To the Web site viewer: to understand these remarks note the following: I refer to “the type of meeting, that we are now holding” – the meeting was about a library system that exposes chronically underaged children to male crossdressers. (And why we should even have to argue that this practice is wrong.) My references to “your type of social experimentation” and “the people in the front of the room” refer to the Library employees who were sitting at the front of the room – and who were responsible for such a complete lack of responsibility.
Please pardon what is going to be a bizarre opening point. But the fact that we are even holding the type of meeting, that we are now holding, shows that we are living in a bizarre era anyways. So, to open: have you ever heard of the “Walking Corpse Syndrome”?
To quote from the medical literature: “Cotard delusion, also known as walking corpse syndrome … is a rare mental disorder in which the affected person holds the delusional belief that they are already dead, do not exist, are putrefying, or have lost their blood or internal organs.
So …. If a person really believes that something is true does that automatically make it so? If the Cotard delusion victims are correct (just because they think they are) then I guess the modern fad of zombie TV shows and movies must be based on reality after all? Now what about, to use the medical phrase I just mentioned, someone has a “delusional belief” that they are not the gender they appear to be?
And, that is, in fact all that we are talking about here. There are only two genders, there is no such thing as a woman trapped in a man’s body, there is no such thing as the modern buzz words of LGBTQ+ and the alphabet soup approach to who and what you are. Because, to refer to what I mentioned before, if it is physically possible for someone to sincerely believe that they are a corpse (and have it not be true) then why isn’t it physically possible for a man to believe that they are actually a girl – and have it also not be true? Or for that matter, become convinced that they have to have a same sex relationship – and that also not be true either?
In short, left strictly to nature, there are the rare occasions where a person’s brain will simply misfire -and they will become utterly convinced of things that are, in fact, not true. But here is where we come to the problem that we are trying to deal with tonight. For I stated, LEFT STRICTLY TO NATURE, there are very rare cases of confusion.
So what happens in cases like, say, California where your type of social experimentation has been going on – and at full throttle – for a long time? The answer: their percent of confusion is no longer rare but rampant. You have a situation where minor children are – literally – staring down at their private organs and are unable figure out what it’s there for. And, this is in nearly 25 percent of all cases. That is, “Am I actually a girl?” “If I am a guy do I still do it with other men rather than with women?”, etc.
So what causes a rare confusion to become a rampant one – if it is not the type of people that are seated in the front of the room tonight? It is not nature since, just left to nature, it would be rare rather than rampant. It is not choice since no one would choose to deliberately make themselves become confused – by choosing to have other people make them become that way. So what does leave left?
Now, I don’t claim to know, with a 100 percent certainty, what all the answers are. But I do know, and with an absolute and mathematical certitude, what is not the answer. What is absolutely not the answer is exactly what it is that you do. Where you take a form of confusion that would, normally, affect only a small percentage of the population and you then spread it to all of the rest of the population as well.
Therefore, I respectfully state that this is not an endeavor that should use my mandatorily paid taxes. If there really are parents who are foolish enough to turn their children over to what is, ultimately, a form of child abuse then there may not be much that we can do about that. But we should at least not be required to pony up our taxpayers money for it. And as to the other case, where it is being done behind the parents backs, I say that all we need the educational establishment to do is to teach Johnny how to read. We do not need you to teach him how to do his sex acts.