The overall lesson of this piece: If we would just make the world a lot less confusing a place, wouldn’t there be a lot less confused people living in it? And why isn’t that a no brainer?

THE CONFUSED GENERATION

   Thank you for listening, so far, to what we have told you here at WeMustUnite. Thus far, the talk has (mostly) centered on how easily children can become confused. We will end the discussion on just how bad this confusion has become – and about why.

    The how badly question is easy: it is nearly total. We have a new generation that is clueless on even the most basic aspects of life. Socialism, ‘alternative’ lifestyles (as being a norm) and on the list could go. But as to the why: this is where I feel forced to say a stern message. For I blame it all, not on people being, say, ‘born that way’. Instead, I blame it on a horrific Gallup Poll that was taken when I was a young person in the 1980s. The time of my generation.

FIRST, THERE WAS THE END OF CERTAINTY

   It was a very revealing poll. One finding was that the people of my generation had real concerns for the next generation. A second was that we were concerned on how our behavior might affect future generations. But, as incredible as this may seem, the next finding was that … we still had no intention of changing our behavior!

   In other words, we knew what we were doing was wrong. And that it could adversely affect the future – but we were still going to damn well do it anyways!!! And we did. Now, a couple of generations later, we have The Confused Generation – and the proof that these fears were justified.

   As to our behavior: we were the ones who broke down the age of moral certainty and tradition – so that we now have the Era of Confusion. Those of us who were married allowed the divorce rate to continue climbing. And for those of us who weren’t married, we normalized premarital sex and made it an acceptable part of society. And, in so doing, we let an evil genie out of the bottle that I will simply call The Cycle.

   First, there was an increasing rate of out-of-wedlock births. Next, society scored an F minus at this test to its’ own normal existence. It failed to do the normal type of push backs – that were historically done against people who engaged in this activity.  This led to a demand for abortions while the normal push backs – by society – were still left undone.  Ergo, the society of my generation made an eyes-wide-open decision to capitulate to immorality.

   Rather than pushing back against the unethical behavior, they legalized the abortions. And then they continued to allow male gendered people other ways to be able to ‘hit and run’ – and to get away with it. And thus, the cycle started: the illusion of a consequence free society led to still more irresponsible behavior.

   Which then led to still more abortions and ways to duck one’s responsibilities, which then led to further irresponsible behavior etc. etc. As a result: between illegitimacy and the surging divorce rates we have gone from a 95% rate of intact families (being the way to deal with all children) – down to a rate of around only 25%. And so it was that my generation between 1) exercising self-centered punk attitudes as singles and 2) no longer being able to persevere for ones’ family as a married man, ended the traditional family unit. And ended the age of moral certainty.

ITS ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE: NATURE ABHORS A VACUUM

   Unsurprisingly, after the end of moral certainty you then have moral confusion. Once you have divorced yourself from moral certainty what is to stop the effects I am talking about? Where every quack theory or cultural elitist (more on them in a second) can take over the game for you – and set up the next confused generation?

   Thus, since the time of my generation there has been even more of a social collapse. The entertainment industry, the educators, the journalists and politicians have stopped even appreciating the traditional family concept. Now there is open advocacy of utter fairy tales: that it doesn’t matter how you do your sex acts (when we have a 50% rate of knock-ups?), that it is all six of the one thing and half a dozen of another, that there are an endless number of ‘alternative’ ways of doing sex, family and lifestyle issues – that are all just as good as one another. And, thus, have been given their names as simply being ‘alternatives’.

  And this is the type of thing that plays right into the hands of the cultural elitist types. There has always been a type of person that has a smug superiority about themselves – and just because they reject everything that the rest of society may take for granted. This somehow makes them more morally or intellectually superior or more ‘enlightened’ than the common man.

   And this is where we now stand. No longer being ruled by God, we are now in the era of, and are ruled by, these cultural elitists. And this question, of elitism, is an overarching issue that seems to affect all the main issues we are dealing with in society.

