuremberg Principle IV. This Nuremberg Principle IV declared that the “defense of superior orders” is not a defense, in relation to crimes against humanity. In terms of definition and declaration Nuremberg Principle IV presents the following:
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
The key words here are: “provided a moral choice in fact was possible.”
The Third Reich
What this means of course is that even though a legally elected Government, such as the Third Reich was (and which was recognised throughout the world), when they (the Third Reich) initiated laws that were immoral, the Government, the administrators, the Superiors of and within the Third Reich, were all acting immorally. What this then means is that the laws the Third Reich brought into action were not only illegal, these laws, and any order initiated by Government administrators and/or Superiors, were therefore crimes against humanity. This was proven to be a fact by Nuremberg Principle IV at the Nuremberg Trials that followed.
The biology, the anatomy and the neurobiology of the human brain
It has always been a self-evident universal truth, that in the entire history of human development, there has never been a child that has ever had the anatomical brain size, nor the biological dimensions of an adult brain, in terms of volume, capacity, complex connectivity, bioneurological depth, thickness, nor in its immense multifaceted intricate and phenomenal universal richness.
This includes but is not limited to the concomitant of the indicated trillions of neurological connections and the estimated 70+ billion adult neurons; and all of the additional profound neurobiological and concomitant neuroglial support, that is attached with all of these neurons, dendrites, axons, synapses, and much more, in that of the adult human brain.
The adult human brain, mind, thoughts and adult behaviours
All of these universal anatomical, biological, neurobiological, neuromuscular, electrical chemical and neurotransmissional capacities, which includes a self-regulating network of some 70 thousand genes (that engage to direct the development and application of an immense cellular neurobiological network, that includes something like anywhere from the estimated 50 to 70+ trillion connections); all of which then flawlessly combine and unite to seamlessly, comprehensively and cohesively bring into action and existence the ethereal consciousness of the adult mind. Profoundly, it is this fused adult biological brain and body connectivity that then brings into existence the adult mind, adult thoughts, adult consciousness and associated adult behaviours. NB: anatomically, biologically, neurobiologically, children can never have the capacity of adult consciousness.
The immutable biological and neurobiological fact is that the human brain does not mature until the age of twenty-five
Importantly, and profoundly, this immutable brain, mind and body universal biological and neurological living existence, cannot and will not mature into a complex operational neurobiological adult brain (with its associated fused adult mind, with it accompanied cognitive capacities) until at least the age of twenty-five. To this end the University of Rochester Medical Center Health Encyclopedia presents the following:
It doesn’t matter how smart [children or] teens are or how well they scored on [tests or exams]. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in. The rational part of a [child’s and] teen’s brain isn’t fully developed until [the age [of] 25 or so. In fact, research has found that [the] adult, the [child and] teen brain work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. [Children and] teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part [of the brain]. That’s why when [children and] teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. [That universal neurobiological fact is] they weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.
What this immutably means that no child can have or will ever have an adult sized brain, until child develops into an adult, and this now adult brain will not mature until the age of twenty-five
As noted above, because of these absolute and immutable universal brain-based biological and neurobiological imperatives, no child can have or will ever have an adult sized brain; and no child can have or will ever have the biological or neurobiological capacities of an adult brain; and because of this immutable universal biological absolute; no child will ever have the ethereal and sentient cognitive consciousness of an adult brain, mind or body.
What this also immutably and universally means is that no child will ever be able to think, know or understand, reflect, or analyse like an adult, until, self-evidently they are an adult, with a mature adult brain
What all of this axiomatically means is that there is no child who will ever be able to think like an adult. As such, no child will ever be able to explain, examine, reflect, review, contextualise, analyse, scrutinise, monitor, nor have any of the associated sophisticated and highly complex cognitive or advanced critical thinking intellectual capacities like that of an adult. Nor will any child ever have the required intellectual predictive adult cognitive capacities of an adult, nor can any child ever have the biological or neurological supported consciousness and sentient cognitive understandings pertaining to consequences. There will be no understanding of this whatsoever.
No child can ever have adult-based predictive thoughts and behaviours of an adult
Added to this biological, neurobiological and sentient imperative, there is no child who can, or will ever be able to have the thoughts, feelings, insights, knowledge, comprehensions, discernments, self-reflective abilities, intelligences, understandings, consequential adult comprehensions nor can any child have any level of future adult-based predictive, or any personal or social reflective thoughts and capacities, nor any associated behaviours of an adult.
In absolute universal terms, a child cannot ever understand or consent to anything like an adult
What all of this then, in immutable absolute terms means, that when a child says ‘yes’, or if a child says they want something, this utterance of ‘yes’, or this uttered ‘want’ by the child, cannot ever, ever, ever, imply, nor can this utterance of ‘yes’ or ‘want’ ever suggest; nor can this utterance of ‘yes’, ‘want’ or ‘desire’ ever infer that this expressed utterance of ‘yes’ or this remark of ‘want’ will ever be neurobiologically, sentiently, cognitively or intellectually supported. What this then universally and immutably means is that any utterances of any children, can never, never, never, never, neurobiological or sentiently actualise adult thoughts, adult behaviours or adult consent. In absolute universal brain, mind and body terms, this means a child cannot ever consent to anything.
Neither propaganda nor any form of ideology, nor any law, or social construct, or social screaming can ever change these universal biological and neurobiological truths
Therefore, and again, in absolute terms there is no level of adult initiated opinions, constructs or politically initiated propaganda; nor any form of deceptive linguistic ideological or social manipulations that can change these universal biological and neurobiological imperatives pertaining to the brain, mind, body and child-based sentient capacity of a child’s biology, neurobiology nor any of the anatomical imperatives pertaining to what as child is; and is a child is always a child in terms of their thinking and their behaviours, not matter what they think, do, or say.
What this immutably and universally means – again – is that no child can ever consent to anything
Again, what this immutably and universally means is that a child can never consent to anything. That is because the child has the immutable biological brain and the sentient consciousness of a child’s mind. This means, that as noted there is no child who can, or will ever be able to have the thoughts, feelings, insights, knowledge, comprehension, discernments, abilities, intelligences, understandings, consequential adult comprehensions or any level of future adult-based predictive behaviours of an adult. And no amount of propaganda or ideology can change these immutable universal truths.
