• Who Is Dr Robert Malone?
    Saviour, Traitor, Transhuman Puppet, A Born Self-Confident Freedom Leader Or A Man With A God-Complex?

    Being Nobody, Going Nowhere
    This is long (probably full lengths only in the browser), but my severe accusations about the man’s character deserve proper and thorough investigation and evidence. So don’t rush it. Pick a good time and settle back.

    I said it before, but for my new readers, I say it again: “I do not choose the topics I write about. They choose me.”

    That’s why each of my articles is different and new. If you loved my rant about Malone a few days ago, I am afraid you won’t get the same again. So you can stop reading right now if that’s all you want. I don’t want to waste your time.

    Instead, you will get mostly a very clinical, sometimes slightly sarcastic, cold analysis of Marones's character, sprinkled with small outbursts of anger about how stupid he thinks we are.

    Ironically and unbelievably, even more than last time, he (they - him and Jill) deliver all their self-damaging character assassinations themselves. It is hard to say if it was caused by a complete lack of self-reflection, out-of-control arrogance, God-complex or deliberately and consciously kneeling to their new overlords.

    “The Moraltiy Complex” reads like a character suicide, in my opinion.

    But, of course, only from the “freedom movement” point of view. It is probably precisely the Substack required to convince the new, globalist transhuman-appointed regime to hire him. More betrayal of his dissident followers was requested, and a total submission to the postmodern transhuman narrative theory required.

    The U-turn is mind-blowing.

    But first things first.

    A few days ago, triggered by his Substack, I wrote, “Fuck You, Dr. Robert Malone”, and was blown away by how it resonated so far with thousands of people. After only three days, it almost matches my so far most-read and liked article, Stupid People, in popularity. And the comments, shares and restacks keep coming in. Thank you, everybody, for engaging with this topic.

    I did not expect that. I accidentally hit a raw nerve there.

    But then, it isn’t such a big surprise as the guy wrote his own “Betrayal Substack” right there. All I needed to do was cobble it together and express my outrage.

    And then he backs it up with an even more eye-opening Substack about who he really is, or, maybe more accurately, who he turned into to achieve his new objective, almost like a shape-shifter. He considers himself a high-agency transformational leader and concludes at the end:

    …because high-agency transformational leaders often achieve that which they seek.

    After finishing this article, I concluded that his man is an outright dangerous delusional narcissist based on his writings and conduct. All that matters to him (them) is me, me, me. This article is about himself (themselves) and how capable and amazing they are. It reads like a job application for the new but still globalist transhuman regime.

    He finishes the article with a quote by C.J. Lewis

    Every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different than it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing into a heavenly creature or a hellish creature […]

    There is no doubt in my mind that he is convinced he is turning into a “heavenly creature.” Leaders like that, narcissists with a God-complex, are incredibly dangerous when they get too much power. Beware of this man.

    Of course, this is only my instinctive and partly professional assessment. Each of us will draw our conclusions.

    I base my assessment on three pillars: my professional background, my spiritual background, and my instinct and gut feeling, which have guided me very well through the last five years.

    I am a trained psychotherapist and Hakomi therapist; character assessment is a big part of that. Over the past twenty years, I have also intensively read and studied spiritual leaders, and I practice meditation and self-enquiry daily.

    Through both my psychotherapy training with weekly personal and group therapy sessions and my spiritual work, I got great insight into my own ego structure, including the narcissistic and psychopathic parts I, like most people, have to a certain degree.

    As one of the critical commentators wrote, “It needs one to recognize one,” accusing me of not being different from Malone. He is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, I have these traits but am acutely aware of them. Malone is acutely and unbelievably ignorant about his narcissistic and psychopathic tendencies.

    Many will protest now and say: “Malone a narcissist? Maybe. But a psychopath? Never.”

    Unfortunately, most people’s idea of a psychopath is shaped by extreme versions of it from Hollywood movies and MSM, like serial killers. They think this character trait is the exception rather than the norm. They couldn’t be more wrong. In its much weaker non-violent expressions, it is rampant everywhere in our society. It is often expressed quite differently from what most people expect.

    In Hakomi character theory, the psychopathic character has two expressions: the better-known tough-generous type and the lesser-known charming-manipulative type. I think Malone is both, but mostly the latter.

    What all psychopathic character types have in common, to the surprise of many, is a victim mentality at the core. A psychopath has a profoundly hurt and injured self from early childhood and developed these strategies to protect himself or herself from the perpetrators that caused the injury. Therefore, they feel like victims who defend themselves, and this is used to justify, depending on the degree of the injury, almost every cruel, harsh or manipulative act against others.

    The “victim response” against his early critiques and attackers (suing Breggins) raised the first red flag for me and made me suspicious. In my opinion, a robust and balanced man doesn’t need to run to the courts to “defend his reputation” or restrict comments to paying subscribers.

    Anyway, each of us has to decide about his character, which seems very hard to grasp for most people. However, as I learned from the many comments, something in him irks people mightily and makes them distrust him instinctively, without much evidence. But we got a lot of evidence in the past few days - from the man himself.

    Who would know Dr. Malone better than Dr. Malone himself and, of course, his wife, Jill? To compensate for injured self-love, it is the hallmark of a narcissist to over-compensate in a need for public adoration and love.

    Let’s hear what the man says and judge him based on that.

    Why do I feel entitled to judge him? With great power comes great responsibility; if he gets things wrong, we will suffer the consequences.

    I am sick and tired of our leaders in general and their narcissistic, selfish abuse of the mandates they have been given by trusting people to better their lives.

    Why pick on him? I don’t only pick on him.

    I frequently criticize so-called dissident leaders and influencers who disappoint me and make me feel betrayed. For example, I wrote about Dr. McCullough, the No. 1 sell-out here and here. Very popular Trump-cock-sucker Jeff Childers is also trying very hard to get my attention.

    Some commentators said I am ungrateful because both Dr Malone and Dr McCullough were instrumental in turning the mass formation psychosis around.

    I fully agree, and I am very grateful for what they did at the time. But that is in the past. They were rewarded for it numerous times. They got famous for it and, in my opinion, couldn’t handle it.

    In my opinion, we have a new, much less obvious mass formation psychosis going on right now, and both support it. It is called Trump-Mania, and Trump will fix it.

    I know many of you will believe in Trump, and I might be proven wrong, but I am convinced that even if he wanted, he can’t. The system is too far gone, and the transhuman globalists are too powerful. As you will see below, Malone himself just converted to their ideology.

    And Trump is in their pocket, as I have written before, months before he was elected, in Trump Reveals He Is Pro-Israel And Pro-Globalist.

    This opinion brings me no joy. I wish nothing more but that I am proven wrong and that Trump puts the deep-state bureaucracy and the globalists in their place. But until then (if it happens), let’s not be stupid and naive and watch carefully.

    Ok, let’s dig into it, shall we?

    Let’s start with Jill, the quiet ghost behind the big man.

    We don’t talk a lot about her, do we? It is always him despite him making no secret that she is part of it, as in the first sentence of his latest article:

    Sometimes, someone will ask me how Jill and I accomplish everything that we do.

    Behind Every Great Man is a Woman Rolling Her Eyes: An Ode to Women's ...
    That wasn’t the simple original quote I was after (“Behind every successful man is a woman”), but I couldn’t find it anymore on Google Images. Interestingly, it has been replaced with all sorts of weird and crazy variations. Anyway, this will do.

    So, who is Jill? We should also ask that if we ask, “Who is Malone”? I think they come in a team, and my hunch is that she had a lot of input in that last article. I just felt that needs to be acknowledged to understand the man better. I have zero knowledge about her at all. She is like a ghost in the background to me, but she matters. Anyone?

    Then, the title:

    The Morality Paradox

    Immediately, what comes up for me is this: For a true leader who knows his true self and, with it, his ego self intimately, morality will never be a paradox, something that can flip-flop or change with intellectual considerations.

    A true and “good” leader must have a solid spiritual (not religious - beware of that) foundation and know who he is. From that foundation, all speech and actions flow spontaneously, without intellectual considerations, and a deep ethic and morality, based on first do no harm, is given and flows naturally. It will never be a paradox. Being “shifty” and “evasive” are not part of their psychological makeup. That’s why we instinctively trust them and instinctively don’t trust those who don’t have it, which, sadly, is the norm these days.

    I know. I am setting a very high bar for Mr. Malone; millions of our leaders don’t pass it. But that’s precisely why we are in this ethical and moral mess right now. Someone who knows his true self and ego self will be very watchful about his or her ego temptations. And even more importantly, she or he will show great humility.

    I find humility in all great spiritual masters and leaders who are spiritually (not religious) based. Sadly, once again, only Mahatma Gandhi comes to mind. Nelson Mandela, maybe? Surely, there must be some others. Help me out if you can in the comments.

    Next, the photo. A picture says more than a thousand words.


    There are no coincidences. Everything is chosen, mostly unconsciously.

    What does this photo express to you? Humility?

    There is, in my opinion, the narcissist right there, bathing in the attentions and adoration of the crowd and the smiling females taking photos. He looks so pleased with himself, doesn’t he?

    And so in charge and competent.

    There are not one but two screens, with adoring listeners at his feet. I see a benevolent, patriarchal-looking father figure with a biblical beard looking down on his flock. Humility, I see none.

    But as I said, that’s just me with my biases, history, and psychological responses. I am not saying whatever I say here is the “truth” about this man. I am sure there are many who love and adore the man as he stands there.

    As my mother used to say: “There is a lid for every pot.”

    And no, I checked myself. I am not jealous, as some commentators suggested. I do not want what he has or want to be him—not one bit. I admit that the only thing I would love to have is his many paying subscribers.

    But I also understand that this is not possible as long as I write as I write. To be successful in this world, we have to rub shoulders, make moral and ethical compromises, and try not to offend people.

    Over the years, I have had thousands of subscribers, but I tend to lose most again because something I write always offends somebody, and egos are fragile.

    I am terrible at writing in a style that is not offensive and will please most subscribers. And I don’t want to be a leader in action or “thought.” I want people to think and act for themselves because I believe that this insane and intense “leadership, influencer and “follower” culture” is at the core of our vastly eroding democracy and freedom.

    Over the years, people have been trained into good puppy dogs that consume and work and let a few do all the thinking and ruling.

    But I also get other great rewards from my writing, so I am becoming increasingly content with how it is. Sorry, I digress, back to the Malones.

    Jill and Robert have chosen to send this image as a message, and that’s how he likes to come across: a loved and admired leader “above”. Not only physically but intellectually as well. Most of the article talks about what a high-achieving, high-agency alpha leader he is.

    But there is more to it. His technological and intellectual expertise is also communicated. He sells himself as biblical and patriarchal but also modern and “high-agency,” smart and intelligent.

    Now, there is nothing wrong with that. We all sell our persona to some extent, consciously and unconsciously. We all want to matter, get ahead and be liked. But do you trust this behaviour of selling yourself?

    As rightly pointed out many times by C.J. Hopkins , GloboCap's dominance has turned everything into a commodity, even our character and image, especially for public figures. These days, it’s all images, perceptions, and stories with no real substance anymore.

    The words

    Sometimes, someone will ask me how Jill and I accomplish everything that we do. That is, travel about a third of each month, broadcast on TV and podcasts, write this substack, write books, write articles for other journals, garden, take care of our 20 horses, birds, dogs, and the farm, maintain a certain level of fitness, all the while taking care of our bodies and eating right

    Message: We are high achievers. They do not mention (in this post) that they have the finances to employ people to run the farm and probably other services, but they are undoubtedly very industrious.

    Once again, there is nothing wrong with that. That is the American Way of Life—work hard to get ahead. It is also a requirement for any government job he likes to get, so he is sending the right message. Does that make him a good, trustworthy leader? Maybe.

    It is a lot, and we aren’t perfect. Things often fall through the cracks, emails get missed, […] ..most of the time, we work hard, don’t slack, and we work long hours. We do it because we enjoy it.

    Okay, that's believable. But maybe also because we are “ambitious” and “want to get ahead”? That is left out.

    Then, they write mostly negatively about “being goal orientated.”

    Goal-oriented people are often rule followers. This is why so many physicians fell into the COVIDcrisis narrative. […] It can be taught, but also requires certain character traits, such as compliance with rules, attention to detail, self-control, the ability to work long hours, and a commitment to the long-term goal - whatever that may be.

    I am lost to the exact logic and correlation between focusing on a goal and following rules. I trained and worked as a goal-setting life coach for several years, helping people define, set, and achieve personal goals.

    The following rules didn’t feature at all, so why do they mention it? I believe we are getting “narrative-d” to create a certain character they like to dress themselves in.

    They want to be seen as rule-breakers, dissidents, agents of change - not rule followers.

    In my biased assessment, they want to distance themselves from being “only” goal-orientated people, often a synonym for “ambitious people”.

    They make it clear that they are much more than mere rule-following, goal-oriented people:

    Jill and I also consider ourselves to be high-agency.

    That sounds very dynamic and sophisticated to me, no doubt. But also a tick elitist. What is high-agency, you may ask.

    High-agency is a trendy new term coined by Eric Weinstein. A search on Pubmed revealed no scientific or case studies that used the term as described by the popular press and media. This is no surprise, as the psychology profession is full of paradigms that typically materialize from their dogmas. Those paradigm shifts outside that dogma are rarely embraced and often denigrated, along with those who propose them. […]

    Wow - it is not only a trendy new term or idea; it is already a whole “paradigm shift”, seemingly created by one man: Eric Weinstein.

