Cultural Marxist attack on the family system

Okay, so I haven't taught this in this way before, and I need to find a simple way to talk about this subject, the Unification movement, because it's such a complex topic. You can tell there's kind of a war going on in schools. There are a lot of parents who don't like what is being taught to their children, and there's a lot of tension around the whole issue of sexuality and gender. There's a massive protest in France, which the British do, but the French seem to embrace it more readily. There's massive tension in America too, with the Democrats fully embracing everything on that dimension, while Trump hasn't said too much, but behind him, there are lots of people really fighting it. Some people say this is a matter of human rights, while others see damage being done. Those who talk about human rights often don't see the damage; they just see equality and fairness. On the other side, some people argue that this will make our societies less sustainable and will hurt our communities, leading to worse outcomes for children. This creates a challenge because those who see the damage are often told they can't express their hurt without being accused of hurting others. It's complicated.

I'm trying to explain what's happening based on the three blessings and how this battle is really about understanding the damage versus the demand for fairness. A few years ago, I was completely on one side, but as I looked into it, I started to see the damage. It took me a long time to understand the perspective of those who oppose these changes. I came to realise that the damage is far worse and will cause decay in our society rather than improvement. I understand now why some people are against this, and I hadn't seen that before. There are obviously people who are against it and those who don't see the damage, and that creates a problem.

From my understanding, the principle states that human development happens through the child and lineage. As Unificationists, we look at our children and hope they are a bit better than we are—more intelligent, with better morals and values. We hope they are more emotionally stable and have better relationship skills. This is based on the love and investment from parents, extended family, community, church, education, and the media. Ideally, this leads to children being better manifestations of God's love and goodness, making the world a better place. We talk about three generations improving the world because of these wonderful children. I see many second-generation individuals who are so much better than their parents. I barely scraped through university, while they excelled. I have hope that they will raise children who are even better.

Throughout Christian history, we hope that each child becomes a bit better. We have overcome slavery, women's rights issues, and other obstacles that blocked us from being more like the temple of God. Step by step, we have become a more manifest expression of God's love in our communities. The interest is in the child because they represent the future. The focus should be on how to ensure they are wholesome and better. This is at the heart of Unificationism. The section on give and take action before the three blessings discusses the interaction between men and women and the subject-object relationship. When this relationship is centred on God, it generates a force that sustains culture. The husband and wife relationship, centred on the purpose of creation through the child, allows culture to continue to exist and develop.

The hope is that we take what we have and improve upon it because we are better human beings than our parents. We can look after the world better. All cultures that existed until recently were marriage and family cultures, whether polygamous or monogamous. These cultures survived despite wars and famines because the marital family structure allowed God's blessings to flow across generations. The British culture took generations to develop, and it required each child to become a bit more clever or wealthier. This development is a slow process, but hopefully, children become more intelligent and have better relationships. When I examined the data, I wondered about the root cause of stability in culture. It seems to be the psychology of the child, fulfilled by knowing that their parents love them. This parent-child relationship is central to their development.

Children are born wanting to know that their biological parents love them. We can't escape this reality, and it's fundamental to being God's children. Research shows that children who lose their father, whether through divorce or other means, suffer pain and often seek to find their biological father. This need for connection is crucial. If this bond is broken, the child experiences attachment trauma, leading to various risks in their life. Once this bond is fractured, trust and love are often compromised, making the child less trusting. The data on adopted children is similar to that of children of divorce; they face higher risks of negative outcomes. This doesn't mean all of them will experience this, but it indicates a higher risk.

The fracturing of the child's heart is what leads to instability. This is why polygamous relationships can sustain cultures; the child still knows both their biological parents. I've looked into divorce, adoption, and single parenting, and many people argue that children of single mothers do worse due to a lack of financial resources or the absence of a father. Ideally, when a single mother finds a husband, the child should benefit from the additional resources and parental support. However, many children do not recover; they often become angry at their mother for not remarrying their biological father. The child's psychology is highly attuned to wanting to know that their parents love each other. I experienced this myself when my father said something that made me feel unloved, even at my age. It was painful to hear that, and I had to talk to my mother about it. This connection to our parents is vital, and once that bond is broken, children are more likely to engage in behaviours that contribute to cultural decay.