Consequently, crucially and imperatively, constructs and opinions are not universal truths
In terms of opinions and constructs, it is profoundly important to note that a construct derives its name from the fact that – a construct – is not anything more than a mental construction. As such, a construct is no more than a thought, that brings into existence a descriptor referred to as an opinion, which provides the means to bring into existence a descriptive construct.
Definitions
All robust universal dictionaries concur that opinions are no more than a general subjective point of view, i.e., a personal sentiment or a feeling; which is not based on fact or knowledge. The fact of the matter is that gender is not (and it has never been, and it cannot ever be) a universal biological truth. Gender is a construct. That means gender fits into the category of a concocted descriptor, and, as such, what that axiomatically means is that the word gender is nothing more than a mental opinion, or a descriptor of convenience.
Gender can never be and will never be a universal biological truth
Therefore, in absolute universal terms, what that means is that the word and construct gender can never be and will never be a universal biological truth. The construct gender cannot change the laws of physics nor can the construct or the utterance of the word ‘gender’ ever change the universal laws of biology.
Male chromosomes
Universally, ever since humans have existed, when a male is born he will have an XY chromosome pairing. As such, in terms genome and sex, this male will, in universal biological terms always be a male. If, for example, this XY chromosome male was to have a finger, hand, arm, toe, foot or even their genitals amputated; this male will still be a biological male, a genetic male, and this male will continue to have the pairing of his male-based XY chromosomes.
Female chromosomes
This same universal and biological genome-based principle, of course, and immutably, also applies to the female sex. When a female is born, she will have an XX chromosome genetic pairing. As such this female will (universally, biologically and genetically) be the sex of a female. Any surgical procedure that takes place, cannot and will never change the biological XX female chromosome pairing. And no amount of ideological shouting or any deceitful politically motivated gender-based utterances, or any ‘word-play’ manipulations, can change these laws of physics or biology.
Neither experiments, physical interventions or ideology can change chromosomes
Importantly and profoundly, nor can any forced experimental application of hormones (into the body of a child), change this immutable XX chromosome (female) or XY chromosome (male) genetic pairing. No amount of forced experimental hormonal injections into a child can or will ever change the genetic XX or XY chromosome pairing that exists in the body of a child. This type of experimental situation was dealt with by an international court, which took place at the Nuremberg Trials.
As noted
In 1945, as World War II was nearing its inevitable conclusion the Allies suspected that a Superior Orders defense might be employed by the Axis forces in relation to the unethical and immoral actions that had been taking place. As a result of this insightful ethical and moral insight, the Allies brought into existence and legally issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). This ruling unambiguously and universally declared that the following of or the undertaking of an immoral act or order (which makes the order unlawful) cannot be used as a defense.
Nuremberg Principle IV
As a result of this London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, ruling, it was then declared that this ruling would be placed under the directive and title of: Nuremberg Principle IV. This Nuremberg Principle IV declared that the “defense of superior orders” is not a defense, in relation to crimes against humanity. In terms of definition and declaration Nuremberg Principle IV presents the following:
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
The key words are: “provided a moral choice in fact was possible.”
Laws that are unethical and immoral are deemed to be illegal, and crimes against humanity
What this means of course is that even though a legally elected Government, such as the Third Reich was (and which was recognised throughout the world), when they (the Third Reich) initiated laws that were immoral, the Government, the administrators, the Superiors of and within the Third Reich, were all acting immorally. What this then means is that the laws the Third Reich brought into action were not only illegal, these laws, and any order initiated by Government administrators and/or Superiors, were therefore crimes against humanity. This was proven to be a fact by Nuremberg Principle IV at the Nuremberg Trials that followed.
Morals, ethics and the laws of physics and biology are universal truths
The fact is that morals, ethics and the laws of physics and biology are universal truths. As such, any constructed law or a constructed directive, or opinion, by any government, administrator, or superior, at any level, in any organisation (political or private), which is unethical and immoral, is not a moral law or a moral order (as noted by Nuremberg Principle IV) that can be supported or acted upon. What this then means is that an unethical and immoral law, and the following of these unethical and immoral laws, or orders, are unlawful, and these unethical and immoral laws will be universally declared (as noted at the Nuremberg Trial), as not only being a crime or crimes against humanity; these laws could not be used as a defense for actions carried out, in the support of these laws, or being ordered to do so from a superior.
Ethics
Ethics and morals have similarities. Even though both of these constructs are often used synonymously and interchangeably; the research indicates that these constructs have differences. Cydney Grannan, writing in Encyclopædia Britannica, notes that “ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., [such as in] codes of conduct in [organisations] or principles in religions [or any cultural or social collective].” Therefore, any and all rules – to be ethical, in any collective – must begin with, and end with, the universal adherence and behavioural application: to do no harm.
Morals
Morals refers to an individual’s personal behaviour, which must also begin with, and end with, the universal adherence to, and behavioural application of: to do no harm. This inevitably means an individual’s moral self-worth (and associated moral collective self-worth), can only prevail, if all of the behaviours of every individual present (in any collective) acts and behaves to meet the universal standard of being moral; i.e., to do no harm.
When universal moral behaviour is taking place; it is only then that the individual will have moral self-worth, and it is only then that the individual will be living a moral life; and it is only then that an organisation will be acting ethically. To do harm is to act immorally, unethically, and, as proven in an international court of law, immoral and unethical behaviour is illegal.
Moral and ethical self-worth
All of these interrelating insights provide the intrinsic means by which the individual, as noted by Robin Dillon, is now able – in both intellectual and in absolute personal terms – to understand that the self (and all others), both morally and ethically, have “significant worth,” i.e., there is an associated connectedness of the moral self – with the other – in terms of having (in absolute immutable axiomatic terms) a co-existing moral-centred universal social intrinsic connectedness: i.e., I am, you are, we are, all one moral and ethically attached humanity; i.e., all of humanity is universally connected.
Universal connectedness
This intrinsic ethical and moral-centred – personal and social moral-centred reverberation of universal connectedness – then acts to influence the very formation and foundation of a person’s (and that of the collective’s) values, emotions, commitments, dispositions, thoughts, actions, desires, and encompasses the very identity of the living self, and, therefore, all of humanity.