    I can’t help but feel they want to manipulate the “narrative” even more in their favour.

    I had no idea that one man could create " paradigm shifts " so quickly and single-handedly. But English is my 2nd language, so I must have misunderstood the term. Let’s look it up “paradigm shift”:

    noun A radical change in thinking from an accepted point of view to a new one, necessitated when new scientific discoveries produce anomalies in the current paradigm. (Source)

    Hmm, that's not precisely what they refer to. Quite the opposite, as they admitted that “there are zero scientific research or case studies” on it. It is also not a radical change because, as they later described it, it “contains” goal-setting. It is just an extension, and to call it a paradigm shift seems like a huge exaggeration.

    So, why am I nitpicking this? Because it sends several underlying pretentious messages:

    “We are using cutting-edge paradigm-shifting methods.”

    “We are still dissidents - we are way ahead of the dogmatic psychological profession that denigrates us for using that cutting-edge stuff.”

    Then, they use an AI bot to define “High Agency”.

    Message: AI is good and nothing to worry about. Transhuman philosophy.

    AI bot “Brave” tells us that

    High Agency refers to an individual’s ability to shape their own destiny, bend reality to their will, and exert control over their life and work. It involves recognizing that the limitations and constraints imposed by others are merely stories, and that one has the power to rewrite those narratives.

    It can’t get any more postmodern than this.

    “Bend reality to their will” and limitations are “merely stories” that one has the power to rewrite. Translation: Our opinion and truth are just a story that they can overwrite with their will. Thanks, but no. I do not consent.

    This is the philosophy that gave us wokeness, trans-gender acceptance, and 5th-generation psyop - all based on the belief there is no underlying truth; everything is just a story we believe that can be changed on pure will and so forth.

    This is right out of the WEF transhuman playbook of Israeli Yuval Noah Harari telling us that all we are is “hackable animals.”

    The cognitive dissonance for them must be pretty mind-bending.

    On the one hand, they sign up for godless transhuman philosophy; on the other hand, they are making their Substack followers believe that they are God-fearing, homesteading, conservative, good-old Christians.

    Or is the latter just old news, and they have moved on, entirely focusing on getting that job and showing the new globalist regime that they are totally on board with it?

    Just asking.

    If they get that job, maybe they won’t need the Christians anymore; perhaps they won’t need the Substack anymore, either.

    Just speculating.

    And maybe they don’t need their old, very close friends anymore either?

    Like Mattias Desmet, who just recently dissected the transhuman Harari and blamed the underlying rational-materialistic worldview for the transhuman soulless life all around us.

    They definitely seem to be using their new paradigm-shifting superpowers to bend the will of the new administration to hire him.

    But maybe I am just jealous, too paranoid or confused and read too much into this.

    Let’s examine their new “reality-bending” superpowers. By signing up for “high agency,” they acquired many outstanding attributes.

    People with High Agency are characterized by their:

    Authenticity: They stay true to themselves, unapologetically pursuing their goals and values.

    Intentionality: They set clear goals and take deliberate action to achieve them, rather than simply reacting to circumstances.

    Proactivity: They don’t wait for opportunities to arise; they create their own, often finding innovative solutions to overcome obstacles.

    Discipline: They prioritize their goals and make sacrifices to achieve them, demonstrating self-control and perseverance.

    Resourcefulness: They adapt and improvise, leveraging available resources to overcome challenges and achieve their objectives.

    Orthogonal Thinking: They challenge conventional wisdom, asking questions that look at problems from unconventional angles and finding novel solutions.

    Resilience: They bounce back from setbacks and failures, using them as opportunities for growth and learning.

    Like a coin, there are always two sides to anything. This sounds great if you want to get things done quickly and without asking anybody else. Applied to your own life, it might be a good tool to have.

    But in public service? Affecting the destiny of millions of people? To me, it doesn’t sound overly democratic. But that’s just me.

    “Unapolgetically pursuing their goals”

    “Set clear goals” (I thought that was oh so old paradigm?)

    “Creating their own opportunities.” (Doesn’t sound like serving the people)

    “Very self-controlled and disciplined.” (Head-in-the-sand, no-matter-what?)

    “Challenging conventional wisdom” (Like common sense?)

    “And finding novel solutions” (Like vaccinating the whole world with an untested substance and smearing and prohibiting common sense treatments?)

    “Bouncing back from setbacks and failures” (like doubling and tripling down on their novel solutions?)

    Of course, this is a highly subjective assessment, but I do not want a leader with those attributes.

    It sounds creepy and lacks positive human qualities like love, compassion, grief, understanding, communication, consent, etc. This, for me, is creepy transhuman and robotic ideals based on a postmodern soulless philosophy by a programmed AI robot. And it is will-based with the individual at the centre. What can go wrong?

    But the Malones love it.

    Why wouldn’t anyone work to become more high-agency? To pursue their goals and values at all costs- full speed ahead? High-agency people work to reinvent a narrative given to them to change outcomes. They get things done. They set out to do the impossible.

    At all cost? Full speed? As a democratic leader?

    Sorry, I am running out of polite words: Fuck off, will you?

    They go on endorsing and explaining and selling the “high agency” narrative, which is nothing else but transhuman postmodern philosophy repacked in a new term.

    They also suddenly love billionaires and quote Jeff Bezos as a high agency buddy.

    They show fancy graphs and rebrand the “useless eaters” as “working bees”, and you guessed right, the working bees are all low-agency people. Not on the same level as them. I am not kidding:

    Low-agency people accept the narrative; they are complacent and tend to outsource decision-making to others.

    Do we now? We “outsourced” the decisions to be coerce-injected and locked away in our houses. Fuck you, Malone.

    But even the Malones realise that this old, repacked postmodern narrative theory can lead to unethical and morally questionable behaviour.

    High-agency may be great for getting things done, but there can be a morally repugnant element to the behavior and characteristics of high-agency people. This element deserves closer examination. People who exhibit high-agency characteristics, whether learned as an adult or instilled since childhood, tend to ignore ethical mores. They just charge ahead, disregarding obstacles, including ethical concerns. They often operate from within a utilitarian framework; in other words, one in which the ends are believed to justify the means. High-agency behaviors can also lead to a decrease or loss of empathy because the need to achieve an objective becomes a higher priority than taking other’s needs into account when making decisions. The deterioration or loss of empathy can lead to sociopathic behavior.

    Not saying? I think we just witnessed that over the past four years.

    And gullible and stupid people just voted in another sociopathic president - not that there was any alternative except making a no-vote statement.

    Many people who hire talent based on high-agency behavior profiles claim that it is essential also to identify those who exhibit integrity in addition to high-agency.

    I can’t see how this is possible - postmodern high agency and integrity simultaneously. They exclude each other. Integrity means

    the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles that you refuse to change

    Integrity is based on knowing and living your more profound truth. It is lightyears away from seeing everything as a narrative that can be changed and bent whenever necessary. In my opinion, they have no clue what they are talking about. They are throwing catchy new terms around to please postmodern-inclined people and might impress their awe-jawed fans.

    But the truth is, integrity is an easy trait to mimic. Who doesn’t know that person who goes to church each Sunday and yet has a history of abusiveness, unethical business, or political practices?

    So true.

    Who doesn’t know people who pretend to be Christians and sign up for utopian transhuman philosophies?

    Or people who pretend to be dissidents and fight authoritarian overreach and then suck up to them to get a job?

    Or people who pretend to be against vaccines and then endorse and refuse to criticise appointed pro-vax mainstream doctors because they will be colleagues soon?

    It never stops to amaze me how so-called intelligent people can have such an utter lack of self-reflection.

    It is incredibly hilarious how they describe these high-agency pitfalls but are blissfully ignorant about themselves. We are zooming in on something called a God-complex. “We, the Malones, can do no wrong.”

    When combined with talent, this “can do” attitude means that high-agency people understand that the world needs to believe that they are people of high integrity. It is a character trait that, at least on a resume, is important.

    I can’t believe what I am reading here. Can it get any more cynical?

    “The world needs to believe that they (we) are people of high integrity”.

    They are not saying, “We have integrity."

    In the narrative-based postmodern world, that’s not needed anymore. It is enough if we convince people “to believe we have integrity. " Integrity is also not required to be executed in real life. As long as it is on the resume and believed, all is sweet with the high-agency people.

    Fuck me.

    And yet, manipulative behaviors are often employed by those with a high-agency behavior pattern. Unfortunately, those with high-agency profiles can be very good at camouflaging such tactics.

    If people are stupid enough, definitely. But anyone with two brain cells left can see through all your gibberish and feel how shifty and insincere you are.

    The truth is that high-agency people are highly desired in business because they can inspire others, motivate others, get people to buy into their new narrative, and create change and opportunity.

    In a fucked-up Globocap society, no doubt. No integrity or morality is needed anymore in our “new normal” transhuman society, where everyone becomes God, shaping and bending their own narratives, meaning, do what they want “unapolligetically” no matter the cost and with full speed ahead.

    Sound lovely.

    Finally, the jump to “We, the Malones, are a different breed of high-agency people, of course. We are morally super-clean.”

    First, the “careful preparation”, excuse me, “narrtive bending”.

    Not all people with high-agency behavioral profiles choose to go down this path. […] Many very independent thinkers and doers have high agency, and in many cases, they just have prioritized different elements in their lives, such as freedom of action and thought or independence from a bureaucratic system.

    Ok. Here we go. Still, suggesting they are dissidents who seek “independence from the bureaucratic system” (while begging to be employed by the same system) can effectively use postmodern high-agency power against the said system. Is it kind of like double agents infiltrating the system to beat it with its own powers?

    Mr. Malone never lacked self-confidence and self-belief, didn’t he? I guess high-agency superpowers help.

    High-agency people are often transformational leaders.

    Hear, hear.

    Unfortunately, transformational leaders are often prone to narcissistic tendencies, which can lead to a cult-like following.

    Not saying? But that wouldn’t be you, right?

    It is the ability of the high-agency person to manipulate others while setting aside any moral qualms in their quest to achieve an objective that can make them dangerous to be around.

    Hmm

    Determining whether a high-agency person is worthy of trust and support can become a constant high-stakes guessing game until sufficient time has elapsed and experience accumulated.

    Let me break it to you. More than “sufficient time” has elapsed for me. Thanks to your insightful Substack, I can now make a very informed decision.

    I fucking don’t trust you one bit. Your persuasive narrative-bending powers somehow didn’t work on me.

    And that’s despite being a very low-agency person who " outsources its decision-making” to people like you. Maybe you have to tweak “the narrative” a bit more and use more fancy words. Or whatever.

    “But hang on”, he says. “You can trust me. I am not one of them bad high agency people. I am a good one.”

    For myself, I am high-agency much of the time, but I temper that with a high moral compass.

    It is so lovely of you to reassure me about that, Robert.

    But, firstly, I came to the spontaneous conclusion that “your narrative” is full of horse shit, that you are blind as a bat about yourself, and that I don’t trust you, no matter what new narrative about yourself you throw at me.

    I saw enough, and I heard enough.

    Secondly, if someone has a high moral compass, it is not assessed by the person himself but by others who observe what you say and do. And that doesn’t look like a high moral compass to me.

    You just promised all sorts of great things would happen for six months to your “followers” if they voted for Trump and then redacted it all in one big swoop and performed a “reality calibration.”

    You did that to get in Trump’s good books and to try to buy yourself a job with the votes of your followers.

    And you now side with the people you apparently fought against, and you refused to criticize pro-vax mainstream people because you don’t want to jeopardize your own job prospects.

    Do you call that integrity and a high moral compass?

    Maybe it is in your new postmodern worldview where you just bent this narrative to your liking.

    But how stupid do you think we are?

    You are too clever for your own good, Mr. Malone and just shot yourself into the kneecap - twice - and told the whole world who you really are. A self-disillusioned fraudster with a God complex. That’s at least what I think you are. Get lost.

    “But hang on, you don’t understand me. I am not only of highest moral standard, I am also humble and don’t allow my followers to adore me as the God-like figure I am.”

    However, I am human; I recognize how easily a conflict of interest can seem like a moral imperative.

    He will make an excellent politician. He already talks like one. “A conflict of interest can seem like a moral imperative.” Let me break it to you. In the world where I grew up, a conflict of interest is a moral imperative.

    In myself, it is why I reject the adoration sometimes displayed towards me.

    Visible in the photo you chose for this article.

    I recognize how easily it is to manipulate others, how easy it could be to fall into support for developing a cult of personality around my actions and narrative, and I chose not to do so.

    I also know it when I see it.

    Do you? In yourself? Maybe there is hope, then. Let’s hear about your self-reflection.

    Recently, I have become aware of a person whom I consider a friend who has chosen to barrel down this path towards fame, and it fills me with sadness. I watch from afar the cult-like behavior of the followers that are being actively cultivated, and I grieve for my friend. My trust in this friend as a person may have been misplaced.

    Not saying.

    Yes, such behaviour is straightforward to spot in other people, isn’t it?

    Other-reflection is a breeze.

    Self-reflection, facing our ego's ugly, unconscious sides, is almost impossible without proper spiritual work. Or deep psychological work with an outstanding, highly alert and no-bullshit therapist (very rare). And even then, the narcissistic personality responds extremely poorly to classic psychotherapy.

    This only leaves the third way to know ourselves: The suffering our narcissistic actions will unavoidably cause us. The slow and painful learning through suffering.