   In the Rogues Gallery section of our library, we talk about political and legal elitism. In our Denova’s Gallery, I would describe it as a Cultural Elitism. And a clueless elitism. Just as socialism has never actually worked in any real-world setting, neither do ‘alternative’ lifestyles or ‘alternative’ families. But none of this stops these people from a) believing in all these things anyway and that b) in believing them that they are morally superior to all the rest of us.

 

AND NOW … A DETOUR ABOUT ETHICS IS ALSO CALLED FOR

   I also share a deep concern about the role of ethics in our society. We have ended basic rules about morality but now we are changing into a society that has neither morality nor ethics. I am sympathetic to the idea that we can have differences on what we think is moral or immoral, are Bible verses a correct authority (yes or no) etc. But we can NOT afford to live in a society where we do not share a scrupulous – and virtually universal – agreement on questions of ethics.

   For that is all that ethics is: it is the question of how we deal with the differences. And, say, what are to be the ground rules on how we go about acting on our disagreements. While still, of course, having several hundred million people occupying the same space – and all of them still having the same democratic rights.

    Now, how this ties into our discussion of the family is fairly basic. Just as we used to have accepted moral norms, we also used to have accepted ethical practices. And on how, specifically, society is to deal with the family. It was never acceptable, before now, for the current situation to even occur: where everyone is entitled to raise your children for you – with your approval being strictly optional. And these twin questions of returning to basic ethics – and sidelining the elitists – has an easy solution that can handle both issues at once.

   Because both concerns, about elitism and ethics, can be solved by the same simple rule. If you ARE the biological parents of a child: then your number one duty is to be the one who is involved in all their quandaries: what they should believe on things like politics, religion and sexuality. But if you are NOT the biological parent of a child: then your number one duty (and, again, pardon my bluntness) is for you to shut the blank up and to stay the bleep out of it.

   Which has, in fact, always been the moral and ethical basis for all of societies since time immemorial. Unless there is a case where the child has become a physical danger to others (or is in imminent physical danger themselves) the first question on everyone’s mind has always been “Where are these kids’ parents?” If they are acting up it has always been “Where are these kids’ parents?” And if someone wants to deal with the kids? Again, it has always been “Where are these kids’ parents?” – and then you are to deal with the parents first. Consequently, the best way for me to do a wrap-up is to refer to two statements from my prior presentations to the King County Library System.

 

STATEMENT ONE: WHY JOHHNY STILL CAN’T READ (AND MAYBE ITS FOR THE BETTER????)

   I say that jokingly but, when you look at some of the materials they are now being presented with, you could wonder. And that, perhaps, the current fad of having a Walkman on (so that they also can’t hear what they are being taught) might not be so bad either. One of my prior statements was that “all we need from the educational establishment is to teach Johnny how to read. We do not need them to teach him how to do his sex acts.” And yet society is at a role reversal here.

   The universal prescription was to have an intact family dealing with the sex acts business while everyone else stayed out of it. Now, everyone and his kid brother is constantly engaging in the sex acts business with our children EXCEPT for there being an intact family to deal with it. Thus, it is time for both 1) the return of the traditional family unit AND 2) the exit of everyone else from the sex acts business. Or we will continue to have the Confused Generation as we have it today.  

   For, as I have pointed out earlier, their confusion does not come from any of this garbage about “Have homosexual gene am biologically dictated – like a wind-up robot – to do homosexual behavior.” Nor do the people with gender confusion have a biologically dictated problem that winds them up like a robot. There is, too, fault involved with these problems – and that fault comes from our allowing a social breakdown to occur. And, thereby, allowing something that is not, in fact, confusing to become that way.

    If we still lived in a society where every act of conception developed into an intact, two parent family then the confusion level would become virtually nil. It is the decrease – from 95% to around only 25% – of intact family units that has opened up that extra 70% of the population to confusion. And the confusion has then been able to enter after, essentially, being invited in. This is where all of our confusion comes from – not from all this self-serving nonsense about our biological dictations forcing us (against our wills) into certain types of behavior.