Individual moral self-worth and collective moral self-worth
The profound importance of having moral self-worth (both individually and collectively) is further emphasised by Robin Dillon, who refers to Immanuel Kant. An individual’s moral self-worth can only be lived and expressed in accordance with the categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative
The categorical imperative, according to Robin Dillon is considered by Immanuel Kant as being the universal “supreme principle of morality.” The categorical imperative universally informs that it is the “humanity in [all] persons, strictly speaking, that has dignity; that it is in virtue of the humanity in them that [all] humans are and so ought to be treated as ends in themselves,” and never as a means to an end. This aligns with the universal principle of personhood as expressed by Arthur Danto.
Personhood
If personhood is to take place, each-and-every person must be treated with respect. According to Danto, “[p]ersons … must not be used merely as a means to someone’s end; they are in Kant’s famous phrase “ends-in-themselves” and sources of value in their own right.” Robert Downie and Elizabeth Telfer offer a similar view. They write:
‘Persons ought to be respected’ is not merely to say ‘What is valuable ought to be respected,’ but rather ‘humans ought to be respected for what is valuable in them’ … this is not a trivial claim, for it asserts that there is something worthy of respect about a human being.
Crucial axiomatic point of view
Andreas van Melsen extends the importance of this crucial axiomatic point of view pertaining to the categorical imperative, personhood, and moral self-worth even further. As such Van Melsen asserts: “each individual human is not just an instance of mankind in the same way in which a piece of copper is an instance of copper. Each individual is an original centre of being in action. His [or her] actions are [his or her] own.” Therefore, each individual human must only be treated as an end-in-themselves. Consequently, it is an immutable universal truth that all lives matter. Any other point of view is self-evidently not only unethical and immoral, it also diminishes all of humanity.
To be silent is to be complicit – Richard Edelman
On April 8, 1933 the Main Office for Press and Propaganda of the German Student Union proclaimed that a national book burning would take place of all banned books and literature that did not meet with the new National German Spirit, and the new laws of the land, all of which were put in place for the benefit of the nation.
History informs
As history informs, this act of banning and burning of books (and its associated silent compliance by its citizens) eventually led to individuals, groups of people, and cultural collectives being labelled as vermin and/or subhuman. These labelled people, as history informs, had all of their rights removed, and many were arrested and were incarcerated.
No initial dissent
Importantly, in terms of social questioning or collective dissention, pertaining to what was taking place, from 1933 onwards; no one, no groups or collectives, no corporations, no editors or publishers of newspapers questioned or argued against any of these labels, removals of rights, arrests or incarcerations that were taking place. As alluded to above, it was only when World War II had concluded, that all of what had taken place was then questioned and challenged.
Amoral biological experimentations and social engineering dogma
The all-important question that must be asked is: How would the world have reacted if the Third Reich had implemented the gender circumstances that are now taking place in the United States of America; and had also carried out the type of social engineering dogma that is now also taking place in America, which includes American schools. How would the world have reacted? The answer to that question was answered by the implementation Nuremberg Principle IV.
Superior orders
As noted above, in 1945, as World War II was nearing its inevitable conclusion the Allies suspected that a Superior Orders defense might be employed by the Axis forces. As a result of this insightful moral assumption, the Allies brought into existence and legally issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT).
Unambiguous
This ruling unambiguously declared that if any person was following or undertaking an immoral order, from any superior, that this type of defense “I was only following orders” could not be used. That is because this order, from any superior, at any level, was an immoral order, which meant, the order in question was also an illegal order. Therefore, any associated action, in the support of or the following of this immoral order was in fact illegal. And it was declared as being a crime against humanity.
Provided a moral choice in fact was possible
As a result of this London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, ruling, it was then declared that this ruling would be placed under the directive and title of: Nuremberg Principle IV. This Principle declared that the “defense of superior orders” is not a defense, in relation to crimes against humanity. As noted, in terms of definition and declaration Nuremberg Principle IV presents the following:
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. [The key words here of course are: “provided a moral choice in fact was possible.”]
What is taking place with children is a crime against humanity, and social engineering is not a universal truth
In terms of what is taking place, which do not meet with any universal biological, neurobiological and child development laws of nature (i.e., biology) what this then self-evidently means, in terms of ethics and moral, what is taking place is immoral and unethical, and, therefore according to international law, these laws and all associated actions are illegal, and as noted, crimes against humanity.
Any country, institution or organisation
What this means is that any country, and any institution or organisation, which initiates and undertakes any form of social engineering and gender reassignment of children is acting immorally and illegally, and must, as noted by Nuremberg Principle IV, be placed before an international court, to stand trial, and to be judged accordingly. It is also worth noting the words of President Harry S. Truman
Once a government [and/or the media] is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
The Hippocratic oath, ethical code attributed to the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates. The oath dictates the obligations of the physician to students of medicine and the duties of pupil to teacher. In the oath, the physician pledges to prescribe only beneficial treatments, according to his abilities and judgment; to refrain from causing harm or hurt; and to live an exemplary personal and professional life.
First, they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” (Martin Niemoeller)
Genocide is a process that develops in ten stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear. Stages may occur simultaneously. Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages. But all stages continue to operate throughout the process.
➔ 1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most likely to have genocide.
The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. The Roman Catholic Church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been riven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a common language in countries like Tanzania has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early prevention of genocide.
➔ 2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people “Jews” or “Gypsies,” or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia.
To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas in Germany) as can hate speech. Group marking like gang clothing or tribal scarring can be outlawed, as well. The problem is that legal limitations will fail if unsupported by popular cultural enforcement. Though Hutu and Tutsi were forbidden words in Burundi until the 1980’s, code words replaced them. If widely supported, however, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, where the government refused to supply enough yellow badges and at least eighty percent of Jews did not wear them, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews.
➔ 3. DISCRIMINATION: A dominant group uses law, custom, and political power to deny the rights of other groups. The powerless group may not be accorded full civil rights, voting rights, or even citizenship. The dominant group is driven by an exclusionary ideology that would deprive less powerful groups of their rights. The ideology advocates monopolization or expansion of power by the dominant group. It legitimizes the victimization of weaker groups. Advocates of exclusionary ideologies are often charismatic, expressing resentments of their followers, attracting support from the masses. Examples include the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 in Nazi Germany, which stripped Jews of their German citizenship, and prohibited their employment by the government and by universities. Denial of citizenship to the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma is a current example.
