The WHO’s War on the Innocence of Children

THE W.H.O’S INTRUSION INTO THE SPHERE OF EDUCATION
And now onto our main discussion, and the WHO has been intruding 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.
Furthermore, Curriculum Councils, which should be spending time reflecting on how reading and numeracy losses can be remedied and even other valuable aspects of school provision, are instead spending time debating the content and time allocation of an RSE curriculum. AND YET, 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; at times leading to a downward spiral in their education and their future prospects. In contrast, fundamental literacy and numeracy enables people to achieve independence through making educated and well informed 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 a person’s capacity to earn money. AND prospective employers and investors generally want a well-educated workforce capable of following technical and technological instructions. SO, the lack of correct focus in the education system is revealing of a problem with the sexualisation of children.
But, when it comes to Relationship and Sexuality Education (or RSE), 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. In light of this, the WHO has produced two documents which set out what it considers to be age-appropriate sex and gender education for children of ages 5–16 – which is incredibly alarming considering how young these individuals are. These are people who aren’t even trusted to vote or drive in many countries, and yet the WHO has targeted them for a comprehensive course on gender and sexual orientation?!
Now, the WHO’s approach to gender and to sexual education is encapsulated by two statements: it states that (quote)  “(the WHO) responds to contemporary global challenges through education with a special focus on gender equality.” And it also states that (quote) “Sexuality education is firmly based on self-determination and the acceptance of diversity.” Based on this, it is immediately notable that the so-called RSE guidance from the WHO makes these assertions WITHOUT due regard to, for instance, faith-based beliefs which would oppose them. The guidance tries to normalise 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.
But it does not stop there. 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, and differences between gender identity and biological sex (which is basically transgender ideology). Then 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 ages 5–8 states that learners will be able to: define gender and biological sex and describe how they are different, and then reflect on how they feel about their biological sex and gender (which is textbook social contagion – especially considering how young and impressionable these students are!).
THE INTENTIONAL DISREGARD OF FAITH-BASED COUNSEL BY THE W.H.O
Now, 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. And yet, education (for the most part) is understood in its wider cultural, historical, and philosophical context and this is ALSO being ignored by the policy-makers at the WHO. More specifically, teaching requires empathy with, and knowledge of, the cultural norms of the society.  This is clear in the teaching of subjects such as history, geography, language, and more. For example, in Northern Ireland where 42% of the schools are maintained by the Catholic Church and 49% by the state and, and because of their historical context, they have Protestant Church representatives on their Governing body. The schools’ approach to teaching provision must be in line with the ethoi of the Church in Ireland and their associated national identities.
In light of this, Northern Ireland legislation refers to the requirement to meet the spiritual needs of the children and in response, the WHO guidance pretends to recognise the role of the churches. It states (quote) “Faith-based organisations can provide guidance to programme developers and providers on how to approach discussion about sexual health and sexuality education.” HOWEVER, the Church’s views appear to be ignored when they are actually expressed. For instance, in Northern Ireland, Rev. Charles McMullen, wrote that: “The distinction between the sexes is increasingly being undermined especially in schools, where the concept of gender fluidity is often promoted.” In addition, Reverend Roberts spoke of the “profound insecurity” and anxiety of many young people as they are being asked now to consider their gender; adding that young people will always be insecure if their identity is based on something physical within them, while an identity in Christ is far more secure.
This exposes that what the Church advocates for and has advocated for is no longer represented in a number of the education systems that incorporate sexual education. In fact, the President of Loveworld Incorporated made it apparent that the education system in many countries is a hijack of what the Church initially implemented and advocated for.
THE W.H.O IS ABUSING THE NATURE OF SCHOOLS AS A SOCIALISATION AGENT
This hijack of the education system is also about ostracising and taking putative measures against those who do not support the line of thinking of globalist entities and parties like the WHO, which is really a systematic coercion of the education institutions. In fact, we this with big government, as you’d recall that last year, the Biden administration was holding schools at ransom by withholding school lunch funding from schools that reject pro-”trans” policies! And this was implemented in October. However, US Senator Roger Marshall announced his Congressional Resolution Act (CRA) of disapproval that would prevent the USDA from retaliating against schools that do not comply with the Biden Administrations LGBTQIA+ ideology in schools. This resolution came as 22 states were suing the USDA for weaponising the lunch funding against those who don’t adhere to the transgender agenda and allow biological boys to use girls’ bathrooms or locker rooms or have biological boys compete against girls in sports. This was Sen. Roger Marshall.