    And he is already sensing it.

    We all face so many tests, so many trials and tribulations, and in some cases, the crucible of time (and transient fame) can either transform a person into porcelain or decisions made and paths chosen may compromise integrity and soul. Such is life.

    The fall comes after the arrogance. Sometimes, we want something that we are not ready for to please our ego or somebody else’s ego.

    Fame and power are enormous temptations for the ego, inflating it beyond comprehension, and not many can handle them with humility and grace. The ego needs a solid spiritual foundation, knowing who we really are and what really matters.

    To me, sadly, the man failed dramatically. But I don’t matter. The new regime will love him, of that I am sure.

    As an ordinary human being, I wish him luck and peace. He will be humane again when reality and life disillusion him from his superiority complex. Maybe some Christians can pray for him?

    I don’t hate the man; I don’t think he is a bad person. That doesn’t mean he can’t do a lot of damage.

    Therefore, as a leader, I don’t want him. Full stop.

    The road to hell is plastered with “good meaning“ but self-ignorant people, and he doesn’t seem to have the right advisors around him who have the skills to break it to him. The opposite appears to be the case.

    But there is always the possibility that I am deluded and paranoid and live to eat my words. Time will tell.

    Share

    Leave a comment

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-152376708
    Who Is Dr Robert Malone? Saviour, Traitor, Transhuman Puppet, A Born Self-Confident Freedom Leader Or A Man With A God-Complex? Being Nobody, Going Nowhere This is long (probably full lengths only in the browser), but my severe accusations about the man’s character deserve proper and thorough investigation and evidence. So don’t rush it. Pick a good time and settle back. I said it before, but for my new readers, I say it again: “I do not choose the topics I write about. They choose me.” That’s why each of my articles is different and new. If you loved my rant about Malone a few days ago, I am afraid you won’t get the same again. So you can stop reading right now if that’s all you want. I don’t want to waste your time. Instead, you will get mostly a very clinical, sometimes slightly sarcastic, cold analysis of Marones's character, sprinkled with small outbursts of anger about how stupid he thinks we are. Ironically and unbelievably, even more than last time, he (they - him and Jill) deliver all their self-damaging character assassinations themselves. It is hard to say if it was caused by a complete lack of self-reflection, out-of-control arrogance, God-complex or deliberately and consciously kneeling to their new overlords. “The Moraltiy Complex” reads like a character suicide, in my opinion. But, of course, only from the “freedom movement” point of view. It is probably precisely the Substack required to convince the new, globalist transhuman-appointed regime to hire him. More betrayal of his dissident followers was requested, and a total submission to the postmodern transhuman narrative theory required. The U-turn is mind-blowing. But first things first. A few days ago, triggered by his Substack, I wrote, “Fuck You, Dr. Robert Malone”, and was blown away by how it resonated so far with thousands of people. After only three days, it almost matches my so far most-read and liked article, Stupid People, in popularity. And the comments, shares and restacks keep coming in. Thank you, everybody, for engaging with this topic. I did not expect that. I accidentally hit a raw nerve there. But then, it isn’t such a big surprise as the guy wrote his own “Betrayal Substack” right there. All I needed to do was cobble it together and express my outrage. And then he backs it up with an even more eye-opening Substack about who he really is, or, maybe more accurately, who he turned into to achieve his new objective, almost like a shape-shifter. He considers himself a high-agency transformational leader and concludes at the end: …because high-agency transformational leaders often achieve that which they seek. After finishing this article, I concluded that his man is an outright dangerous delusional narcissist based on his writings and conduct. All that matters to him (them) is me, me, me. This article is about himself (themselves) and how capable and amazing they are. It reads like a job application for the new but still globalist transhuman regime. He finishes the article with a quote by C.J. Lewis Every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different than it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing into a heavenly creature or a hellish creature […] There is no doubt in my mind that he is convinced he is turning into a “heavenly creature.” Leaders like that, narcissists with a God-complex, are incredibly dangerous when they get too much power. Beware of this man. Of course, this is only my instinctive and partly professional assessment. Each of us will draw our conclusions. I base my assessment on three pillars: my professional background, my spiritual background, and my instinct and gut feeling, which have guided me very well through the last five years. I am a trained psychotherapist and Hakomi therapist; character assessment is a big part of that. Over the past twenty years, I have also intensively read and studied spiritual leaders, and I practice meditation and self-enquiry daily. Through both my psychotherapy training with weekly personal and group therapy sessions and my spiritual work, I got great insight into my own ego structure, including the narcissistic and psychopathic parts I, like most people, have to a certain degree. As one of the critical commentators wrote, “It needs one to recognize one,” accusing me of not being different from Malone. He is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, I have these traits but am acutely aware of them. Malone is acutely and unbelievably ignorant about his narcissistic and psychopathic tendencies. Many will protest now and say: “Malone a narcissist? Maybe. But a psychopath? Never.” Unfortunately, most people’s idea of a psychopath is shaped by extreme versions of it from Hollywood movies and MSM, like serial killers. They think this character trait is the exception rather than the norm. They couldn’t be more wrong. In its much weaker non-violent expressions, it is rampant everywhere in our society. It is often expressed quite differently from what most people expect. In Hakomi character theory, the psychopathic character has two expressions: the better-known tough-generous type and the lesser-known charming-manipulative type. I think Malone is both, but mostly the latter. What all psychopathic character types have in common, to the surprise of many, is a victim mentality at the core. A psychopath has a profoundly hurt and injured self from early childhood and developed these strategies to protect himself or herself from the perpetrators that caused the injury. Therefore, they feel like victims who defend themselves, and this is used to justify, depending on the degree of the injury, almost every cruel, harsh or manipulative act against others. The “victim response” against his early critiques and attackers (suing Breggins) raised the first red flag for me and made me suspicious. In my opinion, a robust and balanced man doesn’t need to run to the courts to “defend his reputation” or restrict comments to paying subscribers. Anyway, each of us has to decide about his character, which seems very hard to grasp for most people. However, as I learned from the many comments, something in him irks people mightily and makes them distrust him instinctively, without much evidence. But we got a lot of evidence in the past few days - from the man himself. Who would know Dr. Malone better than Dr. Malone himself and, of course, his wife, Jill? To compensate for injured self-love, it is the hallmark of a narcissist to over-compensate in a need for public adoration and love. Let’s hear what the man says and judge him based on that. Why do I feel entitled to judge him? With great power comes great responsibility; if he gets things wrong, we will suffer the consequences. I am sick and tired of our leaders in general and their narcissistic, selfish abuse of the mandates they have been given by trusting people to better their lives. Why pick on him? I don’t only pick on him. I frequently criticize so-called dissident leaders and influencers who disappoint me and make me feel betrayed. For example, I wrote about Dr. McCullough, the No. 1 sell-out here and here. Very popular Trump-cock-sucker Jeff Childers is also trying very hard to get my attention. Some commentators said I am ungrateful because both Dr Malone and Dr McCullough were instrumental in turning the mass formation psychosis around. I fully agree, and I am very grateful for what they did at the time. But that is in the past. They were rewarded for it numerous times. They got famous for it and, in my opinion, couldn’t handle it. In my opinion, we have a new, much less obvious mass formation psychosis going on right now, and both support it. It is called Trump-Mania, and Trump will fix it. I know many of you will believe in Trump, and I might be proven wrong, but I am convinced that even if he wanted, he can’t. The system is too far gone, and the transhuman globalists are too powerful. As you will see below, Malone himself just converted to their ideology. And Trump is in their pocket, as I have written before, months before he was elected, in Trump Reveals He Is Pro-Israel And Pro-Globalist. This opinion brings me no joy. I wish nothing more but that I am proven wrong and that Trump puts the deep-state bureaucracy and the globalists in their place. But until then (if it happens), let’s not be stupid and naive and watch carefully. Ok, let’s dig into it, shall we? Let’s start with Jill, the quiet ghost behind the big man. We don’t talk a lot about her, do we? It is always him despite him making no secret that she is part of it, as in the first sentence of his latest article: Sometimes, someone will ask me how Jill and I accomplish everything that we do. Behind Every Great Man is a Woman Rolling Her Eyes: An Ode to Women's ... That wasn’t the simple original quote I was after (“Behind every successful man is a woman”), but I couldn’t find it anymore on Google Images. Interestingly, it has been replaced with all sorts of weird and crazy variations. Anyway, this will do. So, who is Jill? We should also ask that if we ask, “Who is Malone”? I think they come in a team, and my hunch is that she had a lot of input in that last article. I just felt that needs to be acknowledged to understand the man better. I have zero knowledge about her at all. She is like a ghost in the background to me, but she matters. Anyone? Then, the title: The Morality Paradox Immediately, what comes up for me is this: For a true leader who knows his true self and, with it, his ego self intimately, morality will never be a paradox, something that can flip-flop or change with intellectual considerations. A true and “good” leader must have a solid spiritual (not religious - beware of that) foundation and know who he is. From that foundation, all speech and actions flow spontaneously, without intellectual considerations, and a deep ethic and morality, based on first do no harm, is given and flows naturally. It will never be a paradox. Being “shifty” and “evasive” are not part of their psychological makeup. That’s why we instinctively trust them and instinctively don’t trust those who don’t have it, which, sadly, is the norm these days. I know. I am setting a very high bar for Mr. Malone; millions of our leaders don’t pass it. But that’s precisely why we are in this ethical and moral mess right now. Someone who knows his true self and ego self will be very watchful about his or her ego temptations. And even more importantly, she or he will show great humility. I find humility in all great spiritual masters and leaders who are spiritually (not religious) based. Sadly, once again, only Mahatma Gandhi comes to mind. Nelson Mandela, maybe? Surely, there must be some others. Help me out if you can in the comments. Next, the photo. A picture says more than a thousand words. There are no coincidences. Everything is chosen, mostly unconsciously. What does this photo express to you? Humility? There is, in my opinion, the narcissist right there, bathing in the attentions and adoration of the crowd and the smiling females taking photos. He looks so pleased with himself, doesn’t he? And so in charge and competent. There are not one but two screens, with adoring listeners at his feet. I see a benevolent, patriarchal-looking father figure with a biblical beard looking down on his flock. Humility, I see none. But as I said, that’s just me with my biases, history, and psychological responses. I am not saying whatever I say here is the “truth” about this man. I am sure there are many who love and adore the man as he stands there. As my mother used to say: “There is a lid for every pot.” And no, I checked myself. I am not jealous, as some commentators suggested. I do not want what he has or want to be him—not one bit. I admit that the only thing I would love to have is his many paying subscribers. But I also understand that this is not possible as long as I write as I write. To be successful in this world, we have to rub shoulders, make moral and ethical compromises, and try not to offend people. Over the years, I have had thousands of subscribers, but I tend to lose most again because something I write always offends somebody, and egos are fragile. I am terrible at writing in a style that is not offensive and will please most subscribers. And I don’t want to be a leader in action or “thought.” I want people to think and act for themselves because I believe that this insane and intense “leadership, influencer and “follower” culture” is at the core of our vastly eroding democracy and freedom. Over the years, people have been trained into good puppy dogs that consume and work and let a few do all the thinking and ruling. But I also get other great rewards from my writing, so I am becoming increasingly content with how it is. Sorry, I digress, back to the Malones. Jill and Robert have chosen to send this image as a message, and that’s how he likes to come across: a loved and admired leader “above”. Not only physically but intellectually as well. Most of the article talks about what a high-achieving, high-agency alpha leader he is. But there is more to it. His technological and intellectual expertise is also communicated. He sells himself as biblical and patriarchal but also modern and “high-agency,” smart and intelligent. Now, there is nothing wrong with that. We all sell our persona to some extent, consciously and unconsciously. We all want to matter, get ahead and be liked. But do you trust this behaviour of selling yourself? As rightly pointed out many times by C.J. Hopkins , GloboCap's dominance has turned everything into a commodity, even our character and image, especially for public figures. These days, it’s all images, perceptions, and stories with no real substance anymore. The words Sometimes, someone will ask me how Jill and I accomplish everything that we do. That is, travel about a third of each month, broadcast on TV and podcasts, write this substack, write books, write articles for other journals, garden, take care of our 20 horses, birds, dogs, and the farm, maintain a certain level of fitness, all the while taking care of our bodies and eating right Message: We are high achievers. They do not mention (in this post) that they have the finances to employ people to run the farm and probably other services, but they are undoubtedly very industrious. Once again, there is nothing wrong with that. That is the American Way of Life—work hard to get ahead. It is also a requirement for any government job he likes to get, so he is sending the right message. Does that make him a good, trustworthy leader? Maybe. It is a lot, and we aren’t perfect. Things often fall through the cracks, emails get missed, […] ..most of the time, we work hard, don’t slack, and we work long hours. We do it because we enjoy it. Okay, that's believable. But maybe also because we are “ambitious” and “want to get ahead”? That is left out. Then, they write mostly negatively about “being goal orientated.” Goal-oriented people are often rule followers. This is why so many physicians fell into the COVIDcrisis narrative. […] It can be taught, but also requires certain character traits, such as compliance with rules, attention to detail, self-control, the ability to work long hours, and a commitment to the long-term goal - whatever that may be. I am lost to the exact logic and correlation between focusing on a goal and following rules. I trained and worked as a goal-setting life coach for several years, helping people define, set, and achieve personal goals. The following rules didn’t feature at all, so why do they mention it? I believe we are getting “narrative-d” to create a certain character they like to dress themselves in. They want to be seen as rule-breakers, dissidents, agents of change - not rule followers. In my biased assessment, they want to distance themselves from being “only” goal-orientated people, often a synonym for “ambitious people”. They make it clear that they are much more than mere rule-following, goal-oriented people: Jill and I also consider ourselves to be high-agency. That sounds very dynamic and sophisticated to me, no doubt. But also a tick elitist. What is high-agency, you may ask. High-agency is a trendy new term coined by Eric Weinstein. A search on Pubmed revealed no scientific or case studies that used the term as described by the popular press and media. This is no surprise, as the psychology profession is full of paradigms that typically materialize from their dogmas. Those paradigm shifts outside that dogma are rarely embraced and often denigrated, along with those who propose them. […] Wow - it is not only a trendy new term or idea; it is already a whole “paradigm shift”, seemingly created by one man: Eric Weinstein. I