Prevention against discrimination means full political empowerment and citizenship rights for all groups in a society. Discrimination on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion should be outlawed. Individuals should have the right to sue the state, corporations, and other individuals if their rights are violated.
➔ 4. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. The majority group is taught to regard the other group as less than human, and even alien to their society. They are indoctrinated to believe that “We are better off without them.” The powerless group can become so depersonalized that they are actually given numbers rather than names, as Jews were in the death camps. They are equated with filth, impurity, and immorality. Hate speech fills the propaganda of official radio, newspapers, and speeches.
To combat dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen. Hate radio stations should be jammed or shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.
➔ 5. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility. (An example is the Sudanese government’s support and arming of the Janjaweed in Darfur.) Sometimes organization is informal (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants during Indian partition) or decentralized (jihadist terrorist groups.) Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Arms are purchased by states and militias, often in violation of UN Arms Embargos, to facilitate acts of genocide. States organize secret police to spy on, arrest, torture, and murder people suspected of opposition to political leaders. Special training is given to murderous militias and special army killing units.
To combat this stage, membership in genocidal militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel and their foreign assets frozen. The UN should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations, as was done in post-genocide Rwanda, and use national legal systems to prosecute those who violate such embargos.
➔ 6. POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Motivations for targeting a group are indoctrinated through mass media. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Moderates from the perpetrators’ own group are most able to stop genocide, so are the first to be arrested and killed. Leaders in targeted groups are the next to be arrested and murdered. The dominant group passes emergency laws or decrees that grants them total power over the targeted group. The laws erode fundamental civil rights and liberties. Targeted groups are disarmed to make them incapable of self-defense, and to ensure that the dominant group has total control.
Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups d’état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions. Vigorous objections should be raised to disarmament of opposition groups. If necessary they should be armed to defend themselves.
➔ 7. PREPARATION: Plans are made for genocidal killings. National or perpetrator group leaders plan the “Final Solution” to the Jewish, Armenian, Tutsi or other targeted group “question.” They often use euphemisms to cloak their intentions, such as referring to their goals as “ethnic cleansing,” “purification,” or “counter-terrorism.” They build armies, buy weapons and train their troops and militias. They indoctrinate the populace with fear of the victim group. Leaders often claim that “if we don’t kill them, they will kill us,” disguising genocide as self-defense. Acts of genocide are disguised as counter-insurgency if there is an ongoing armed conflict or civil war. There is a sudden increase in inflammatory rhetoric and hate propaganda with the objective of creating fear of the other group. Political processes such as peace accords that threaten the total dominance of the genocidal group or upcoming elections that may cost them their grip on total power may actually trigger genocide.
Prevention of preparation may include arms embargos and commissions to enforce them. It should include prosecution of incitement and conspiracy to commit genocide, both crimes under Article 3 of the Genocide Convention.
➔ 8. PERSECUTION: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. In state sponsored genocide, members of victim groups may be forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is often expropriated. Sometimes they are even segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. They are deliberately deprived of resources such as water or food in order to slowly destroy them. Programs are implemented to prevent procreation through forced sterilization or abortions. Children are forcibly taken from their parents. The victim group’s basic human rights become systematically abused through extrajudicial killings, torture and forced displacement. Genocidal massacres begin. They are acts of genocide because they intentionally destroy part of a group. The perpetrators watch for whether such massacres meet any international reaction. If not, they realize that that the international community will again be bystanders and permit another genocide.
At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. If the political will of the great powers, regional alliances, or U.N. Security Council or the U.N. General Assembly can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance provided to the victim group to prepare for its self-defense. Humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees to come.
➔ 9. EXTERMINATION begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.” It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi). Acts of genocide demonstrate how dehumanized the victims have become. Already dead bodies are dismembered; rape is used as a tool of war to genetically alter and eradicate the other group. Destruction of cultural and religious property is employed to annihilate the group’s existence from history. The era of “total war” began in World War II. Firebombing did not differentiate civilians from non-combatants. The civil wars that broke out after the end of the Cold War have also not differentiated civilians and combatants. They result in widespread war crimes. Mass rapes of women and girls have become a characteristic of all modern genocides. All men of fighting age are murdered in some genocides. In total genocides all the members of the targeted group are exterminated.
At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection. (An unsafe “safe” area is worse than none at all.) The U.N. Standing High Readiness Brigade, EU Rapid Response Force, or regional forces — should be authorized to act by the U.N. Security Council if the genocide is small. For larger interventions, a multilateral force authorized by the U.N. should intervene. If the U.N. Security Council is paralyzed, regional alliances must act anyway under Chapter VIII of the U.N. Charter or the UN General Assembly should authorize action under the Uniting for Peace Resolution GARes. 330 (1950), which has been used 13 times for such armed intervention. Since 2005, the international responsibility to protect transcends the narrow interests of individual nation states. If strong nations will not provide troops to intervene directly, they should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene.
➔ 10. DENIAL is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them.
The best response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav, Rwanda or Sierra Leone Tribunals, the tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or the International Criminal Court may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and prosecute them, some may be brought to justice. When possible, local proceedings should provide forums for hearings of the evidence against perpetrators who were not the main leaders and planners of a genocide, with opportunities for restitution and reconciliation. The Rwandan gaçaça trials are one example. Justice should be accompanied by education in schools and the media about the facts of a genocide, the suffering it caused its victims, the motivations of its perpetrators, and the need for restoration of the rights of its victims.
(LifeSiteNews) – If Democrats have their way, parents who oppose transgender ideology or irreversible drugs and surgeries for kids may lose custody of their children in the near future.
That may sound too radical to be real, but it’s happening.
In late September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill, SB 107, that allows California courts to take “emergency jurisdiction” of children who come to the state for “gender transitions.”
In other words, starting in January, California will be able to strip parents in any state of their custody rights if their children seek chemical or surgical mutilation within California’s borders, or even through telemedicine with a California-based doctor.
Moreover, the law, authored by a homosexual lawmaker from San Francisco and co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood, could promote abduction of minors to California – and leave parents powerless to stop it.
SB 107 includes a broad carve-out that protects the “taking of a child” to pursue transgender drugs or surgeries, as conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom has pointed out.
