If you think sex education in schools consists of nothing more than teaching young teens about sexually transmitted diseases and the dangers of having unprotected sex, guess again. The above video is an eye-opener. Hat tip to Nahida at Poetry for Palestine, who comments that it is a “must watch documentary by every parent.”
The video deals with “Comprehensive Sexuality Education,” or CSE, a sex education curriculum promoted by International Planned Parenthood that teaches children about such things as anal and oral sex. Reportedly children as young as the 4th grade are being taught about masturbation, and in the process are being given texts replete with graphically explicit drawings and diagrams.
The curriculum is being pushed in school systems in the US as well as in other countries, including, as you will see, in Africa and Latin America. In fact, at one point in the program you will hear about nine-year-old children in Guatemala that are being taught how how to put a condom on male genitalia, using plastic penises as teaching aids.
Critics interviewed in the documentary say this goes beyond mere sex education–and to the point of actually encouraging children to become sexually active. They have a good point.
One of Planned Parenthood’s largest private donors is George Soros (although the organization gets considerable state and federal funding as well). According to a report here, Planned Parenthood appealed to Soros for an “urgent” $1.5 million cash infusion after the release last year of videos apparently showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetal tissue.
The video documentary above reports that it isn’t just Planned Parenthood that is pushing CSE, and that the United Nations is supporting it as well. Of course, the question, as always, is cui bono? Who benefits from teaching children about “sexual diversity”? And what is the motive behind endeavors aimed at “abolishing guilt feelings about eroticism,” as one UN document puts it. These are strange topics for the UN to concern itself with, or at least one would think so. What is the rationale behind it?
Perhaps writer Gilad Atzmon gives us a clue. Recently Atzmon published an article entitled Utopia, Nostalgia and the Jew, in which he discusses German Jewish leftists such as Wilhelm Reich, who promoted what was in essence a sexual revolution in Germany in the 1930s.
The Jewish ‘Left’ quickly diagnosed what was wrong with the Germans, for Wilhelm Reich it was German sexuality. He had the ridiculous idea that German women being sexually suppressed was at the core of German inclination towards authoritarianism. The Jewish psychoanalyst must have been convinced that dildos were the key to a communist revolution.
One of Reich’s most famous books is in fact entitled The Sexual Revolution, a work which criticizes what it refers to as “bourgeois sexual morality” and calls for sexual education in schools. Reich also published a pamphlet entitled “The Sexual Struggle of Youth” and actively promoted adolescent sexuality–and Atzmon posits that the rise of the National Socialists in the 1930s was at least in part a reaction to Reich and his fellow cultural Marxists, an expression of “nostalgia,” as he puts it–nostalgia for a time before the country began to suffer from economic malaise and societal corruption as it did in the years after the first World War–a process which Atzmon says is occurring in America today with the rise of politicians like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
In Germany in the 1930s, as in America 2016, it was nostalgia and romanticism that gave utopia meaning, the yearning for a national rootedness over a ‘progressive’ Shangri La…The Germans and the National Socialists weren’t too tolerant of Reich and the the members of the Frankfurt School. Reich and the Frankfurt Schoolers had to run for their lives. The Frankfurt Research Institute relocated at Columbia University in New York City from where it devoted the next few years to the destruction of the cohesiveness of the American people.
America, of course, had its own sexual revolution starting in the 1950s, though particularly building up steam in the following decade with the publication of erotic novels such as Sex and the Single Girl and the release of Hollywood films like “Promises! Promises!” which included a nude scene with actress Jayne Mansfield.
And then of course there is the porn industry–an industry heavily dominated by Jews. An analysis of this is given in an article here by Jonas Alexis as well as in a video here featuring an interview with E. Michael Jones. Alexis points out that the claim of Jews dominating the pornography field has been made not only by non-Jews, but even by Jews themselves, who have spoken of the matter boastingly.
Sexualizing children–whose agenda is being served here? Is it Planned Parenthood’s? Or is Planned Parenthood just being used as a tool by someone else? (Or maybe by a group of someones?) This is a question that conservatives in America, concerned about what children are being taught in schools, might want to start asking themselves. Another worthwhile question is why, when Russia said “No” to having such things taught in Russian schools, did this spark such outrage?
It would be inappropriate and erroneous to blame it all on Jews–Alfred Kinsey, certainly one of the leading pioneers in promoting sexual promiscuity in America and who is mentioned in the documentary, was a Gentile. But of course Kinsey rose to such prominence only because his so-called scientific research was heavily touted by the media. Upon Kinsey’s death in 1956, the New York Times, whose publisher at the time was Arthur Hayes Sulzberger, wrote the following:
The untimely death of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey takes from the American scene an important and valuable, as well as controversial, figure. Whatever may have been the reaction to his findings—and to the unscrupulous use of some of them—the fact remains that he was first, last, and always a scientist. In the long run it is probable that the values of his contribution to contemporary thought will lie much less in what he found out than in the method he used and his way of applying it. Any sort of scientific approach to the problems of sex is difficult because the field is so deeply overlaid with such things as moral precept, taboo, individual and group training, and long established behavior patterns. Some of these may be good in themselves, but they are no help to the scientific and empirical method of getting at the truth. Dr. Kinsey cut through this overlay with detachment and precision. His work was conscientious and comprehensive. Naturally, it will receive a serious setback with his death. Let us earnestly hope that the scientific spirit that inspired it will not be similarly impaired.
Perhaps the main thing to keep in mind is the kind of world we are leaving for our children if we continue in the direction we’re headed in. The last 60 years, since Kinsey’s death, have seen things go from bad to worse in just about every category you can name. There has been a coarsening of the culture; a rise in economic disparity; an erosion of values; and a massive cancer of corruption in our political leadership. Maybe it’s time to make a change.