I concluded that there is fundamentally only one family structure that can sustain and develop a culture: a family with both biological parents. The child's psychology must be fulfilled; if not, they are more likely to engage in negative behaviours. The principle states that there must be a binding body and the three blessings, and there is only one type of family that allows for the continuation of culture. This is not about other kinds of families; it is about the child. We cannot change the child's psychology. If a child hears that their parent does not love them, it is devastating. This reality is problematic, and we cannot escape it.

In this world of the cultural war, the state creates legal rights for certain groups of adults, which inevitably leads to the suffering of others. When the state intervenes in sexual issues and grants rights, it often comes at the expense of children, who cannot voice their complaints. Adults may speak on behalf of children, but the state's actions often prioritise adult desires over the well-being of the child. This trend has been evident over the last fifty years, where the well-being of children is sacrificed for adult happiness. The energy of the state seems to favour adult desires, allowing mothers, for instance, to make decisions that can terminate the life of their child without the child's consent or even the father's input. This raises serious ethical questions about the rights of the unborn and the implications of such decisions on society.

The treatment of children directly influences the future of culture and society. If children are treated poorly, the culture deteriorates; conversely, if they are nurtured, society flourishes. This is particularly evident in communities surrounding abortion clinics. For example, in many African-American communities where abortion rates are high, one might expect these areas to thrive if unwanted children were eliminated. However, the opposite is true; these communities often face significant challenges, including increased crime and poverty. The introduction of abortion has not led to healthier communities but rather to a decline in social conditions, as evidenced by rising out-of-wedlock birth rates and other social issues.

Abortion, particularly in high-abortion areas, correlates with increased drug addiction and crime. The act of terminating a child, even before birth, creates a ripple effect that impacts the community's future. The lack of responsibility among men has also been exacerbated by the availability of abortion. In the past, unplanned pregnancies often led to marriages and the assumption of responsibility by fathers. However, with the advent of abortion clinics, men no longer feel the need to act honourably, leading to a cycle of irresponsibility and emotional detachment. This lack of socialisation contributes to a growing disconnect between men and women, as they increasingly view each other as undesirable partners.

The impact of these societal changes is profound. Children raised in environments where fathers are absent or uninvolved often suffer from attachment trauma, leading to issues such as self-harm, educational struggles, and increased likelihood of incarceration. The decline in family structure and the rise of single-parent households have created a lineage of decline, where children are less equipped to manage their lives and relationships. This decline is not just a personal issue but a societal one, as communities with high rates of single motherhood and absent fathers face significant challenges, including increased crime and poverty.

The political implications of these issues are significant. Laws such as no-fault divorce further undermine the family unit, allowing one partner to break promises made to another without considering the impact on children. The state intervenes in personal relationships, often to the detriment of the child, who suffers from the fallout of parental separation. The data shows that children from divorced families often face worse outcomes in terms of emotional health, education, and overall well-being. This suggests that the current legal framework is failing to protect the interests of children, leading to a cycle of decline that affects future generations. What is needed is a legal approach that prioritises the well-being of children and supports families in maintaining their commitments to one another.

Education, marriage, and trauma therapy are crucial in saving a marriage and protecting the heart of the child. We can raise individuals to a higher level, but the challenge lies in learning how to love. When the child is protected, they can thrive. Sometimes, it takes a few months to achieve this, allowing the child to be happy with both parents instead of suffering from attachment trauma, which can affect their ability to marry and stay married later in life. Emotions such as loneliness, anger, and resentment often arise in these situations. The child may feel lonely while the mother is busy and the father is preoccupied with building a new life with a new partner.

In society today, we see an increase in loneliness and anger, particularly among children of divorced parents. Approximately 25 percent of married couples with children end in divorce, while cohabiting parents have even higher rates. This loneliness can lead to various issues, including addictions as children attempt to bury the pain of loss. We are witnessing troubling trends, such as increased alcohol consumption among young girls, which was less common in previous generations. Hospital wards are now overloaded with various problems stemming from these emotional traumas.

The question arises: does a politician have the right to allow one parent to walk away from their child? There is no justification in natural law for a politician to dictate that a child must suffer a worse life because of adult decisions. Politicians often do not run on platforms addressing divorce laws, yet they introduce policies that can harm children. The issue of no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage reflects a broader theme where adult desires take precedence over the well-being of children, fracturing their attachment to biological parents and leading to social decay.