“This gives a relative who secretly takes a child to California and arranges for gender identity procedures on the child a pathway to also strip the parents of their rights and obtain sole custody of the child,” the group explained. “Parents whose child visits a relative in California could lose custody of their child forever if the relative persuades the child to identify as a different gender during the visit.”
California’s ultra-radical attack on parents would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. But in 2022, it’s part of a growing trend among far-left Democrats.
Days after Newsom signed SB 107, a Democratic lawmaker in Virginia, Rep. Elizabeth Guzman, announced she would introduce legislation to criminalize parents who don’t “affirm” their child’s “gender identity” and strip their custody rights. The bill would force schools to report such parents to Virginia’s Child Protective Services (CPS).
Asked what penalties parents could face under the measure, Guzman responded, “It could be a felony, it could be a misdemeanor, but we know that CPS charge could harm your employment, could harm their education, because nowadays many people do a CPS database search before offering employment.”
Guzman designed her bill with an activist linked to the Pride Liberation Project, an LGBT group recently caught trying to help homosexual and gender-confused youth run away from home to live with a “queer friendly adult.”
This even isn’t the first time that Virginia Democrats have worked with groomers to take away people’s kids: In 2020, Guzman and four Democratic colleagues introduced a similar bill soon after Democrats retook control of the state legislature. As the Daily Wire noted, the only sponsor of that bill in the Virginia Senate had previously been indicted for child pornography and underage sex crimes.
Democrats’ push to gut parental rights as part of their totalitarian LGBT agenda has already had devastating effects on families. In recent years, a growing number of parents around the country have been tragically separated from their children because of opposition to LGBT ideology.
Even before Newsom signed SB 107, multiple parents in California lost their custody rights for not being “affirming” enough, like Abigail Martinez, whose gender-confused daughter ultimately killed herself after being remanded to state custody. The Epoch Times reported about Martinez, who unsuccessfully fought the Los Angeles school system and child services department:
Abigail told us that she was visited regularly by members of the trans-advocacy group RISE and recounted one of them encouraging her to “have a funeral for your daughter and adopt your son.” She was told not to talk about God. “They told me if you do that, you’ll never see your daughter,” she said.
Parents have faced similar ordeals in Chicago, Cincinnati, and Dallas.
No doubt we’ll see more cases like this as Democrat-run states, many of which already indoctrinate children into LGBT confusion with mandatory gender ideology, rush to join California as transgender “sanctuary states.” Michigan may be next, with a constitutional amendment on the ballot next week that would create a “fundamental right” to sterilization, including for children.
And if Democrats keep their majority in the House and net just two more Senate seats in the midterms, they’ll pass their radical, pro-LGBT Equality Act, which the Heritage Foundation has warned “could lead to more prosecutions against parents who refuse to aid in the sterilization of their children.”
Opposition to “gender transitioning” isn’t the only type of ideological dissent threatening conservatives’ custody rights. According to a January poll, around one-third of Democratic voters agree with removing children from unvaccinated parents, and Democratic judges have done just that. Liberals openly describe raising kids according to Christian beliefs as a form child abuse. How much longer before they come for religious households?
In this new era of woke, extremist Democrats, one of our most fundamental and sacred rights is now on the ballot: the right to keep and raise our own children.
It is the power of higher-order critical thinking and evidence-based research that advances skills, knowledge and a nation’s potential. Listening to, watching or reading any form of information advances knowledge. This process should also include misinformation, disinformation, propaganda or even ideological gibberish. This type of broad reading and study is part of the scientific method of research. It is the scientific method which is the most powerful method of study humanity has ever achieved. Furthermore, it is the scientific method that develops and advances rational evidence-based problem solving higher-order and critical thinking capacities. All of which then advances research potential, sophisticated analysis, knowledge and skills. It is this process which then develops a complex and highly sophisticated brain, mind and intellect; none of which can or will ever be achieved through censorship.
GENDER IS A CONSTRUCT. BIOLOGY IS AN IMMUTABLE UNIVERSAL TRUTH
Opinions and constructs
In terms of opinions and constructs, it is profoundly important to note that a construct derives its name from the fact that – a construct – is not anything more than a mental construction. As such, a construct is no more than a thought, that brings into existence a descriptor referred to as an opinion, which provides the means to bring into existence a descriptive construct.
Definitions
All robust universal dictionaries concur that opinions are no more than a general subjective point of view, i.e., a personal sentiment or a feeling; which is not based on fact or knowledge. The fact of the matter is that gender is not (and it has never been, and it cannot ever be) a universal biological truth. Gender is a construct. That means gender fits into the category of a concocted descriptor, and, as such, what that axiomatically means is that the word gender is nothing more than a mental opinion, or a descriptor of convenience.
The utterance of the construct gender cannot change the universal laws of biology
Therefore, in absolute universal terms, what that means is that the word and construct gender can never be a universal biological truth. As such, the construct gender cannot change the universal laws of biology, nor can the utterance of the word ‘gender’ change the universal laws of biology.
Male chromosome pairing
Universally, ever since humans have existed, when a human male is born, he will have a genetic XY chromosome pairing. As such, in terms genome and sex, this male will, in universal biological terms always be a male. If, for example, this XY chromosome male was to ever have a finger, hand, arm, toe, foot, tonsils, appendix or even their genitals surgically removed; this male will still be a biological male, a genetic male, and this male will continue to have the pairing of his male-based XY chromosomes.
Female chromosome pairing
This same universal and biological genome-based principle, of course, and immutably, also applies to the female sex. When a female is born, she will have an XX chromosome genetic pairing. As such this female will (universally, biologically and genetically) be the sex of a female. Any surgical procedure that takes place, cannot and will never change the biological XX female chromosome pairing. And no amount of ideological shouting or any deceitful politically motivated gender-based utterances, or any social bullying or ideological ‘word-play’ manipulations, will ever change these laws of physics and/or biology.
No amount of force of any kind can change universal truths
Importantly and profoundly, nor can any forced experimental application of hormones (into the body), change this immutable XX chromosome (female) or XY chromosome (male) genetic pairing.