can’t help but feel they want to manipulate the “narrative” even more in their favour. I had no idea that one man could create " paradigm shifts " so quickly and single-handedly. But English is my 2nd language, so I must have misunderstood the term. Let’s look it up “paradigm shift”: noun A radical change in thinking from an accepted point of view to a new one, necessitated when new scientific discoveries produce anomalies in the current paradigm. (Source) Hmm, that's not precisely what they refer to. Quite the opposite, as they admitted that “there are zero scientific research or case studies” on it. It is also not a radical change because, as they later described it, it “contains” goal-setting. It is just an extension, and to call it a paradigm shift seems like a huge exaggeration. So, why am I nitpicking this? Because it sends several underlying pretentious messages: “We are using cutting-edge paradigm-shifting methods.” “We are still dissidents - we are way ahead of the dogmatic psychological profession that denigrates us for using that cutting-edge stuff.” Then, they use an AI bot to define “High Agency”. Message: AI is good and nothing to worry about. Transhuman philosophy. AI bot “Brave” tells us that High Agency refers to an individual’s ability to shape their own destiny, bend reality to their will, and exert control over their life and work. It involves recognizing that the limitations and constraints imposed by others are merely stories, and that one has the power to rewrite those narratives. It can’t get any more postmodern than this. “Bend reality to their will” and limitations are “merely stories” that one has the power to rewrite. Translation: Our opinion and truth are just a story that they can overwrite with their will. Thanks, but no. I do not consent. This is the philosophy that gave us wokeness, trans-gender acceptance, and 5th-generation psyop - all based on the belief there is no underlying truth; everything is just a story we believe that can be changed on pure will and so forth. This is right out of the WEF transhuman playbook of Israeli Yuval Noah Harari telling us that all we are is “hackable animals.” The cognitive dissonance for them must be pretty mind-bending. On the one hand, they sign up for godless transhuman philosophy; on the other hand, they are making their Substack followers believe that they are God-fearing, homesteading, conservative, good-old Christians. Or is the latter just old news, and they have moved on, entirely focusing on getting that job and showing the new globalist regime that they are totally on board with it? Just asking. If they get that job, maybe they won’t need the Christians anymore; perhaps they won’t need the Substack anymore, either. Just speculating. And maybe they don’t need their old, very close friends anymore either? Like Mattias Desmet, who just recently dissected the transhuman Harari and blamed the underlying rational-materialistic worldview for the transhuman soulless life all around us. They definitely seem to be using their new paradigm-shifting superpowers to bend the will of the new administration to hire him. But maybe I am just jealous, too paranoid or confused and read too much into this. Let’s examine their new “reality-bending” superpowers. By signing up for “high agency,” they acquired many outstanding attributes. People with High Agency are characterized by their: Authenticity: They stay true to themselves, unapologetically pursuing their goals and values. Intentionality: They set clear goals and take deliberate action to achieve them, rather than simply reacting to circumstances. Proactivity: They don’t wait for opportunities to arise; they create their own, often finding innovative solutions to overcome obstacles. Discipline: They prioritize their goals and make sacrifices to achieve them, demonstrating self-control and perseverance. Resourcefulness: They adapt and improvise, leveraging available resources to overcome challenges and achieve their objectives. Orthogonal Thinking: They challenge conventional wisdom, asking questions that look at problems from unconventional angles and finding novel solutions. Resilience: They bounce back from setbacks and failures, using them as opportunities for growth and learning. Like a coin, there are always two sides to anything. This sounds great if you want to get things done quickly and without asking anybody else. Applied to your own life, it might be a good tool to have. But in public service? Affecting the destiny of millions of people? To me, it doesn’t sound overly democratic. But that’s just me. “Unapolgetically pursuing their goals” “Set clear goals” (I thought that was oh so old paradigm?) “Creating their own opportunities.” (Doesn’t sound like serving the people) “Very self-controlled and disciplined.” (Head-in-the-sand, no-matter-what?) “Challenging conventional wisdom” (Like common sense?) “And finding novel solutions” (Like vaccinating the whole world with an untested substance and smearing and prohibiting common sense treatments?) “Bouncing back from setbacks and failures” (like doubling and tripling down on their novel solutions?) Of course, this is a highly subjective assessment, but I do not want a leader with those attributes. It sounds creepy and lacks positive human qualities like love, compassion, grief, understanding, communication, consent, etc. This, for me, is creepy transhuman and robotic ideals based on a postmodern soulless philosophy by a programmed AI robot. And it is will-based with the individual at the centre. What can go wrong? But the Malones love it. Why wouldn’t anyone work to become more high-agency? To pursue their goals and values at all costs- full speed ahead? High-agency people work to reinvent a narrative given to them to change outcomes. They get things done. They set out to do the impossible. At all cost? Full speed? As a democratic leader? Sorry, I am running out of polite words: Fuck off, will you? They go on endorsing and explaining and selling the “high agency” narrative, which is nothing else but transhuman postmodern philosophy repacked in a new term. They also suddenly love billionaires and quote Jeff Bezos as a high agency buddy. They show fancy graphs and rebrand the “useless eaters” as “working bees”, and you guessed right, the working bees are all low-agency people. Not on the same level as them. I am not kidding: Low-agency people accept the narrative; they are complacent and tend to outsource decision-making to others. Do we now? We “outsourced” the decisions to be coerce-injected and locked away in our houses. Fuck you, Malone. But even the Malones realise that this old, repacked postmodern narrative theory can lead to unethical and morally questionable behaviour. High-agency may be great for getting things done, but there can be a morally repugnant element to the behavior and characteristics of high-agency people. This element deserves closer examination. People who exhibit high-agency characteristics, whether learned as an adult or instilled since childhood, tend to ignore ethical mores. They just charge ahead, disregarding obstacles, including ethical concerns. They often operate from within a utilitarian framework; in other words, one in which the ends are believed to justify the means. High-agency behaviors can also lead to a decrease or loss of empathy because the need to achieve an objective becomes a higher priority than taking other’s needs into account when making decisions. The deterioration or loss of empathy can lead to sociopathic behavior. Not saying? I think we just witnessed that over the past four years. And gullible and stupid people just voted in another sociopathic president - not that there was any alternative except making a no-vote statement. Many people who hire talent based on high-agency behavior profiles claim that it is essential also to identify those who exhibit integrity in addition to high-agency. I can’t see how this is possible - postmodern high agency and integrity simultaneously. They exclude each other. Integrity means the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles that you refuse to change Integrity is based on knowing and living your more profound truth. It is lightyears away from seeing everything as a narrative that can be changed and bent whenever necessary. In my opinion, they have no clue what they are talking about. They are throwing catchy new terms around to please postmodern-inclined people and might impress their awe-jawed fans. But the truth is, integrity is an easy trait to mimic. Who doesn’t know that person who goes to church each Sunday and yet has a history of abusiveness, unethical business, or political practices? So true. Who doesn’t know people who pretend to be Christians and sign up for utopian transhuman philosophies? Or people who pretend to be dissidents and fight authoritarian overreach and then suck up to them to get a job? Or people who pretend to be against vaccines and then endorse and refuse to criticise appointed pro-vax mainstream doctors because they will be colleagues soon? It never stops to amaze me how so-called intelligent people can have such an utter lack of self-reflection. It is incredibly hilarious how they describe these high-agency pitfalls but are blissfully ignorant about themselves. We are zooming in on something called a God-complex. “We, the Malones, can do no wrong.” When combined with talent, this “can do” attitude means that high-agency people understand that the world needs to believe that they are people of high integrity. It is a character trait that, at least on a resume, is important. I can’t believe what I am reading here. Can it get any more cynical? “The world needs to believe that they (we) are people of high integrity”. They are not saying, “We have integrity." In the narrative-based postmodern world, that’s not needed anymore. It is enough if we convince people “to believe we have integrity. " Integrity is also not required to be executed in real life. As long as it is on the resume and believed, all is sweet with the high-agency people. Fuck me. And yet, manipulative behaviors are often employed by those with a high-agency behavior pattern. Unfortunately, those with high-agency profiles can be very good at camouflaging such tactics. If people are stupid enough, definitely. But anyone with two brain cells left can see through all your gibberish and feel how shifty and insincere you are. The truth is that high-agency people are highly desired in business because they can inspire others, motivate others, get people to buy into their new narrative, and create change and opportunity. In a fucked-up Globocap society, no doubt. No integrity or morality is needed anymore in our “new normal” transhuman society, where everyone becomes God, shaping and bending their own narratives, meaning, do what they want “unapolligetically” no matter the cost and with full speed ahead. Sound lovely. Finally, the jump to “We, the Malones, are a different breed of high-agency people, of course. We are morally super-clean.” First, the “careful preparation”, excuse me, “narrtive bending”. Not all people with high-agency behavioral profiles choose to go down this path. […] Many very independent thinkers and doers have high agency, and in many cases, they just have prioritized different elements in their lives, such as freedom of action and thought or independence from a bureaucratic system. Ok. Here we go. Still, suggesting they are dissidents who seek “independence from the bureaucratic system” (while begging to be employed by the same system) can effectively use postmodern high-agency power against the said system. Is it kind of like double agents infiltrating the system to beat it with its own powers? Mr. Malone never lacked self-confidence and self-belief, didn’t he? I guess high-agency superpowers help. High-agency people are often transformational leaders. Hear, hear. Unfortunately, transformational leaders are often prone to narcissistic tendencies, which can lead to a cult-like following. Not saying? But that wouldn’t be you, right? It is the ability of the high-agency person to manipulate others while setting aside any moral qualms in their quest to achieve an objective that can make them dangerous to be around. Hmm Determining whether a high-agency person is worthy of trust and support can become a constant high-stakes guessing game until sufficient time has elapsed and experience accumulated. Let me break it to you. More than “sufficient time” has elapsed for me. Thanks to your insightful Substack, I can now make a very informed decision. I fucking don’t trust you one bit. Your persuasive narrative-bending powers somehow didn’t work on me. And that’s despite being a very low-agency person who " outsources its decision-making” to people like you. Maybe you have to tweak “the narrative” a bit more and use more fancy words. Or whatever. “But hang on”, he says. “You can trust me. I am not one of them bad high agency people. I am a good one.” For myself, I am high-agency much of the time, but I temper that with a high moral compass. It is so lovely of you to reassure me about that, Robert. But, firstly, I came to the spontaneous conclusion that “your narrative” is full of horse shit, that you are blind as a bat about yourself, and that I don’t trust you, no matter what new narrative about yourself you throw at me. I saw enough, and I heard enough. Secondly, if someone has a high moral compass, it is not assessed by the person himself but by others who observe what you say and do. And that doesn’t look like a high moral compass to me. You just promised all sorts of great things would happen for six months to your “followers” if they voted for Trump and then redacted it all in one big swoop and performed a “reality calibration.” You did that to get in Trump’s good books and to try to buy yourself a job with the votes of your followers. And you now side with the people you apparently fought against, and you refused to criticize pro-vax mainstream people because you don’t want to jeopardize your own job prospects. Do you call that integrity and a high moral compass? Maybe it is in your new postmodern worldview where you just bent this narrative to your liking. But how stupid do you think we are? You are too clever for your own good, Mr. Malone and just shot yourself into the kneecap - twice - and told the whole world who you really are. A self-disillusioned fraudster with a God complex. That’s at least what I think you are. Get lost. “But hang on, you don’t understand me. I am not only of highest moral standard, I am also humble and don’t allow my followers to adore me as the God-like figure I am.” However, I am human; I recognize how easily a conflict of interest can seem like a moral imperative. He will make an excellent politician. He already talks like one. “A conflict of interest can seem like a moral imperative.” Let me break it to you. In the world where I grew up, a conflict of interest is a moral imperative. In myself, it is why I reject the adoration sometimes displayed towards me. Visible in the photo you chose for this article. I recognize how easily it is to manipulate others, how easy it could be to fall into support for developing a cult of personality around my actions and narrative, and I chose not to do so. I also know it when I see it. Do you? In yourself? Maybe there is hope, then. Let’s hear about your self-reflection. Recently, I have become aware of a person whom I consider a friend who has chosen to barrel down this path towards fame, and it fills me with sadness. I watch from afar the cult-like behavior of the followers that are being actively cultivated, and I grieve for my friend. My trust in this friend as a person may have been misplaced. Not saying. Yes, such behaviour is straightforward to spot in other people, isn’t it? Other-reflection is a breeze. Self-reflection, facing our ego's ugly, unconscious sides, is almost impossible without proper spiritual work. Or deep psychological work with an outstanding, highly alert and no-bullshit therapist (very rare). And even then, the narcissistic personality responds extremely poorly to classic psychotherapy. This only leaves the third way to know ourselves: The suffering our narcissistic actions will unavoidably cause us. The slow and painful learning through suffering. And he is already sensing it. We all face so many tests, so many trials and tribulations, and in some cases, the crucible of time (and transient fame) can either transform a person into porcelain or decisions made and paths chosen may compromise integrity and soul. Such is life. The fall comes after the arrogance. Sometimes, we want something that we are not ready for to please our ego or somebody else’s ego. Fame and power are enormous temptations for the ego, inflating it beyond comprehension, and not many can handle them with humility and grace. The ego needs a solid spiritual foundation, knowing who we really are and what really matters. To me, sadly, the man failed dramatically. But I don’t matter. The new regime will love him, of that I am sure. As an ordinary human being, I wish him luck and peace. He will be humane again when reality and life disillusion him from his superiority complex. Maybe some Christians can pray for him? I don’t hate the man; I don’t think he is a bad person. That doesn’t mean he can’t do a lot of damage. Therefore, as a leader, I don’t want him. Full stop. The road to hell is plastered with “good meaning“ but self-ignorant people, and he doesn’t seem to have the right advisors around him who have the skills to break it to him. The opposite appears to be the case. But there is always the possibility that I am deluded and paranoid and live to eat my words. Time will tell. Share Leave a comment https://substack.com/home/post/p-152376708
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Who Is Dr Robert Malone?
    Saviour, Traitor, Transhuman Puppet, A Born Self-Confident Freedom Leader Or A Man With A God-Complex?
    Angry
    1
    0 Commentaires 0 Parts 33449 Vue
  • Look WHO’s in the Classroom
    Hugh McCarthy
    Herein I explore the extent of the WHO’s intrusion into the sphere of education which it appears to be using as a strategy for the delivery of its child sex agenda.