As we become accustomed to these policies, we must consider the implications for children. The state allows the buying and selling of children, a practice we thought we had abandoned centuries ago. The idea that a child can be separated from their biological parent and suffer attachment trauma is concerning. Children often realise they have been sold or separated from their biological parents, leading to feelings of abandonment and emotional distress. Reports indicate that many children express that they were never consulted about these decisions, highlighting the neglect of their voices in favour of adult desires.

The data shows that children raised in communities with same-sex parents may face higher rates of emotional and behavioural issues. If a community were solely composed of same-sex parents, it could quickly decline into chaos, unlike a heterosexual marriage that has historically sustained civilisations across generations. The trauma experienced by children in these situations can lead to increased rates of depression, drug use, and crime. The focus should be on the child's well-being, rather than the desires of adults.

Furthermore, the state imposes education about same-sex relationships on children, regardless of their interest or inclination. This is particularly troubling when considering that the majority of children may not wish to learn about these topics. Forcing such education upon them can lead to feelings of violation and confusion. The data indicates that children exposed to these teachings may experience higher rates of partner violence, depression, and other issues. The government’s involvement in this area often results in worse outcomes for children, contradicting the very purpose of education.

The question remains: does a politician have the right to mandate that children study same-sex sexuality? The answer is no, yet this is happening in schools. Children are told that their religious beliefs are bigoted if they oppose such teachings, which can lead to a disconnect between them and their faith. This decline in religious adherence among children is concerning, as it often results from the imposition of laws that do not prioritise the well-being of the child. Marriage has traditionally been a place where the well-being of children is safeguarded, but this understanding is being eroded.

As same-sex marriage becomes more prevalent, we see a decline in heterosexual marriages, as the focus shifts from child welfare to adult desires. The traditional understanding of marriage as a protective institution for children is being lost. More children are ending up in cohabiting situations, which are often unstable and lead to higher rates of separation and emotional distress. Politicians have overstepped their bounds by denying the majority the right to a definition of marriage that prioritises the well-being of biological children.

As we move towards a society where children are viewed as commodities, we must confront the implications of this shift. The rise of euthanasia and the commodification of human life reflect a troubling trend. We are becoming increasingly consumer-oriented regarding human existence. This trajectory raises significant ethical questions about the future of our society and the treatment of individuals as mere products.

Disappearing from society, there is no longer any basis for understanding gender solely through the body. This leads to a fundamental lack of connection, resulting in a bleak future for society. If we continue down this path, we will face dire consequences. The life of many transgender individuals can be quite appalling; it is often lonely and filled with challenges. Many struggle to build families, face depression, and encounter health problems, leading to a significantly higher suicide rate. We must question the narrative that transitioning will lead to happiness for children, as the reality is often a fruitless existence.

This situation violates the principle of mind-body unity. When politicians create laws based on transgender theory, they destroy the very fabric of society. The implications of allowing men to compete against women undermine the progress made for women's rights. Biological sciences are suffering as research is increasingly suppressed due to the constraints of transgender ideology. Sociology departments have already faced destruction due to similar ideologies, and now we see the same threat to biological sciences. Everything that this ideology touches seems to be destroyed, as it lacks the energy to bond with anything naturally good.

When we examine the data on children declaring transgender identities, we find a troubling trend. Many of these children are misdiagnosing their psychological struggles as gender dysphoria. For instance, at the Tavistock Institute in England, a significant percentage of children referred for gender identity issues are actually autistic. Autistic children often struggle to socialise with their peers, leading them to misinterpret their feelings and identify with the opposite sex. This misdiagnosis is compounded by trauma, such as experiences of rape, leading some to believe that changing their gender could protect them from further harm.

The data indicates that many children who experience gender confusion often resolve their issues by the time they reach puberty, provided they are left alone. Studies show that around 80% of these children no longer identify as the opposite gender after a period of maturation. However, current laws prevent these children from receiving the counselling they need to understand their feelings. Instead, they are rushed into medical interventions that may not address their underlying issues, leading to irreversible consequences.

In 2018, thousands of children were referred to the Tavistock Institute, with many being declined treatment due to mental instability. Those who did receive treatment were often given puberty blockers and other interventions without adequate consideration of their mental health. Staff members at the institute have expressed concerns about the pressure to push these children into medical transitions. The lack of proper counselling means that many children are left to navigate their confusion without support, leading to further trauma and instability.