Denying universal truths cannot change a universal truth
Denying these universal human laws and biological truths, as history informs, brings with its catastrophic biological and social outcomes. History also unambiguously cautions and informs that any society or organisation (political or private) that allows, supports, initiates or forces anyone (irrespective of policies, laws or even orders from superiors), to engage in immoral forced actions (against any individual or collective), these actions will be declared as being illegal. That is because it has been internationally declared, in an international court of law, that moral actions supersede all laws, conventions, directives or what may even be considered as being orders by superiors, which of course can take place in many different forms, which includes publications of policies and books.
Provided a moral choice was possible
In 1945, as World War II was nearing its inevitable conclusion the Allies suspected that a Superior Orders defense might be employed by the Axis forces. As a result of this insightful moral assumption, the Allies brought into existence and legally issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). This ruling unambiguously declared that following or undertaking an immoral order (which in fact makes the order unlawful) cannot be used as a defense.
As a result of this London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, ruling, it was then declared that this ruling would be placed under the directive and title of: Nuremberg Principle IV. This Principle declared that the “defense of superior orders” is not a defense for war crimes. In terms of definition and declaration Nuremberg Principle IV presents the following:
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. [The key words here of course are: “provided a moral choice in fact was possible.”]
As such this recognition must be addressed in accordance with international law, that was set down in an international court, that followed the directive of Nuremberg Principle IV. Anything less undermines all of the universal principles that were set down in accordance with Nuremberg Principle IV. All of which led to advancing universal truths, which became the guiding principles in the development of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In just the last few weeks, Liz Truss, Britain’s new prime minister, has been denounced by critics as a “fascist.” So has Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s newly elected prime minister. Along with all Republicans in Congress, Texas and Florida GOP Govs. Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis and, of course, former President Donald Trump. Every one of the tens of thousands of “MAGA Republicans” who attend Trump rallies, too.
Dangerous fascists, for that matter, all of whom critics say need to be shut up.
Truss is a fascist because she wants to cut taxes. Meloni is a fascist, and getting banned from several social media platforms, because she gave a rousing speech endorsing God, family and country. What a dangerous tyrant. Republicans in Congress are fascists because they support work for welfare and are trying to block the Green New Deal.
“What is so infuriating about these slurs is that the Left doesn’t even understand what a fascist is.” Hillary Clinton said after a recent Trump rally in Ohio, “I remember as a young student … I’d watch newsreels and I’d see this guy standing up there ranting and raving, and people shouting and raising their arms.” Trump’s defeated 2016 Democratic presidential rival was referring to Hitler.
“You saw the rally in Ohio the other night,” added Clinton, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state. “Trump is there ranting and raving for more than an hour, and you have these rows of young men with their arms raised.” She didn’t quite say it, but the implied message was clear: These crazy Trump supporters wanted to say, “Heil Hitler.”
At least President Joe Biden doesn’t call his political adversaries fascists. They are only “semifascists.” What a relief.
Aren’t these the same people who have urged raising the level of civil discourse? Wasn’t Biden supposed to “unify” the country with Trump out of the picture?
What is so infuriating about these slurs is that the Left doesn’t even understand what a fascist is. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government.” The Britannica Dictionary defines fascism as “a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.”
Let all that sink in for a minute. Who are the fascists here? A government that “controls the lives of the people.” Let’s see — we have a group of politicians who shut down schools, businesses, restaurants and churches during COVID-19. A government that is now telling us what kind of light bulbs we can put in our homes, what temperature we can set our thermostat in our living rooms, what kind of car we can buy and what kind of drugs we need to be inserted into our arms.
Who is the leader who is vastly supersizing our centralized government? Biden and congressional Democrats have already spent $4 trillion expanding nearly all the power structures of government in Washington. If this isn’t fascistic, what is?
But here’s the rub. The definition of “fascism” has gradually been evolving over time. Nowadays, according to the Collins Dictionary, fascism “is a set of right-wing political beliefs that includes strong controls of society and the economy by the state” (emphasis added).
By this definition, leftists can’t be accused of being fascists because they want to use government for virtuous ends, while the Right wants to use government to further enrich the rich, spread racism and deny science.
What we have here is a clinical case of “projecting.” Democrats and other leftist parties around the world accuse the Right of wanting to expand government powers when that is precisely the overriding objective of the modern-day American Left.
It is prototypically fascistic. Elevate race and skin color into the public debate. Trample civil liberties. Squash those who disagree with the reigning government. Partner up Big Government with Big Business and micromanage the economy through dictates from the central planners. Put your political enemies in handcuffs and jail without a trial. Trample over the traditional guardrails that were installed to protect liberty — by changing voting rules, ending the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate and discrediting and trying to pack the Supreme Court. Declare everything, including COVID-19 and climate change, an existential threat to justify more power to the politicians.
So what is a fascist really? The Left says it is anyone who opposes what they want to do to expand government.
But the real definition of a fascist is a leader who wants to exploit governmental power to suppress the basic liberties of individuals. It is the partnership of government and private industry for political power and monetary gain. To find it in modern-day America, the folks at the (Biden) White House may want to look in the mirror.
Western politicians and scientists seem to be under the spell of Scientism – the subjective bias of applying science to confirm personal beliefs and cultural policies. This article is a compilation of case studies providing substantial evidence demonstrating that scientists are only seeking evidence that confirm their pre-existing biases instead of describing reality as it actually exists.
CASE STUDY 1: Refusing to Accept Substantial Contrary Evidence
Dear greenies, imagine being so intellectually cooked you’re angry to find out the world isn’t actually going to end Instead of welcoming a report finding no statistical evidence for a global climate emergency, doomsayers are instead screaming bloody murder about a perceived media conspiracy.
Authored by Gemma Tognini Gemma Tognini SkyNews.com.au Contributor and Corporate Affairs Specialist
In case you missed it, there was some terrific news that broke over the weekend.
Really good, in fact.
Results of an international study, delivered by leading scientists from the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics in conjunction with the prestigious University of Milan, found no statistical, data-linked evidence of any kind that the earth (and we earthlings) are in the grips of a climate emergency.
None. Let me repeat that. Nothing to see here, move along.
The Australian’s Graham Lloyd says a new paper has found that it is “not possible” to detect a climate emergency. “They don’t say there isn’t an increase in temperature, they don’t say that it will never be the case,” he said. “But as things stand, it is not possible to see that footprint there.”
The study provided a long-term analysis of a range of extreme weather events such as heat, drought, floods, hurricanes and fires and found no clear positive trends.