    The process to legislate the amended form of Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) into the school curriculum has seen the diversion of much-needed administrative and teaching time and resources away from education fundamentals such as reading and numeracy, the standards of both of which have fallen alarmingly. The decline in reading and numeracy standards caused by the impact of Covid-related policies has seen the UK achieve its worst standards since 2006 and the US the worst in its history.

    Curriculum Councils, which should be spending time reflecting on how reading and numeracy losses can be clawed back and how to successfully incorporate new technologies such as A1 or other valuable aspects of school provision, are instead spending time debating the content and time allocation of an RSE curriculum.

    Reading and numeracy drive a young person’s ability to be involved in society and play a vital role in enhancing their self-esteem. Children with low reading ability inevitably are close to the bottom of their class with inevitable consequences for how they feel about themselves and this leads them to adopt behaviours to enhance their self-esteem leading to a downward spiral in their education and their future prospects. Fundamental literacy and numeracy enables people to achieve independence through making their own decisions and thereby their economic well-being.

    Reading in particular directly impacts a person’s ability to earn a living and indeed to keep themselves safe, whilst numeracy directly impacts on a person’s capacity to earn money and, according to the OECD, affects the GDP of the nation. Prospective investors want a well-educated workforce capable of following technical and technological instructions.

    For many teachers and educationalists seeking guidance on this issue, the first port of call will be the WHO guidance. Many education bodies either use the material directly or link to it. The WHO, which as its name implies is centrally involved with health, now seems to be directing its health policy through schools.

    They have produced two documents, which are available HERE and HERE.

    The documents set out what it considers is age-appropriate sex and gender education for 5–16 year-olds.

    Since research shows that children usually seek the approval of the teacher and can be very influenced by what the teacher says and does, and especially young children, a teacher can play a key role in shaping what a young child believes, it is therefore very important that what is passed on in the classroom is suitable.

    The WHO approach to gender and to sexual education is considered below, starting with the approach to gender which is encapsulated by two statements:

    “(the WHO) responds to contemporary global challenges through education with a special focus on gender equality.”

    “Sexuality education is firmly based on self-determination and the acceptance of diversity.”

    The guidance makes these assertions without due regard to, for example, religious beliefs which would oppose them. The guidance normalizes attitudes and beliefs with which many profoundly disagree and which it is not part of the WHO remit and represents a wholly inappropriate intrusion into an individual’s belief systems.

    The first the guidance given for ages 6–9 recommends a curriculum content that includes:

    Sexual intercourse, gender orientation, and sexual behaviour of young people
    Differences between gender identity and biological sex
    For ages 9–12, the curriculum content includes:

    Gender identity and sexual orientation, including coming out and homosexuality
    whilst the second publication, in the

    Learning objectives for 5–8-year-olds Learners will be able to:

    define gender and biological sex and describe how they are different
    reflect on how they feel about their biological sex and gender
    The documents do indicate that the material must be appropriate for the “social and cultural norms of the society” but this appears in the small print when set alongside the 80+ pages promoting the ideology.

    Actually, education can only be understood in its wider cultural, historical, and philosophical context and this is being ignored by the policy-makers.

    Teaching requires empathy with, and knowledge of, the cultural norms of the society. This is clear in the teaching of history, geography, religion, language, and sport e.g. in N.I where 42% of the schools are maintained by the Catholic Church and 49% by the state and, because of our historical context, have Protestant Church representatives on their Governing body. Schools’ approach to teaching provision must be in line with the ethoi of the two religions and their associated national identities. Clearly this also applies to Islamic and Hindu schools.

    This is why the WHO also states that a “one size fits all approach is not appropriate.”

    N. Ireland legislation refers to the requirement to meet the spiritual needs of the children and the WHO guidance does indeed recognise the role of the churches.

    “Faith-based organizations can provide guidance to programme developers and providers on how to approach discussion about sexual health and sexuality education. Acting as models, mentors, and advocates, religious leaders are ambassadors for faith communities that value young people’s well-being.”

    The role of the churches in managing schools in the N. Ireland system is enshrined in legislation and spirituality is a requirement of our legislative framework.

    But church views appear to be ignored when they are actually expressed.

    In his book, Transgender, Reverend Vaughan Roberts sets out a Christian perspective, in what amounts to a statement of church policy, the former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Rt. Rev. Charles McMullen, writes: “The distinction between the sexes is increasingly being undermined especially in schools, where the concept of gender fluidity is often promoted.”

    Roberts speaks of the “profound insecurity” and anxiety of many young people as they are being asked now to consider their gender. He says “We will always be insecure if our identity is based on something within us. An identity in Christ could not be more secure.”

    Whilst the Roman Catholic church expresses its view thus:

    “In every major democratic jurisdiction, issues such as abortion, gender bioethics, human sexuality, are highly contested scientific and ethical issues, subject to democratic debate and shifting electoral and legislative positions.”

    The Islamic stance on this is very much like the traditional Christian stance. There are only two genders. Only heterosexual relations are allowed. So far in Arab countries, they are not approaching this issue in schools because it will most definitely lead to a huge outcry from church and parents. Many Christian Lebanese families have decided to leave Canada and go back to Lebanon (with all the insecurities that this engenders) because they want to protect their children from this destructive agenda.

    However, there is still a belief that sex education is relevant only in the West, whereas it can infringe on traditional Indian values, and so the orthodox Hindu community in India still opposes government and private attempts to provide sexuality education. And in Sri Lanka the leaders of the Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Moslem faiths have joined together to oppose government plans to introduce similar legislation.

    In the next section the WHO’s approach to sexuality education is discussed. It is summed up by the statement:

    “A child is understood to be a sexual being from the beginning.”

    The basis for this is explained in the section entitled ‘Psychosexual development of children’ and argues the need for an early start of sexuality education. Psychology, especially developmental psychology, they claim, purports to show that children are born as sexual beings. This approach is then transferred into education, school, and the classroom via the guidelines offered to teachers.

    The guidance given for ages 6–9 recommends a curriculum content which includes:

    Sexual intercourse, gender orientation, and sexual behaviour of young people
    Enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body (masturbation/self-stimulation, orgasm)
    For ages 9–12, the curriculum content includes:

    How to enjoy sexuality in an appropriate way
    First sexual experience
    Pleasure, masturbation, orgasm
    Whilst in the International Technical Guidance the learning objectives for 5–8-year-olds state that learners will be able to:

    identify the critical parts of the internal and external, genitals and describe their basic function
    and for 9–12-year-olds learners will be able to describe:

    what sexually explicit media (pornography) and sexting are;
    male and female responses to sexual stimulation (knowledge); explain that many boys and girls begin to masturbate during puberty or sometimes earlier (knowledge);
    The guidance also refers to teaching the material in an interactive way. I am at a loss to know how this can be done without graphic images and a led discussion taking place.

    It clearly establishes a culture and sets out a norm for what is acceptable to teach young children.

    And the guidance goes further; it also provides detailed guidance for the teaching of RSE.

    The material is set out in skills, knowledge, and attitudinal sections and is presented in an educational format.

    the content of the RSE curriculum
    the learning objectives, under this heading is set out for each age what children should learn
    the age at which that content should be taught
    the methodology ie. how it should be taught teach – e.g. by discussion, self-learning, reflection, visual aids and, worryingly, interactivity and
    expounds on pedagogical teaching theory
    This is an alarming intrusion into the education sphere and is openly seeking to affect the child’s belief system.

    This is not suitable material for a prepubescent child, nor is it appropriate for a classroom. Children who are reluctant to reveal that they do not understand maths or science are somehow expected to reveal that they do not know whether they are a boy or a girl and to discuss their own body and the bodies of their classmates. As mentioned earlier children usually seek the approval of the teacher and can be very influenced by what the teacher says and does. This is especially true for young children. Teachers, and what happens in the classroom can play a key role in shaping what a young child believes.

    It is therefore very important that what is passed on in the classroom and the school is suitable.

    As COHERE, Finland’s National Medical Body, says, young children, whose brains are still maturing, lack the ability to properly assess the consequences of making decisions they will have to live with for the rest of their lives and recommends that gender transition should be postponed until adulthood.

    In addition, the guidance says that this is to be done in an interactive way, presumably using visual aids. So very young children may well be shown the genitalia of the opposite sex and pornography as well as being taught very controversial and disputed ideas around gender.

    Some of the books being used are wholly unsuitable for young children, containing graphic images that at another time would be designated as pornography and/or child abuse. Worryingly, school and public libraries are stocking such books, therefore providing easy access for children.

    And even if it should be taught, the WHO advises that well-trained, supported, and motivated teachers play a key role in the delivery of high-quality CSE/RSE. At the very heart of sexuality education is the competence of the educators.

    But it goes on to say that lack of training should not prevent the programme.

    As outlined above the teacher can play a key role in what a child believes. Teacher training therefore plays a crucial role in what the teacher transmits in the classroom. Teachers are now being offered training materials promoting the concepts of transgenderism and LGBTU. Indeed the influential Irish Teachers Union has training and developing materials as part of its summer programme containing a very alarming video.

    And, worryingly, the influential Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) has prepared a teacher training resource entitled Creating an LGBT+ inclusive school. This was part of INTO’s Professional Development Summer Course Programme 2023, in which schoolteachers were advised to “change their language and lessons to make them trans/gender non-confirming inclusive.”

    The course also tells primary school teachers that they should “be prepared to ‘challenge attitudes,’ introduce transgenderism to Junior Infants, and get children to challenge their own beliefs on issues around gender.” It also offers advice on “social transitioning,” and children are encouraged to debate whether boys and girls should only wear clothes from the boys and girls section of shops. It further develops the theme that transgender children find happiness when living as “their true selves.”

    The area of sexuality, gender, and gender transitioning is highly disputed. In England, the National Health Service guidelines have been redrafted to remind doctors that children may simply be going through a “transient phase” when they say they want to change sex. The guidelines recommend a clinical management approach to explore all developmentally appropriate options for children and young people who are experiencing gender incongruence.

    Furthermore, an NHS-commissioned report by Dr Hilary Cass warned that allowing children to “socially transition” could “have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning” and “better information was needed about outcomes.” The report also highlights the uncertainty around the evidence relating to the use of puberty blockers. It is not able to provide definitive advice on the use of puberty blockers and feminising/masculinising hormones at this stage, due to gaps in the evidence base.”

    In the US Professor McHugh, Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins concurs:

    “There are significant gaps in the research and evidence base.”

    He asserts affirming children in a false gender can cause real damage, and if one does not affirm trans identity: 98% of gender-confused boys and 88% of gender-confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

    The studies show that at least 80% of children lose their gender distress over time.

    A report by American public health expert Dr Lisa Littman reveals that gender distress appears at or after the onset of puberty, often following online immersion and transgender identity declarations among school friends (commonly referred to as Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria). The study’s purpose was to investigate a population of individuals who experienced gender dysphoria, transitioned, and then detransitioned, many of the subjects coming to the view that their gender dysphoria was caused by something specific such as trauma, abuse, or a mental health condition. The majority felt that they had not received an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting their transition. “More research is needed,” Dr Littman concluded.

    Much of the promotion of this agenda promotes the idea that children who transition lead more fulfilling lives, but the evidence says otherwise.

    Emerging research by Professor McPherson that “puberty blockers may heighten the risk of mental health problems in transgender youth.”

    Peer-reviewed research by Eriksen et al found that:

    only 6% of the 103 studies on RSE programmes found any positive evidence of effectiveness,
    overall, there is more evidence of harm than of positive outcomes from such programmes.
    87% of RSE had failed in its primary purposes,
    instead there was a decrease in condom use
    And an increase

    in sexual activity
    in number of partners,
    oral sex, forced sex,
    STDs and pregnancies.
    A Swedish study, which compared sex-reassigned individuals to the random population, found that sex-reassigned transsexual individuals had poorer outcomes in terms of suicide, and crime.