 

STATEMENT TWO: CONFUSIONS SIMPLY COME AS A RESULT OF CONFUSION FACTORS

   And now I will refer to a second statement from my presentations to the King County Library System. I stated that I don’t presume to know 100% of all the answers about sexuality. But that I do know, and to a 100% certainty, what is NOT the correct answer to our problems. And that would be to take this same confusion, that some people have, and then spread it to all the rest of the population as well. Thus, I will plunge into an area that everyone else is trying to avoid: what about the candidacy of a Mayor Pete – and his outspokenly public handling of his homosexual behavior?

   This is a disqualifier for his acceptance into public life. And it is for the same simple reasons that I have been talking about. He is, intentionally, acting as a Confusion Factor, when we have enough of a Confused Generation already. It has nothing to do with his personal life; it is his unwillingness to keep his personal life personal.

   Donald Trump’s personal lifestyle may well be just as unbiblical as his is in many ways. The difference, though, is that the President does keep his personal life personal. He has not decided to turn getting divorced or (perhaps) being guilty of philandering into a political lobby – and then forcing the rest of the public to go along for the ride with what he does.

 

THINGS YOU NEED TO BE TOLD – THAT JOURNALISTS WILL NEVER TELL YOU

   Also important, is that the President does not try to masquerade his personal foibles as something that is acceptable.  But there is this one-sided, flunkying approach of most journalists (and others) that have made every issue a one-sided one. And it is one that whitewashes virtually all acts of personal behavior. But when it was permissible to have two sides to the debate (about homosexual behavior – and other things) people weren’t being fed such a complete bill of goods. So, I will still state that, despite decades of flunky journalism feeding people bad info, it is still true that:

      1) it is physically dangerous to engage in homosexual behavior. The AMA, despite its gutless cave-in to political pressures, still has rules that homosexual behavior – and the donating of blood into the nature’s blood banks – are still incompatible with one another. But why? It has long been known that homosexual behavior is physically dangerous – but it is now a taboo subject due to PC (political correctness). But if the PC people are right then why not end this restriction?

     2) it comes with a much higher tendency for reckless behavior, and without stability, in one’s personal life. And these problems are readily foreseeable. It is NOT because of ‘queer’ or ‘homo’ or “I don’t like you”; it is simply because there are two men involved in a relationship and no women.

   ALL male behavior has a dark side to it due to the T-word: testosterone. But what happens when there is all testosterone in a relationship with no yen to balance out the yang? No checks and balances, no pluses cancelling out minuses and etc? You will wind up taking the worst aspects of male behavior (that the T-word can produce) and you will have it ramped up on steroids.

   Though PC forbids one to talk about it, this is another factor in the inherent unhealthiness of homosexual behavior. Things that are extremely rare in other lifestyles can be commonplace in homosexuality. The best evidence for this was a puff piece done by a Tri-City Herald in the early 80’s with a Marshall McClintock.

   He was allowed to tell the whole narrative his own way – and with no push back or interruption. In the course of this he related, matter of factly, that an immediate sex act with a perfect stranger was simply how it is done – “like having a drink among straights”. That a public facility was often a place to go for Stranger Sex. One visiting businessman from Chicago – in the mid-80s – once even mentioned that he had heard about a public facility in a Frederick & Nelsons (in Seattle) as quote “the place to go”.

   But that is what tells you the whole story. This was an article from the mid-80s – and it is the last one of its’ kind that I have ever seen published. Where, that is, one might ever question whether you might want to live in a homosexual lifestyle. Thus, if you are under 45 years of age you have probably never noticed any stories – from the mainstream media – that do anything other than to praise these presumed ‘alternative’ lifestyles. And these people (that have been misinforming you in this way) are complete liars and hypocrites.

   Example: suppose their daughter said they were going to a ‘shower’ house. She describes it as a place where she would prone herself in a room where several perfect strangers would look on. This would go on until one of them would get revved up enough to make the charge. Afterwards, this might go on throughout several more interludes. So, what would happen if we were a fly on the wall?

