Tag: New World order

Author: Dr K. Now.

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.



Retrieved from:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11376781/Puberty-blockers-given-children-young-NINE-Scotlands-Tavistock-Centre.html



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.



Gender Dysphoria – the Evidence

Retrieved from

Jordan Peterson, July 2, 2022, YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYfKWQqvFac



The Hippocratic oath

Do no harm

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.

Retrieved from:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hippocratic-oath



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)

Retrieved from
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/martin-niemoeller-the-failure-to-speak-up-against-the-nazis



The Ten Stages of Genocide

By Dr. Gregory H. Stanton[1]

© 2016 Gregory H. Stanton



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.



© 2016 Gregory H. Stanton.

Retrieved from

http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/