    Clearly any advice or suggestion may have a lifetime impact on the young child. There is a grave danger of messing with a child’s mind and the last person to do this in this delicate situation is an untrained person dabbling in matters of which they know little.

    The WHO document further states that an effective programme Involves experts on human sexuality, behaviour change, and related pedagogical theory. In this context, I have grave concerns about some of the advice being offered to schools.

    It appears that many of the groups are self-appointed experts engaged in promoting their own agenda/belief system and I am very concerned about the phrase behavioural change which by definition means changes in behaviour – reflect on that in the context of asking a child to consider whether they are a boy or a girl or inviting them to wear the clothes of the other gender. Pedagogical teaching theory is not the role of the WHO.

    Many of the groups are unaccredited and lack teaching expertise and worryingly the content of the sessions is not pre-approved by either the Principal or the Board of Governors nor presented with the permission or knowledge of parents. Much of the content amounts to clear propaganda on the part of the organisation – they are formed to self-promote so it is hardly surprising that this is what they do in schools.

    The educational environment in which schools operate is heavily weighted with promotional material and material directed at Principals and Governors amounts to strong pressure to conform.

    Thus even though Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says “it is at the school’s discretion to implement the contents of the curriculum according to its values and ethos,” the N.Ireland Department of Education website, an obvious source for Headteachers, provides material that goes well beyond information provision and sounds more like promotion. It refers to schools being ‘positively welcoming to all, whatever their identity.’ It goes on to say that schools should “increase the visibility of transgender young people by supporting pupils in setting up a Gender and Sexual Orientation Alliance or introducing transgender role models.”

    We are placing great pressure on our children, and this comes after the mental issues caused by the Covid policy debacle, where we are seeing record numbers of children awaiting appointments with the NHS for mental health issues, the worst attendance on record, and behavioural issues at an all-time high. Now we are confusing them with gender issues.

    Education requires an atmosphere conducive to learning and cannot take place in an atmosphere of fear and anxiety, or where the child is filled with worry over one of the biggest things in their being – their gender.

    The same agenda is being promoted in many Western Countries and provoking resistance and a huge rise in homeschooling.

    On a global level, there appears to be no clear articulation of what education is for, who or what does it serve, nor what schools are to teach.

    Are we to teach values, skills, or knowledge? If so, what are those values?

    Is education for

    the pursuit of learning
    intellectual self-reflection
    a gateway to higher education
    to prepare people for the world of work
    to solve society’s ills whether it is climate, vandalism, health, or whatever the latest world crisis appears to be?
    It seems to me that whatever the most recent issue becomes a matter for schools.

    Who does education serve, who are the stakeholders?

    Parents, business, politicians, churches, governors, politicians, children?

    A disarming lack of clarity enables pressure groups to impose their agenda on schools.

    Conclusion

    It is right that schools pass on broad moral and spiritual values; these values will include respect, tolerance, and caring for others. It seems to me however that the RSE issue appears to be the driving culture in some schools to the marginalisation of other more vital components of the roles of schools. Children are being forced to accept this culture which surrounds the actions of the school. Much guidance from the authorities speaks of promoting the culture. This is far removed from providing information.

    Countries through their education systems are pressing ahead, seemingly in lockstep. The education environment in which schools exist is a confused one with the authorities promoting the ideology whilst many of the key stakeholders in schools object e.g. despite the opposition of the churches and 74% of the public who voted against their introduction in the official consultation. N.Ireland is pressing ahead with its introduction.

    The guidance is being presented as a fact – and clearly imposes a thought train on any teacher or administrator who refers to the guidance and crucially ignores some very important, though lightly dealt with conditional clauses. The documents reference the importance of respecting cultural and social norms, the importance of parents, the importance of trained teachers, the rights of teachers, the role of the churches, the paramountcy of the ethos of the school, the rights and role of parents, and that one-size-fits-all approach does not work. Yet what is presented is a straightjacket setting out in great detail what is to be taught.

    The WHO appears to be attempting to displace the spiritual guidance of faith, setting itself as the educationalist and replacing parents as the provider of guidance on moral issues. It is deciding what is age-appropriate and when is age-appropriate.

    Driven by global interest, it seems to me to be well beyond the remit of the WHO, which appears to be using education as a strategy for delivering its globalist agenda. Education, because of its multifaceted nature and purposes, must not become a subset of health nor a means of driving policies for political purposes.

    Surely education at its best is a powerful tool for empowerment and a beacon for a ‘liberal education’ that exists for its own sake, as something of value in itself for the moral and intellectual improvement of the individual, rather than as a tool in the hands of a global education organisation intent on driving its own ideology.

    Socrates and Plato saw the purpose of education as enabling individuals to distinguish between good and evil and between truth and error and to search after wisdom and goodness – if they did this they would be less likely to be tempted by the attractions of wealth power.

    Sadly in the UK, there is little in the incoming Labour government’s manifesto that suggests that education is anything more than utilitarian, one judged by how far it breaks down “the barriers of opportunity,” improves “the life chances of all of our children,” supports the economy, makes young people “ready for work,” and, in the case of universities, brings economic benefits to local communities.

    It remains crucial that parents know their rights and, of course, enforce them, that they know who serves on the school Board of Governors/management committees and who they represent.

    Parents should make themselves familiar with the two WHO documents above.

    And bear in mind that the guidance being used by schools states that “Sexuality education establishes a close cooperation with parents and community in order to build a supportive environment. Parents are involved in sexuality education at school, which means they will be informed before sexuality education takes place and they have the opportunity to express their wishes and reservations.”

    Now is the time to enforce your rights and end this indoctrination of our children. If not now, when?

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Hugh Mccarthy retired as a Headteacher after 23 years in that role. He also lectured in a post graduate leadership course at the University of Ulster. Hugh has served as a director on two of N. Ireland’s major education councils and currently serves as a ministerial appointment on one. He has 50 years of experience in education. He lives just outside Belfast and is married to Lorraine and has 3 sons. Hugh holds a Masters degree with Distinction in Education Financial Management, an Honours degree in Chemistry and a BA in Public Administration.