The current cultural war highlights the divide between those who see the harm being done to children and those who advocate for adult desires. With a significant percentage of children growing up in single-parent homes and facing various societal issues, the consequences of these policies are becoming increasingly evident. The state continues to pass laws that prioritise adult desires over the well-being of children, which is fundamentally wrong. Parents should be sacrificing for their children, not the other way around. It is concerning that expressing this viewpoint is becoming more difficult in today's society, as it challenges the prevailing narratives surrounding gender and family.

Ultimately, we must recognise that the promotion of certain ideologies in schools often leads to the separation of children from their biological parents. This is a troubling trend that prioritises adult rights over the well-being of children. Those who speak out against this are often labelled as harmful or hateful, creating a culture where the damage done to children is overlooked in favour of adult desires. It is crucial to advocate for the protection of children and to challenge the ideologies that threaten their well-being.

People are leaving religions that teach them to sacrifice for their children and are joining those that suggest sacrificing children for adult desires. This shift dooms our cultures to decay. The current teaching implies that it's acceptable for adults to harm children, and that the trauma inflicted on children is tolerable. By accepting this, we are told we will build a better society, and anyone who disagrees is labelled as intolerant. The Christian faith, however, teaches that it is not acceptable to sacrifice a child of God for adult desires, yet this belief is now branded as hate speech. Those who advocate for the destruction of a child's attachment and bond are seen as promoting a healthier approach, which is deeply problematic.

My wife and I strive to provide the best for our children, sacrificing our own happiness when necessary. We understood that if we walked away from each other, our children would suffer far worse. We persevered through difficulties, and I am grateful we stayed together. Many marriages can attest to the same; staying together leads to happier children. This is the essence of the Christian tradition, which has shaped Europe. When we begin to accept that children can be sacrificed for adult happiness, we reverse the order of creation, leading to societal decay. In contrast, some cultures, like Islam, teach the importance of sacrificing for the sake of the child.

Karl Marx introduced a quick fix for social problems, suggesting that by taking away the rights of property owners and redistributing wealth, everyone would become wealthier. However, this approach failed because it eliminated the very people who create wealth. In the West, we improved through a gradual process of lineage development, which led to better education and living conditions over time. Marxism's quick fixes do not address the underlying issues; they merely redistribute wealth without fostering growth or improvement in society.

The Marxist solution to unwanted pregnancies is to eliminate the problem, which only leads to further decay. The natural approach is to raise children with higher standards and values, which takes time and effort. This method ultimately leads to a healthier society. However, Marxism's quick fixes, such as political interventions, interfere with natural development and create more problems. The only way to truly solve social issues is to elevate human beings to a higher level of divinity, rather than relying on government interventions that often lead to societal decay.

For instance, no-fault divorce is a quick fix that fails to address the root causes of marital issues. Instead of helping people build better marriages, it allows for separation, which harms children and society. Today, it is much harder for couples to marry and stay together due to the confusion surrounding relationships. The push for quick fixes, like no-fault divorce, only exacerbates the problems we face.

Many children today struggle with identity issues, often stemming from psychological trauma rather than inherent differences. This is why Marxism is referred to as cultural Marxism; it seeks to intervene politically to solve problems that require deeper understanding and development. As I reflect on my own journey, I recognise that I was initially unaware of the damage done to children in these situations. We cannot allow the notion that children have no right to both biological parents to persist.

The slippery slope of allowing certain interventions, such as euthanasia, leads to broader acceptance and abuse of these practices. In places like Holland, the number of euthanasia cases has skyrocketed, often involving individuals with mental health issues. We must question the motivations behind these decisions, as they can lead to a cycle of decay. In discussions about abortion, for example, advancements in medical technology have made it possible to address many complications without resorting to termination. However, once we open the door to such practices, we risk further erosion of societal values.

Every time we interfere with natural processes through technological interventions, we weaken future generations. Genetic modification and other modern practices could lead to serious long-term consequences. I believe we should strive to remain as natural as possible, trusting that God has cared for us throughout history. When it comes to sexuality and family, we must tread carefully and avoid unnecessary interventions. This is my perspective on these complex issues.