This is good news – great news even!
You’d think this would be something to celebrate. You’d think this would be news sharing.
What I saw instead, was a bizarre reaction from many (most, on my observation at least) were of the political left and or Greens, whose response was rage.
Rage that an esteemed scientist would dare to find the earth is in fact in very good health and we are not hurtling towards oblivion.
No wonder these folk get called climate doomsayers. No wonder it looks and sounds like a cult.
Instead of talking about how fabulous that there isn’t any statistical or other evidence of a climate crisis, they scream about media conspiracies.
Imagine being so intellectually cooked that you’re angry the world isn’t going to end.
To me, the findings of this study come as no surprise.
For half a century, there have been predictions of a looming climate-related disaster.
For half a century, they have failed to materialise (another thing to celebrate, but that’s just me).
Here’s a quick snapshot of some of the best.
In 1970, the Boston Globe ran predictions of a global ice age that would consume us all by the year 2000.
In 2008, Good Morning America ran stories predicting most of New York City would be under water by 2015 due to rising sea levels.
And don’t forget 2000, when the UK’s Independent ran on a story that claimed British children would never see snow again within a few short years.
And of course, the various predictions of Prof. Tim Flannery, including but not limited to telling us back in 2007 that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.
If you reacted to the results of this Italian study with anything other than happiness then may I kindly suggest seeking professional help.
Importantly, the study’s authors aren’t saying we can just sit back and enjoy our existing energy sources without further revision.
But what they are saying is that it needs to be done in context.
Imagine that, a sensible response that won’t plunge the country further into an energy crisis.
The EU didn’t just miraculously decide that gas and nuclear are renewables for fun.
Have a look at what’s going on in Britain, Italy, Germany and other parts of the EU.
Those in the Senate who are high fiving themselves over the Albanese government’s legislated climate targets, the Teal Brigade and yes, the Greens.
Best heed the bell that’s been tolled here.
They may be basking in the afterglow right now but it doesn’t take much to go from hero to villain – especially when Australian families will be looking for someone to blame.
CASE STUDY 2: Denigrating Opponents of the Status Quo
A psychological study analysing 390 climate change sceptics denigrates them for confused thinking and diagnoses them with “denialism”. Contrary to expectations, the study revealed that sceptics were more likely to have higher analytical skills than the general public. Instead of further research into why this was so, it was generally conceded that sceptics were unaware of climate modelling projections.
CASE STUDY 3: Unnecessary Sacrifice and Societal Change
Green Ideology, supported by biased, narrow minded Scientism, will seek to transform society no matter the personal or financial cost.
UK may ‘go back to pre-industrial revolution’ times as energy crisis worsens
Brexit movement leader Nigel Farage says former UK prime minister Boris Johnson was the “high priest of net zero” during his time – even as the former leader lashed out at energy policy.
“What nuclear power gives you is baseload but for us to build a major new nuclear facility in Suffolk on the east coast of England – which is what Boris was doing on that day – it’ll be at least 12 years before that’s in production,” he told Sky News host Chris Kenny.
“By that time, we may well have economically have gone back to pre the Industrial Revolution because we won’t have any hot water, we won’t have any computers.”
Europe’s energy crisis has ‘just been getting worse’
Sky News host Chris Kenny says Europe’s energy crisis has been worsening as the world mourns Queen Elizabeth II.
“Crippling power bills are forcing manufacturers to close their doors for a couple of days each week, standing down staff,” he said.
Mr Kenny said parts of Germany have banned hot showers at gyms and swimming pools as well as portable air conditioners and heaters and Paris has resorted to turning off the Eiffel Tower’s lights early.
“And in Britain, millions of businesses will have their power bills capped for six months, to help them stay afloat,” he said.
“Boris Johnson, in one of his final speeches as PM, hit the nail on the head, identifying nuclear as the solution, while calling out weak poltictions for dropping the ball.”
CASE STUDY 4: Inconsistencies in Confirmed Public Information
Statistics are easily confirmed and denied to suit the political necessities of a particular time period. For instance, carbon dioxide forms 0.04% of the atmosphere. 97% is produced naturally while 3% was produced by humans. Of this 3% produced, a small nation such as Australia contributes only 1.3% out of all of the CO2 produced by humans, which is negligible. Facts are ethereal and modelling changes to suit cultural and political bias. Sea levels have not changed over the previous 70 years, as has been confirmed by historic records and photographs.
The reaction of the persecuted church in Iran to Biden’s anti-conservative speech on the 1st September is cause for alarm. Persecuted Christians easily recognise the precursor to tyrannical oppression against godly, law abiding citizens. The US Democrats are doubling down against their opponents in an act of desperation, as a result of disastrous policy failure and a growing awareness by US citizens that all is not well, not realising that demonising the opposition leads to an increased risk of hypocrisy, injustice and inhumanity. Ideology, whether it is Islamic or atheistic, can be fundamentally dangerous to the lives of faithful Christians.
John 15:19–20 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they keep my word, they will also keep yours.
By Josh Boak, Zeke Miller, posted September 2, 2022 in National News.
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — President Joe Biden charged in a prime-time address that the “extreme ideology” of Donald Trump and his adherents “threatens the very foundation of our republic,” as he summoned Americans of all stripes to help counter what he sketched as dark forces within the Republican Party trying to subvert democracy.
In his speech Thursday night (Sept. 1) at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, Biden unleashed the trappings of the presidency in an indictment of Trump and what he said has become the dominant strain of the opposition party. His broadside came barely two months before Americans head to the polls in bitterly contested midterm elections that Biden calls a crossroads for the nation.
“Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal,” he said before an audience of hundreds, raising his voice over pro-Trump protesters outside the building where the nation’s founding was debated. He said he wasn’t condemning the 74 million people who voted for Trump in 2020 but added, “There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans,” using the acronym for Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan.
The explicit effort by Biden to marginalize Trump and his followers marks a sharp recent turn for the president, who preached his desire to bring about national unity in his inaugural address.
“President Biden’s speech to the nation last night was more inflammatory than healing,” said Daniel Darling, director of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in an email to Baptist Press. “For a President who campaigned on unity and healing the country, he continues to govern in a way that is deeply polarizing. It was a campaign speech disguised as an official word from the commander-in-chief.”