    View all posts

    https://brownstone.org/articles/look-whos-in-the-classroom/
    Look WHO’s in the Classroom Hugh McCarthy Herein I explore the extent of the WHO’s intrusion into the sphere of education which it appears to be using as a strategy for the delivery of its child sex agenda. The process to legislate the amended form of Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) into the school curriculum has seen the diversion of much-needed administrative and teaching time and resources away from education fundamentals such as reading and numeracy, the standards of both of which have fallen alarmingly. The decline in reading and numeracy standards caused by the impact of Covid-related policies has seen the UK achieve its worst standards since 2006 and the US the worst in its history. Curriculum Councils, which should be spending time reflecting on how reading and numeracy losses can be clawed back and how to successfully incorporate new technologies such as A1 or other valuable aspects of school provision, are instead spending time debating the content and time allocation of an RSE curriculum. Reading and numeracy drive a young person’s ability to be involved in society and play a vital role in enhancing their self-esteem. Children with low reading ability inevitably are close to the bottom of their class with inevitable consequences for how they feel about themselves and this leads them to adopt behaviours to enhance their self-esteem leading to a downward spiral in their education and their future prospects. Fundamental literacy and numeracy enables people to achieve independence through making their own decisions and thereby their economic well-being. Reading in particular directly impacts a person’s ability to earn a living and indeed to keep themselves safe, whilst numeracy directly impacts on a person’s capacity to earn money and, according to the OECD, affects the GDP of the nation. Prospective investors want a well-educated workforce capable of following technical and technological instructions. For many teachers and educationalists seeking guidance on this issue, the first port of call will be the WHO guidance. Many education bodies either use the material directly or link to it. The WHO, which as its name implies is centrally involved with health, now seems to be directing its health policy through schools. They have produced two documents, which are available HERE and HERE. The documents set out what it considers is age-appropriate sex and gender education for 5–16 year-olds. Since research shows that children usually seek the approval of the teacher and can be very influenced by what the teacher says and does, and especially young children, a teacher can play a key role in shaping what a young child believes, it is therefore very important that what is passed on in the classroom is suitable. The WHO approach to gender and to sexual education is considered below, starting with the approach to gender which is encapsulated by two statements: “(the WHO) responds to contemporary global challenges through education with a special focus on gender equality.” “Sexuality education is firmly based on self-determination and the acceptance of diversity.” The guidance makes these assertions without due regard to, for example, religious beliefs which would oppose them. The guidance normalizes attitudes and beliefs with which many profoundly disagree and which it is not part of the WHO remit and represents a wholly inappropriate intrusion into an individual’s belief systems. The first the guidance given for ages 6–9 recommends a curriculum content that includes: Sexual intercourse, gender orientation, and sexual behaviour of young people Differences between gender identity and biological sex For ages 9–12, the curriculum content includes: Gender identity and sexual orientation, including coming out and homosexuality whilst the second publication, in the Learning objectives for 5–8-year-olds Learners will be able to: define gender and biological sex and describe how they are different reflect on how they feel about their biological sex and gender The documents do indicate that the material must be appropriate for the “social and cultural norms of the society” but this appears in the small print when set alongside the 80+ pages promoting the ideology. Actually, education can only be understood in its wider cultural, historical, and philosophical context and this is being ignored by the policy-makers. Teaching requires empathy with, and knowledge of, the cultural norms of the society. This is clear in the teaching of history, geography, religion, language, and sport e.g. in N.I where 42% of the schools are maintained by the Catholic Church and 49% by the state and, because of our historical context, have Protestant Church representatives on their Governing body. Schools’ approach to teaching provision must be in line with the ethoi of the two religions and their associated national identities. Clearly this also applies to Islamic and Hindu schools. This is why the WHO also states that a “one size fits all approach is not appropriate.” N. Ireland legislation refers to the requirement to meet the spiritual needs of the children and the WHO guidance does indeed recognise the role of the churches. “Faith-based organizations can provide guidance to programme developers and providers on how to approach discussion about sexual health and sexuality education. Acting as models, mentors, and advocates, religious leaders are ambassadors for faith communities that value young people’s well-being.” The role of the churches in managing schools in the N. Ireland system is enshrined in legislation and spirituality is a requirement of our legislative framework. But church views appear to be ignored when they are actually expressed. In his book, Transgender, Reverend Vaughan Roberts sets out a Christian perspective, in what amounts to a statement of church policy, the former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Rt. Rev. Charles McMullen, writes: “The distinction between the sexes is increasingly being undermined especially in schools, where the concept of gender fluidity is often promoted.” Roberts speaks of the “profound insecurity” and anxiety of many young people as they are being asked now to consider their gender. He says “We will always be insecure if our identity is based on something within us. An identity in Christ could not be more secure.” Whilst the Roman Catholic church expresses its view thus: “In every major democratic jurisdiction, issues such as abortion, gender bioethics, human sexuality, are highly contested scientific and ethical issues, subject to democratic debate and shifting electoral and legislative positions.” The Islamic stance on this is very much like the traditional Christian stance. There are only two genders. Only heterosexual relations are allowed. So far in Arab countries, they are not approaching this issue in schools because it will most definitely lead to a huge outcry from church and parents. Many Christian Lebanese families have decided to leave Canada and go back to Lebanon (with all the insecurities that this engenders) because they want to protect their children from this destructive agenda. However, there is still a belief that sex education is relevant only in the West, whereas it can infringe on traditional Indian values, and so the orthodox Hindu community in India still opposes government and private attempts to provide sexuality education. And in Sri Lanka the leaders of the Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Moslem faiths have joined together to oppose government plans to introduce similar legislation. In the next section the WHO’s approach to sexuality education is discussed. It is summed up by the statement: “A child is understood to be a sexual being from the beginning.” The basis for this is explained in the section entitled ‘Psychosexual development of children’ and argues the need for an early start of sexuality education. Psychology, especially developmental psychology, they claim, purports to show that children are born as sexual beings. This approach is then transferred into education, school, and the classroom via the guidelines offered to teachers. The guidance given for ages 6–9 recommends a curriculum content which includes: Sexual intercourse, gender orientation, and sexual behaviour of young people Enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body (masturbation/self-stimulation, orgasm) For ages 9–12, the curriculum content includes: How to enjoy sexuality in an appropriate way First sexual experience Pleasure, masturbation, orgasm Whilst in the International Technical Guidance the learning objectives for 5–8-year-olds state that learners will be able to: identify the critical parts of the internal and external, genitals and describe their basic function and for 9–12-year-olds learners will be able to describe: what sexually explicit media (pornography) and sexting are; male and female responses to sexual stimulation (knowledge); explain that many boys and girls begin to masturbate during puberty or sometimes earlier (knowledge); The guidance also refers to teaching the material in an interactive way. I am at a loss to know how this can be done without graphic images and a led discussion taking place. It clearly establishes a culture and sets out a norm for what is acceptable to teach young children. And the guidance goes further; it also provides detailed guidance for the teaching of RSE. The material is set out in skills, knowledge, and attitudinal sections and is presented in an educational format. the content of the RSE curriculum the learning objectives, under this heading is set out for each age what children should learn the age at which that content should be taught the methodology ie. how it should be taught teach – e.g. by discussion, self-learning, reflection, visual aids and, worryingly, interactivity and expounds on pedagogical teaching theory This is an alarming intrusion into the education sphere and is openly seeking to affect the child’s belief system. This is not suitable material for a prepubescent child, nor is it appropriate for a classroom. Children who are reluctant to reveal that they do not understand maths or science are somehow expected to reveal that they do not know whether they are a boy or a girl and to discuss their own body and the bodies of their classmates. As mentioned earlier children usually seek the approval of the teacher and can be very influenced by what the teacher says and does. This is especially true for young children. Teachers, and what happens in the classroom can play a key role in shaping what a young child believes. It is therefore very important that what is passed on in the classroom and the school is suitable. As COHERE, Finland’s National Medical Body, says, young children, whose brains are still maturing, lack the ability to properly assess the consequences of making decisions they will have to live with for the rest of their lives and recommends that gender transition should be postponed until adulthood. In addition, the guidance says that this is to be done in an interactive way, presumably using visual aids. So very young children may well be shown the genitalia of the opposite sex and pornography as well as being taught very controversial and disputed ideas around gender. Some of the books being used are wholly unsuitable for young children, containing graphic images that at another time would be designated as pornography and/or child abuse. Worryingly, school and public libraries are stocking such books, therefore providing easy access for children. And even if it should be taught, the WHO advises that well-trained, supported, and motivated teachers play a key role in the delivery of high-quality CSE/RSE. At the very heart of sexuality education is the competence of the educators. But it goes on to say that lack of training should not prevent the programme. As outlined above the teacher can play a key role in what a child believes. Teacher training therefore plays a crucial role in what the teacher transmits in the classroom. Teachers are now being offered training materials promoting the concepts of transgenderism and LGBTU. Indeed the influential Irish Teachers Union has training and developing materials as part of its summer programme containing a very alarming video. And, worryingly, the influential Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) has prepared a teacher training resource entitled Creating an LGBT+ inclusive school. This was part of INTO’s Professional Development Summer Course Programme 2023, in which schoolteachers were advised to “change their language and lessons to make them trans/gender non-confirming inclusive.” The course also tells primary school teachers that they should “be prepared to ‘challenge attitudes,’ introduce transgenderism to Junior Infants, and get children to challenge their own beliefs on issues around gender.” It also offers advice on “social transitioning,” and children are encouraged to debate whether boys and girls should only wear clothes from the boys and girls section of shops. It further develops the theme that transgender children find happiness when living as “their true selves.” The area of sexuality, gender, and gender transitioning is highly disputed. In England, the National Health Service guidelines have been redrafted to remind doctors that children may simply be going through a “transient phase” when they say they want to change sex. The guidelines recommend a clinical management approach to explore all developmentally appropriate options for children and young people who are experiencing gender incongruence. Furthermore, an NHS-commissioned report by Dr Hilary Cass warned that allowing children to “socially transition” could “have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning” and “better information was needed about outcomes.” The report also highlights the uncertainty around the evidence relating to the use of puberty blockers. It is not able to provide definitive advice on the use of puberty blockers and feminising/masculinising hormones at this stage, due to gaps in the evidence base.” In the US Professor McHugh, Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins concurs: “There are significant gaps in the research and evidence base.” He asserts affirming children in a false gender can cause real damage, and if one does not affirm trans identity: 98% of gender-confused boys and 88% of gender-confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty. The studies show that at least 80% of children lose their gender distress over time. A report by American public health expert Dr Lisa Littman reveals that gender distress appears at or after the onset of puberty, often following online immersion and transgender identity declarations among school friends (commonly referred to as Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria). The study’s purpose was to investigate a population of individuals who experienced gender dysphoria, transitioned, and then detransitioned, many of the subjects coming to the view that their gender dysphoria was caused by something specific such as trauma, abuse, or a mental health condition. The majority felt that they had not received an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting their transition. “More research is needed,” Dr Littman concluded. Much of the promotion of this agenda promotes the idea that children who transition lead more fulfilling lives, but the evidence says otherwise. Emerging research by Professor McPherson that “puberty blockers may heighten the risk of mental health problems in transgender youth.” Peer-reviewed research by Eriksen et al found that: only 6% of the 103 studies on RSE programmes found any positive evidence of effectiveness, overall, there is more evidence of harm than of positive outcomes from such programmes. 87% of RSE had failed in its primary purposes, instead there was a decrease in condom use And an increase in sexual activity in number of partners, oral sex, forced sex, STDs and pregnancies. A Swedish study, which compared sex-reassigned individuals to the random population, found that sex-reassigned transsexual individuals had poorer outcomes in terms of suicide, and crime. Clearly any advice or suggestion may have a lifetime impact on the young child. There is a grave danger of messing with a child’s mind and the last person to do this in this delicate situation is an untrained person dabbling in matters of which they know little. The WHO document further states that an effective programme Involves experts on human sexuality, behaviour change, and related pedagogical theory. In this context, I have grave concerns about some of the advice being offered to schools. It appears that many of the groups are self-appointed experts engaged in promoting their own agenda/belief system and I am very concerned about the phrase behavioural change which by definition means changes in behaviour – reflect on that in the context of asking a child to consider whether they are a boy or a girl or inviting them to wear the clothes of the other gender. Pedagogical teaching theory is not the role of the WHO. Many of the groups are unaccredited and lack teaching expertise and worryingly the content of the sessions is not pre-approved by either the Principal or the Board of Governors nor presented with the permission or knowledge of parents. Much of the content amounts to clear propaganda on the part of the organisation – they are formed to self-promote so it is hardly surprising that this is what they do in schools. The educational environment in which schools operate is heavily weighted with promotional material and material directed at Principals and Governors amounts to strong pressure to conform. Thus even though Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says “it is at the school’s discretion to implement the contents of the curriculum according to its values and ethos,” the N.Ireland Department of Education website, an obvious source for Headteachers, provides material that goes well beyond information provision and sounds more like promotion. It refers to schools being ‘positively welcoming to all, whatever their identity.’ It goes on to say that schools should “increase the visibility of transgender young people by supporting pupils in setting up a Gender and Sexual Orientation Alliance or introducing transgender role models.” We are placing great pressure on our children, and this comes after the mental issues caused by the Covid policy debacle, where we are seeing record numbers of children awaiting appointments with the NHS for mental health issues, the worst attendance on record, and behavioural issues at an all-time high. Now we are confusing them with gender issues. Education requires an atmosphere conducive to learning and cannot take place in an atmosphere of fear and anxiety, or where the child is filled with worry over one of the biggest things in their being – their gender. The same agenda is being promoted in many Western Countries and provoking resistance and a huge rise in homeschooling. On a global level, there appears to be no clear articulation of what education is for, who or what does it serve, nor what schools are to teach. Are we to teach values, skills, or knowledge? If so, what are those values? Is education for the pursuit of learning intellectual self-reflection a gateway to higher education to prepare people for the world of work to solve society’s ills whether it is climate, vandalism, health, or whatever the latest world crisis appears to be? It seems to me that whatever the most recent issue becomes a matter for schools. Who does education serve, who are the stakeholders? Parents, business, politicians, churches, governors, politicians, children? A disarming lack of clarity enables pressure groups to impose their agenda on schools. Conclusion It is right that schools pass on broad moral and spiritual values; these values will include respect, tolerance, and caring for others. It seems to me however that the RSE issue appears to be the driving culture in some schools to the marginalisation of other more vital components of the roles of schools. Children are being forced to accept this culture which surrounds the actions of the school. Much guidance from the authorities speaks of promoting the culture. This is far removed from providing information. Countries through their education systems are pressing ahead, seemingly in lockstep. The education environment in which schools exist is a confused one with the authorities promoting the ideology whilst many of the key stakeholders in schools object e.g. despite the opposition of the churches and 74% of the public who voted against their introduction in the official consultation. N.Ireland is pressing ahead with its introduction. The guidance is being presented as a fact – and clearly imposes a thought train on any teacher or administrator who refers to the guidance and crucially ignores some very important, though lightly dealt with conditional clauses. The documents reference the importance of respecting cultural and social norms, the importance of parents, the importance of trained teachers, the rights of teachers, the role of the churches, the paramountcy of the ethos of the school, the rights and role of parents, and that one-size-fits-all approach does not work. Yet what is presented is a straightjacket setting out in great detail what is to be taught. The WHO appears to be attempting to displace the spiritual guidance of faith, setting itself as the educationalist and replacing parents as the provider of guidance on moral issues. It is deciding what is age-appropriate and when is age-appropriate. Driven by global interest, it seems to me to be well beyond the remit of the WHO, which appears to be using education as a strategy for delivering its globalist agenda. Education, because of its multifaceted nature and purposes, must not become a subset of health nor a means of driving policies for political purposes. Surely education at its best is a powerful tool for empowerment and a beacon for a ‘liberal education’ that exists for its own sake, as something of value in itself for the moral and intellectual improvement of the individual, rather than as a tool in the hands of a global education organisation intent on driving its own ideology. Socrates and Plato saw the purpose of education as enabling individuals to distinguish between good and evil and between truth and error and to search after wisdom and goodness – if they did this they would be less likely to be tempted by the attractions of wealth power. Sadly in the UK, there is little in the incoming Labour government’s manifesto that suggests that education is anything more than utilitarian, one judged by how far it breaks down “the barriers of opportunity,” improves “the life chances of all of our children,” supports the economy, makes young people “ready for work,” and, in the case of universities, brings economic benefits to local communities. It remains crucial that parents know their rights and, of course, enforce them, that they know who serves on the school Board of Governors/management committees and who they represent. Parents should make themselves familiar with the two WHO documents above. And bear in mind that the guidance being used by schools states that “Sexuality education establishes a close cooperation with parents and community in order to build a supportive environment. Parents are involved in sexuality education at school, which means they will be informed before sexuality education takes place and they have the opportunity to express their wishes and reservations.” Now is the time to enforce your rights and end this indoctrination of our children. If not now, when? Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Hugh Mccarthy retired as a Headteacher after 23 years in that role. He also lectured in a post graduate leadership course at the University of Ulster. Hugh has served as a director on two of N. Ireland’s major education councils and currently serves as a ministerial appointment on one. He has 50 years of experience in education. He lives just outside Belfast and is married to Lorraine and has 3 sons. Hugh holds a Masters degree with Distinction in Education Financial Management, an Honours degree in Chemistry and a BA in Public Administration. View all posts https://brownstone.org/articles/look-whos-in-the-classroom/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Look WHO’s in the Classroom ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The WHO appears to be using education. Education must not become a subset of health nor a means of driving policies for political purposes.
    Like
    1
    0 Commentaires 0 Parts 24060 Vue
  • https://youtu.be/6pSHYPgOJyE?si=OT22hHZEp9etH7Sm

    In this episode, we're delving into "Come Not Between the Dragons," the sixth episode of Star Trek Continues. Directed by Julian Higgins, this episode brings to life the classic Star Trek themes of empathy, family, and the complexities of alien encounters. We'll explore how the Enterprise crew navigates a dramatic family conflict between powerful alien beings, the performances that make this episode unforgettable, and why it resonates with Star Trek fans today. Join us as we discuss the impactful storytelling, impressive visuals, and timeless message that defines

    Star Trek. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share your thoughts in the comments below!



    Question To Answer In Comments Please

    What did You think of This Episode of Come Not Between the Dragons
    Why or Why Not?
    I cant wait to hear your reply! Thank You

    Keywords
    #StarTrekContinues, 2. #ComeNotBetweenTheDragons, 3. #StarTrekReview,
    https://youtu.be/6pSHYPgOJyE?si=OT22hHZEp9etH7Sm In this episode, we're delving into "Come Not Between the Dragons," the sixth episode of Star Trek Continues. Directed by Julian Higgins, this episode brings to life the classic Star Trek themes of empathy, family, and the complexities of alien encounters. We'll explore how the Enterprise crew navigates a dramatic family conflict between powerful alien beings, the performances that make this episode unforgettable, and why it resonates with Star Trek fans today. Join us as we discuss the impactful storytelling, impressive visuals, and timeless message that defines Star Trek. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share your thoughts in the comments below! Question To Answer In Comments Please What did You think of This Episode of Come Not Between the Dragons Why or Why Not? I cant wait to hear your reply! Thank You Keywords #StarTrekContinues, 2. #ComeNotBetweenTheDragons, 3. #StarTrekReview,
    0 Commentaires 0 Parts 3297 Vue
  • Breaking...

    𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙨. 𝙃𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙖 𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙧. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙧𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙪𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙪𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙛𝙖𝙧. 𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙮𝙥𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙤 𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚.

    Satanic Ritual Abuse

    Ped•phili

    drenchr•me

    Child Experiments

    E•ting Children

    Can you imagine if people found out their most beloved figures in the world participated in this?

    • Rapid exposure to horrifying truths could overwhelm individuals, leading to widespread anxiety, depression, and a sense of helplessness. This trauma could impact mental health on a massive scale. Especially considering billions of brainwashed people who will think the world is ending.

    • Such revelations could deepen existing divides within society, fostering distrust among communities. People may struggle to reconcile their beliefs about their favorite celebrities with the new information, leading to polarization. Which will play into their hatred of those they consider extremists.

    • A sudden upheaval of societal norms might provoke violent reactions from those who feel betrayed or threatened. This could lead to unrest, protests, or even riots, further destabilizing communities. Something the military do not have the resources to control while also trying to stop riots and the destruction of property.

    • If the public becomes fearful, it could be easier for certain groups to manipulate that fear to maintain control or push specific agendas, sustaining the status quo rather than dismantling it. Which will bring all of this back to square one.

