April 4, 2012
A subtle, gradual indoctrination campaign has been rolled out by the social engineers who steer the United Nations- not in the course of years or decades, but centuries- aiming to undermine free will, slaughter it slowly, with the specific aim of weakening the mental immune-system to the point of having the mind accepting the most tyrannical proposals. One of the results of this systematic campaign, largely coordinated through UNESCO, is the general acceptance of abortion as a viable option when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. In the not too distant past the very notion of terminating the unborn would have outraged most people. Now we even see those who call themselves conservative readily entertaining the notion.
In an upcoming conference organized by the UN Commission on Population and Development, the UN has chosen to take the next step in the age-old plan to reduce the world’s population. We already know that when it comes to brainwashing the adult population the UN pulls out all the stops. This time the globalists openly involve children into the “discussion”- and by doing so breaking the most sacred of rules: whatever you do, the children are to be left alone.
The main theme of the upcoming forty-fifth session of the Commission on Population and Development is “Adolescents and youth”. The announcement put out by the UN consists mainly of the horrible and cynical euphemisms we have come to know from the ruling elite.
“Young people as much as all people share the human right to health, including sexual and reproductive health”, the document explains on page 3. Buried in the footnotes on the same page, the document explains what they mean when they say “young people”:
“young people: 10-24 year olds.”
This means that 10 year old children may be subjected to the UN’s population policies. We must not forget that by “reproductive health” the elite means “access to safe abortions”.
This is completely in line with a statement made not too long ago by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). According to C-FAM the IPPF sent in their endorsement of the upcoming confab:
“laws that restrict young people’s access to sexual and reproductive health services, including parental or spousal consent laws” must either be removed or be refrained from being implemented. IPAS goes even further and argues that youth should be considered independent actors free of any obstacles that ignore their own “capacity to make informed decisions.”
In a 2007 publication by the UN Population Fund several proposals for pro-abortion propaganda are openly being discussed, among which:
“(…) reproductive health education in the schools; programmes for out-of school youths and early married girls, social marketing of condoms; using mass and entertainment media to disseminate messages (…)”.
And just when you think the UN must now surely have reached the upper limit of their criminal mindset, a document emerges proving you horribly wrong.
A 2009 draft report on ‘International Guidelines on Sexuality Education’ proposes desensitizing children as young as 5 to the concepts of masturbation and incrementally preparing them for the concept of aborting life. Although the report sparked a mild controversy in the beginning of September 2009, the final ‘Conference Ready Version’ of the abject report has not removed the proposals.
In case you missed it the first time, here it is again: UNESCO is intent on exposing 5 year old children to the reality of abortions and masturbation.
In the 2009 report authors Nanette Ecker and Douglas Kirby propose five different age ranges and just as many teaching methodologies for ‘sexuality education’ to confront children with. The reason given for all this is “HIV prevention” in order to achieve “Universal Access Targets.” According to Ecker and Kirby, the first thing to impress upon 5 year old children (under the header “Key Ideas”) is that “many different kinds of families exist around the world (e.g. two-parent, single parent, child-headed, guardian-headed, extended and nuclear families, same-sex couple parents, etc.).”
Proposed as “Key Ideas” to impress the impressionable with are, in the age range of 5 to 8:
1: “People receive messages about sex, gender and sexuality from their cultures and religions”.
2: “How harmful cultural/traditional practices affect health and well-being.”
3: “Difference between consensual sexual activity and forced sex.”
4: “Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.”
5: “Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation.”
6: “Some people masturbate and some do not.”
7: “Bodies can feel good when touched.”
8: “Some people are unable to care for a child.”
The last-mentioned “Key Idea” is obviously meant to prepare the children for the possibility of an abortion- for one of the “Key Ideas” mentioned in a later age range, 9 to 12, includes “definition of abortion” and “legal status of abortion locally and globally”. The learning curve is made complete when the authors propose, in the age range of 15 to 18, “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion.”
Here we have it: at a very early stage children are first being introduced to the idea that “some people are unable to care for a child”; in the next stage (9 to 12) the concept of abortion is being introduced as a means to resolve that issue. In the last stage (15 to18) the “Key Idea” is to explicitly advocate abortion.
Whatever one’s position in regards to the subject, everyone should agree that it is nothing less than a crime to desensitize children to such ideas at such an early age.
In a section called “common concerns about the provision of sexuality education”, the authors try to ‘debunk’ possible concerns about delivering this information to the very young. One of the concerns the authors toss up is “sexuality education deprives children of their ‘innocence’.”
To put the word innocence in between quotes says everything about the mindset behind these proposals. These sickening UNESCO sociopaths have the audacity to call into question a child’s innocence, proposing the school should inform the children about such matters at the age of 5.
“Parents”, according to the authors, “are often reluctant to engage in discussion of sexual matters with children because of cultural norms, their own ignorance or discomfort.”
In a twisted mind-warp the authors therefore propose taking upon themselves the role of the parents, and dangerous ones at that. To quote co-author Nanette Ecker: “We (…) need to start sexuality education young, such as teaching 5- to 8- year-olds the correct terminology about their bodies and how they work so they have the language to ask questions or report abusive, coercive behaviour or sexual violence.”
The World Health Organization shares this point of view. In the appendix to the above mentioned monstrosity can be read: “The World Health Organization (WHO) concludes it is critical that sexuality education be started early (…).”
“The International Guidelines”, say the authors, “will have immediate relevance for education ministers and their professional staff, including curriculum developers, school principals and teachers. However, anyone involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of sexuality education, in and out of school, may find this document useful.”
There is no more doubt, if ever there was any. The globalists, through their United Nations social engineers, are coming for the kids.