Delivering a preemptive rebuttal from Scranton, Pennsylvania, where Biden was born, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said it is the Democratic president, not Republicans, trying to divide Americans.
“In the past two years, Joe Biden has launched an assault on the soul of America, on its people, on its laws, on its most sacred values,” McCarthy said. “He has launched an assault on our democracy. His policies have severely wounded America’s soul, diminished America’s spirit and betrayed America’s trust.”
Asked on Friday if he considered all Trump supporters a threat to the country, Biden said, “I don’t consider any Trump supporter a threat to the country.”
He added: “I do think anyone who calls for the use of violence, fails to condemn violence when it’s used, refuses to acknowledge when an election has been won, insists on changing the way in which the rules to count votes, that is a threat to democracy.”
He said that when people voted for Trump, “they weren’t voting for attacking the Capitol. They weren’t voting for overruling the election. They were voting for a philosophy he put forward.” Last week, he compared the “MAGA philosophy” to “semi-fascism.”
“Equality and democracy are under assault” in the U.S., Biden charged in the speech, casting Trump and his backers in the GOP as a menace to the nation’s system of government, its standing abroad and its citizens’ way of life.
Trump and his supporters “promote authoritarian leaders and they fan the flames of political violence,” he said. They “are determined to take this country backwards.”
“Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love,” he said.
Red lights illuminated the brick of Independence Hall, as the Marine Band played “Hail to the Chief” and a pair of Marine sentries stood at parade rest in the backdrop. Still, the major broadcast television networks did not carry the address live.
“His use of the symbols of the American military, his attempt to portray half the country as irredeemable fascists, and the bizarre red backdrop did not convey a leader wishing to heal but divide,” Darling said. “It was especially appalling to see the pro-life movement–of which the President used to be a member–portrayed as enemies of democracy.
“What America needs in this moment is a president willing to help heal our deep divides, to resist the election-year urge to consider his ideological adversaries as enemies of the state, and to ratchet down the rhetoric coming from the White House. We are at a dangerous moment, where the incentives on all sides are toward demonization, where partisans seem increasingly eager to engage in political violence. Preserving democracy requires cool heads and warm hearts, not cheap campaign rhetoric.
“For Christians, this is a moment of opportunity, to both display courage in advocating for transcendent truths and civility in seeing even those who disagree with us as image-bearers of the Almighty. And should pray for leaders willing to do the same.”
Iowa GOP chair Jeff Kaufman said in a statement that Biden was using the tactics of an authoritarian regime, “trying to turn his political opponents into an enemy of the state.”
Last week, Financial Times Associate Editor Edward Luce tweeted that Republicans are the most “dangerous” political force in the world, bar none. “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world,” he said, and “I have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.” Former CIA Director Michael Hayden chimed in immediately and said, “I agree.”
This past Tuesday, Democrat adviser Kurt Bardella called all Republicans a “domestic terrorist cell.” MSNBC’s Tiffany Cross agreed and said there should be no distinction between Republicans and “right-wing extremists.” At the same time, Peter Wehner, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, likened the Republican Party to a “dagger pointed at the throat of American democracy.” All this while the FBI Director Christopher Wray added that any American flying the Gadsden — “Don’t Tread On Me” — flag is suspect of violent extremism.
Does anyone except me hear the ghost of George Orwell laughing right now?
Does it concern you that a group of Democrats holding power is now defining all Republicans as being “right-wing extremists” and a “threat to American democracy?”
And by the way, what is a right-wing extremist? Is it someone who advocates for pro-life legislation? Is it someone who believes in traditional standards of sexual morality? Are you a right-winger if you believe in lower taxes? Are you an extremist if you dare to call for open debate on environmental policy? Are you a threat to American democracy if you think enforcing America’s borders will actually be good for America? Are you one of those “nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible” people “holding a dagger to America’s throat” if you believe in school choice and the self-evident reality of parental rights?
Isn’t it a bit convenient that Big Brother has decided that all Americans with a “Republican” bumper sticker on their car versus those who obediently parrot the beltway propaganda of George Soros are a security risk?
And what about these smart folks on the left? Is their thoughtless embrace of critical race theory a security risk? How about their endless printing of monopoly money and the consequent degrading of U.S. currency? Does this enhance or impede American democracy? Does their embrace of the neo-Marxism of Black Lives Matter endanger our freedom? Does their infatuation with sexual nihilism make America’s women and children feel more or less secure? And how about “climate change” and “green” economics? Does their religious zeal for the disproven pantheism of former Vice President Al Gore enhance our national security or hurt it? Finally, let’s consider their post-modern aversion to any robust debate concerning everything above; is their intellectual foreclosure not nihilistic and extreme?
Oh, a final question: How about their ad hominem attacks of calling 50% of the American people derogatory names? Isn’t such ignorance of the elementary principles of Socratic logic a bit dangerous? Do you feel more secure knowing that some bureaucrat or politician at the highest levels of political power can unabashedly pigeonhole any person holding a conservative worldview as a compromise to national security? Do you feel safe knowing that this tactical use of rhetorical sleight of hand is actually accompanied by a straight face — or perhaps a sly grin?
This betrayal of classical liberalism is simply incredible. And I mean this in the technical sense of the word. These worn-out political attacks lack any credibility. Our nation’s political class and their obedient media lapdogs make no sense. They disregard any elementary understanding of freshman-level logic. Their rhetoric is foolish. And when caught on the horns of their duplicitous dilemma, their only reaction is to shoot the messenger and ignore the message. “All Republicans are right-wingers,” they shout. “Anyone who disagrees with us is a security risk, a deplorable, and thoughtless rube!” This narcissistic nonsense lacks any credibility. It is simply in-credible!
A free society that remains silent while George Orwell‘s “1984” unfolds before its very eyes will not remain free. Our nation’s elites are hell-bent on completely restructuring the socio-political context of our country, and in their zeal, they are labeling anyone who challenges them a “dangerous, contemptible, terrorist.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer once warned that “silence in the face of evil is evil is evil itself.” Half of the American people have just been told we are a “domestic terrorist cell.” Silence in the face of this oligarchical power grab is complicity in our demise as well as our country’s. “Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. God will not hold us guiltless.”
• Everett Piper (dreverettpiper.com, @dreverettpiper) is a columnist for The Washington Times, former university president and radio host.
Online Church for Christ 