    • Conversely, constant exposure to sensationalized news about these topics could lead to desensitization. People may become numb to the information, losing the capacity for empathy and urgency needed to address real issues. And this will no longer have the affect we fought so long for. And people will crash out.

    The best channel ever:
    https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordJ
    🚨 Breaking... 𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙨. 𝙃𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙖 𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙧. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙧𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙪𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙪𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙛𝙖𝙧. 𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙮𝙥𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙤 𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚. Satanic Ritual Abuse Ped•phili▪️ 🩸drenchr•me Child Experiments E•ting Children Can you imagine if people found out their most beloved figures in the world participated in this? • Rapid exposure to horrifying truths could overwhelm individuals, leading to widespread anxiety, depression, and a sense of helplessness. This trauma could impact mental health on a massive scale. Especially considering billions of brainwashed people who will think the world is ending. • Such revelations could deepen existing divides within society, fostering distrust among communities. People may struggle to reconcile their beliefs about their favorite celebrities with the new information, leading to polarization. Which will play into their hatred of those they consider extremists. • A sudden upheaval of societal norms might provoke violent reactions from those who feel betrayed or threatened. This could lead to unrest, protests, or even riots, further destabilizing communities. Something the military do not have the resources to control while also trying to stop riots and the destruction of property. • If the public becomes fearful, it could be easier for certain groups to manipulate that fear to maintain control or push specific agendas, sustaining the status quo rather than dismantling it. Which will bring all of this back to square one. • Conversely, constant exposure to sensationalized news about these topics could lead to desensitization. People may become numb to the information, losing the capacity for empathy and urgency needed to address real issues. And this will no longer have the affect we fought so long for. And people will crash out. The best channel ever: https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordJ ✅️
    Like
    1
    0 Commentaires 0 Parts 3074 Vue 0
  • IN THE QUEST FOR PEACE IN A GOD REJECTED WORLD (ISA.9:6)

    COMPASSION WAS CHRIST JESUS' GREATEST WEAPON FOR EVANGELISM, AND SHOULD REMAIN REMAIN OURS TODAY ALSO! [PART THREE]

    It remains so painful that being our "brother's keeper," has been reduced to the level of familiarity, race, ethnic bigotry and the rest. THE STORY OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE A REFERENCE POINT IN THIS REGARD.

    I believe we yet remember how we ended part two;
    that In Matthew 9:36, Christ Jesus wasn’t really referring to actual physical fainting; His words had a deeper meaning! He was moved with COMPASSION because these people were lost under a burdensome load of sin.

    Notice the sins of the world. We are surrounded by men and women who are capable of doing absolutely anything you can imagine. These depraved people need to be reached by a compassionate Christian soul-winner! NOT THE ONE WHOSE MESSAGE IS TO THREATEN THEM WITH HELL, WITHOUT FIRST SHOWING THEM THE LOVE OF CHRIST JESUS.

    CHRIST JESUS AND THE FOUR ELEMENTS THAT GAVE BIRTH TO HIS COMPASSION.

    We discussed the first element yesterday. Christ Jesus saw a world lost in sin.

    JESUS SAW THEIR DESTINY

    A. Christ Jesus knew that apart from Him, these people would be lost. No wonder He was MOVED with COMPASSION! Christ Jesus doesn’t want anyone to be lost!

    This brings to my remembrance the writings of Ellen G. White , In the apostasy, man alienated himself from God; earth was cut off from heaven. Across the gulf that lay between, there could be no communion. But through Christ Jesus, earth is again linked with heaven.

    With His own merits, Christ Jesus bridged the gulf which sin had made, so that ministering angels can hold communion with man. Christ Jesus connects fallen man in his weakness and helplessness with the Source of infinite power. But in vain are men’s dreams of progress, in vain all efforts for the uplifting of humanity, if they neglect the one Source of hope and help for the fallen race.
    "WITHOUT HIS GREAT COMPASSION FOR FALLEN MAN, CHRIST JESUS COULDN'T HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE GREAT FIT OF REDEMPTION"

    B. Christians need the same vision! But the painful reality before our very eyes,is that we lack this compassion, even in the church that's supposed to champion it. If not by personal Faith,many would have left and indeed many have left. Prosperity seeking pastors have continued to make mockery of the less privileged in the church that their sins are responsible for their lack. What a lie from the pit of hell. Controversial as it may seems,riches isn't meant for everyone. Some of the wealthy are raised by God for His Work. But a lot of them lack the empathy to intervene even in the simplest of situations,

    C. Look around, church! There are people all around who will die without the knowledge of Christ Jesus (Ezek. 33:8). We must share with them the vision from heaven and act accordingly. These are those who are in church but don't really know not why they are there. Many are there because of promises made to them by those who took them there without telling them how to achieve those promises by keeping God's Word, because they themselves LACK THE COMPASSION THAT MOTIVATED CHRIST JESUS.

    JESUS SAW THEIR DESPAIR WITHOUT A SHEPHERD

    A. They were without a shepherd!
    B. The blessings of the church and of the saved—prayer, companionship, peace, joy, rest, satisfaction, etc.—are things the lost world knows almost nothing about.

    C. Our duty as believers is to tell people about Jesus. Our hearts ought to be broken because the world doesn’t know our Saviour! For instance, imagine that scenario when Christ Jesus after ministering to thousands who have been with Him thirsty for the truth in Jn.6;1-14
    The apostles wanted Him to send them away,JUST LIKE IN OUR CHURCH PROGRAMS TODAY, WHERE OUR PRIORITY IS HOW MUCH WAS REALIZED , but Christ Jesus would have none of it... can't send away hungry... what was that... GREAT COMPASSION ..He fed them... the result;
    Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. (Joh 6: 14)

    NOW COMPARE THAT TO THE PROGRAMS THAT TODAY THAT CHURCHES ORGANIZE WITH THOUSANDS HOPING TO REAP MILLIONS, WITH INDIFFERENCE TO HOW MANY SOULS OR NOT WERE SAVED .

    CHRIST JESUS SENT HIS DISCIPLES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE (MATT. 9:37, 38)
    Jesus places three responsibilities on the shoulders of His people:

    A. Visualize. See the harvest! Recognize that not everyone is saved; millions are poised on the edge of everlasting destruction! We also need to see that the harvest is ready and waiting to be gathered! We will never reap until we first enter the field (Mark 16:15).
    B. Agonize. “Pray ye therefore” (Matt. 9:38). This is a call to be broken and burdened over the plight of the lost. There are few broken hearts over the lost in our day! We need to attack the devil on their behalf, praying for them constantly and seeking the Lord for the souls of sinners.
    C. Evangelize. It isn’t enough to see the need, nor is it enough to pray for the lost and be concerned for their souls. Christ Jesus desires that each of us does the work of an evangelist (Acts 1:8). Andrew portrays the role of a burdened Christian (John 1:40-42; 6:8, 9; 12:20-22); he fulfilled the call to be a fisher of men (Matt. 4:18, 19).

    CONCLUSION
    What are you doing? Are you having any success (Prov. 11:30)? God’s plan is that His people share the good news with a dying planet. Our job is the greatest the world has ever known (Ps. 126:5, 6).

    Perhaps we need to come before the Lord and confess to Him that we haven’t witnessed as we should have. Time is short, the laborers are few, and the harvest is plentiful and ready. Are you doing your part?
    THE DEVIL AND HIS DEMONS ARE NOT RESTING...WHY SHOULD WITH A GREATER THAN THE GREATEST OF ALL POWER (THE HOLY SPIRIT) REST?

    FATHER,WE ARE IN A BATTLEFIELD,FATHER DO NOT ALLOW US TO FALL... EMPOWER OH LORD UNTIL WE OVERCOME !
    IN THE QUEST FOR PEACE IN A GOD REJECTED WORLD (ISA.9:6) 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟 COMPASSION WAS CHRIST JESUS' GREATEST WEAPON FOR EVANGELISM, AND SHOULD REMAIN REMAIN OURS TODAY ALSO! [PART THREE] ⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡ It remains so painful that being our "brother's keeper," has been reduced to the level of familiarity, race, ethnic bigotry and the rest. THE STORY OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE A REFERENCE POINT IN THIS REGARD. I believe we yet remember how we ended part two; that In Matthew 9:36, Christ Jesus wasn’t really referring to actual physical fainting; His words had a deeper meaning! He was moved with COMPASSION because these people were lost under a burdensome load of sin. Notice the sins of the world. We are surrounded by men and women who are capable of doing absolutely anything you can imagine. These depraved people need to be reached by a compassionate Christian soul-winner! NOT THE ONE WHOSE MESSAGE IS TO THREATEN THEM WITH HELL, WITHOUT FIRST SHOWING THEM THE LOVE OF CHRIST JESUS. CHRIST JESUS AND THE FOUR ELEMENTS THAT GAVE BIRTH TO HIS COMPASSION. 🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️🛏️ We discussed the first element yesterday. Christ Jesus saw a world lost in sin. 👉JESUS SAW THEIR DESTINY A. Christ Jesus knew that apart from Him, these people would be lost. No wonder He was MOVED with COMPASSION! Christ Jesus doesn’t want anyone to be lost! This brings to my remembrance the writings of Ellen G. White , In the apostasy, man alienated himself from God; earth was cut off from heaven. Across the gulf that lay between, there could be no communion. But through Christ Jesus, earth is again linked with heaven. With His own merits, Christ Jesus bridged the gulf which sin had made, so that ministering angels can hold communion with man. Christ Jesus connects fallen man in his weakness and helplessness with the Source of infinite power. But in vain are men’s dreams of progress, in vain all efforts for the uplifting of humanity, if they neglect the one Source of hope and help for the fallen race. "WITHOUT HIS GREAT COMPASSION FOR FALLEN MAN, CHRIST JESUS COULDN'T HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE GREAT FIT OF REDEMPTION" B. Christians need the same vision! But the painful reality before our very eyes,is that we lack this compassion, even in the church that's supposed to champion it. If not by personal Faith,many would have left and indeed many have left. Prosperity seeking pastors have continued to make mockery of the less privileged in the church that their sins are responsible for their lack. What a lie from the pit of hell. Controversial as it may seems,riches isn't meant for everyone. Some of the wealthy are raised by God for His Work. But a lot of them lack the empathy to intervene even in the simplest of situations, 👉C. Look around, church! There are people all around who will die without the knowledge of Christ Jesus (Ezek. 33:8). We must share with them the vision from heaven and act accordingly. These are those who are in church but don't really know not why they are there. Many are there because of promises made to them by those who took them there without telling them how to achieve those promises by keeping God's Word, because they themselves LACK THE COMPASSION THAT MOTIVATED CHRIST JESUS. 👉 JESUS SAW THEIR DESPAIR WITHOUT A SHEPHERD A. They were without a shepherd! B. The blessings of the church and of the saved—prayer, companionship, peace, joy, rest, satisfaction, etc.—are things the lost world knows almost nothing about. C. Our duty as believers is to tell people about Jesus. Our hearts ought to be broken because the world doesn’t know our Saviour! For instance, imagine that scenario when Christ Jesus after ministering to thousands who have been with Him thirsty for the truth in Jn.6;1-14 The apostles wanted Him to send them away,JUST LIKE IN OUR CHURCH PROGRAMS TODAY, WHERE OUR PRIORITY IS HOW MUCH WAS REALIZED , but Christ Jesus would have none of it... can't send away hungry... what was that... GREAT COMPASSION ..He fed them... the result; Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. (Joh 6: 14) NOW COMPARE THAT TO THE PROGRAMS THAT TODAY THAT CHURCHES ORGANIZE WITH THOUSANDS HOPING TO REAP MILLIONS, WITH INDIFFERENCE TO HOW MANY SOULS OR NOT WERE SAVED . 👉 CHRIST JESUS SENT HIS DISCIPLES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE (MATT. 9:37, 38) Jesus places three responsibilities on the shoulders of His people: A. Visualize. See the harvest! Recognize that not everyone is saved; millions are poised on the edge of everlasting destruction! We also need to see that the harvest is ready and waiting to be gathered! We will never reap until we first enter the field (Mark 16:15). B. Agonize. “Pray ye therefore” (Matt. 9:38). This is a call to be broken and burdened over the plight of the lost. There are few broken hearts over the lost in our day! We need to attack the devil on their behalf, praying for them constantly and seeking the Lord for the souls of sinners. C. Evangelize. It isn’t enough to see the need, nor is it enough to pray for the lost and be concerned for their souls. Christ Jesus desires that each of us does the work of an evangelist (Acts 1:8). Andrew portrays the role of a burdened Christian (John 1:40-42; 6:8, 9; 12:20-22); he fulfilled the call to be a fisher of men (Matt. 4:18, 19). CONCLUSION What are you doing? Are you having any success (Prov. 11:30)? God’s plan is that His people share the good news with a dying planet. Our job is the greatest the world has ever known (Ps. 126:5, 6). Perhaps we need to come before the Lord and confess to Him that we haven’t witnessed as we should have. Time is short, the laborers are few, and the harvest is plentiful and ready. Are you doing your part? THE DEVIL AND HIS DEMONS ARE NOT RESTING...WHY SHOULD WITH A GREATER THAN THE GREATEST OF ALL POWER (THE HOLY SPIRIT) REST? FATHER,WE ARE IN A BATTLEFIELD,FATHER DO NOT ALLOW US TO FALL... EMPOWER OH LORD UNTIL WE OVERCOME 🙏🙇👏!
    0 Commentaires 0 Parts 6568 Vue
Plus de résultats