However, there are primarily two reasons why the WHO has opted for this approach. First, 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, therefore, a teacher can play a key role in shaping what a young child believes, Now, typically this relationship between the teacher and especially young students means that it is therefore very important that what is passed on in the classroom is suitable, but the WHO is capitalising on this relationship towards a paedophilic and nefarious end.
Secondly, schools in general are a crucial and effective socialisation agent. This means that schools play a crucial role in socialising individuals by imparting knowledge, teaching societal norms, and promoting social interaction – which should be a good thing. However, when the information that is used in this socialisation process is corrupted and vile, it produces children who are reflective of this problem. Again, that is why we often argue that the sudden increase in people and (especially children) who claim to be transgender is a product of social contagion! There was a concerted effort to place this thinking in the classroom, which means that children begin to imitate and portray what they are taught. In fact, kindly have a listen to A girl named Jaime’s story as a detransitioner; and she emphasises how social contagion was a big part of it; she was surrounded at school by people who made sexuality a primary part of their identity, and fell in the same trap.
THIS IS WHY THEY OPPOSE SCHOOL CHOICE
In light of this, especially following the aftereffects of the Covid-19 plandemic and an unfolding LGBT-related culture war that shook up the status quo, a longstanding, well-financed conservative advocacy effort has been on the rise and is set to defeat long standing resistance to the school choice movement – especially in countries like the United States. It must not be lost on us that at the centre of this school choice movement is that the parents, whose children are enrolled in public schools, just want the innocence of their children preserved! They are the ones with a first hand experience of what happens when your child is exposed to hypersexualisation at the hands of paedophilic teachers. They are also the ones who tend to be the first victims of the violent inclinations produced by antidepressants and anxiety prescriptions or other addictions – as you would have seen with the case of 14-year-old Carly Gregg, last month, who shot and killed her mother, a high school teacher Ashley Smylie, inside their Mississippi home earlier this year. Prosecutors told the court that the shooting was carried out because Smylie had discovered her daughter’s “secret life” with drugs. They painted Carly as a dangerous killer who had “burner phones,” hidden vape pens containing marijuana, and a history of cheating at school and self-harm. But, in addition to this problem, parents are also the one’s with a firsthand experience of the LGBT agenda indoctrination.
WHY THIS AMOUNTS TO A WAR ON THE INNOCENCE OF CHILDREN BY THE W.H.O
So, ultimately, why does this amount to a war on the innocence of children by the WHO? And this is considering that someone could easily say that sexual health education is in the purview of the WHO as a body that is supposed to be focused on health. Well, first, what the WHO is promoting is not education on sexual health – what they are promoting is woke gender ideology and explicit sexual information to an extremely young demographic – we’re speaking of children between the ages of 5-16.
Secondly, children should not be regarded as sexual beings! Not only do they not fully grasp what this would entail or the consequences of being seen as such, but they all fundamentally lack the capacity to provide INFORMED CONSENT! They are not mentally and emotionally mature enough to be capable of informed consent, which means they can be easily targeted for exploitation if they are not protected by the law and by their parents. The fact that this is still a discussion is painful, but certainly not without context when you recognise what kinds of people are lurking in the halls of power. It’s not hard to see the tip-toe that is happening today, with the eventual end game being the total legalisation of child sexual abuse in the pretentious and utterly misunderstood name of “inclusion.”
What is further disappointing, and why this amounts to a war on the innocence of children, is that the WHO is placing itself in the way of genuine protections for children. In a world where there are still high profile cases of sexual abuse of minors, what it undermines the gravity of the crime against the innocence of children if you institutionalise a perception of children as sexual beings.
But, children are very dear to God, and we the Church will stand for it. But, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. They will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs. AND, when we make the agenda of the adversary plain, the veil of deception is indeed being broken – in fact, Proverbs 11:9 tells us that “…through knowledge shall the just be delivered.”