   Bet you my all we would hear them saying things like “Are you crazy?”, “Are you sick?’, “What the hell is wrong with you?” And, even though most of these people are too ‘enlightened’ to believe in corporal punishment, we might even hear a ‘whack’ whack, whack’. But all I have described here is exactly what goes on in a bath house among gay men. But because now we have mentioned the gay word, and we are now talking PC, it is somehow different than that.

   These people are willing to regale our new generation with nonsense about how your male same sex relationships will be just like a Hallmark romance. But only between two men rather than between a man and a woman. It is all total garbage; these people are all total hypocrites and liars.

   And, once again, these problems have nothing to do with ‘queer’ or ‘homo’ or “I am a Bible thumper and therefore hate you.” It is a readily foreseeable outcome when you double down on testosterone – and no longer have any counter balancing realities. And now I make a critical point: I am against condemning the people who practice these acts.

   But what of the people who are, effectively, orchestrating homosexual and ‘alternative’ acts on to the rest of society? I fully condemn (and passionately so) this modern talking class of liars and hypocrites who are (wittingly or unwittingly) doing this. They are willing to destroy a new generation of people simply over PC and their personal ideological biases.

      3) it is still much more likely that you will be hurt or injured by a fellow practitioner of this behavior than by someone who is opposed to it. Surprised to hear that? It is not surprising, that you would be surprised, if you are an under-45 person. But going from what I am personally aware of – and not from stereotypes – it is very common for a homosexual male to have his first experience come from abuse. Or from what used to be called ‘recruiting’. Where someone, much older than them, catches them in a vulnerable moment and gets them introduced to homosexual behavior. This is still just as factually true as always – you are just not allowed to talk about it anymore.

    And as to someone who has been in this practice for a while? Do you remember a Dahmer and a Cunanon? Do you know what a Super Macho Butch or Bad News person is? It is a term created by the people who are in the homosexual lifestyle. But why would these people, themselves, create a term for something that does not exist – if you are to believe the chattering classes?

      4) It is still a deal breaker that you do not get biological children of your own. Why this is not obvious to more people is something I do put the blame back onto my generation – and it’s wrecking of the traditional family. This is one I will give the chattering classes a pass on. But this is what is factual: there is nothing, nothing, that evolves you as a person more rapidly – and more thoroughly – than having biological children of your own. Nothing.

     And our entire purpose in life is to evolve ourselves as better people – it is not simply to have sex. There is nothing, again nothing, in life that is more important than this. And on a personal note: I, myself, ran into some other types of problems – and I will pass away from life without leaving behind any biological heirs. The Lord still carries you through it – but it does grate throughout the years. From personal experience, this is not a “so what, six of one thing and half a dozen of another” matter.

 

NEARING OUR FINISH: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MATTER 

   Now, is every single person, practicing a homosexual lifestyle, vulnerable to every single item above? Like all things, it is not a case of one and all and each and every. There are always the made-for-television types – where people with an agenda – can portray something in only its best possible light. But nothing that you will ever see on television is remotely representative of a lifestyle that is not, in fact, an ‘alternative’. But is, at least in most instances, something that is simply very wrong and bad for someone who gets involved in it.

   And what of the other side of the question? What about the positive side of traditional life? For, conversely, even proponents of ‘alternative’ lifestyles, can not make a case for them doing anything to, say, reduce poverty and crime in the inner cities. Or to increase the growth in the national economy.

   Yet traditional lifestyles do precisely that. The best way that we can reduce crime and poverty – and to dramatically speed up growth in the national economy – would be a return to a family friendly society. One where intact families can, again, become the almost universal norm. For if we, again, had a 95% rate of intact families then

   1) 95% of all the abortions would go away – since there would be no crisis pregnancies to create the demand for them

   2) 95% of all the people who are currently in confusion about sexual identities or practices would go back to a state of certainty. And would be comfortably living out what used to be considered the norm

   3) and there are the other beneficial effects on crime, poverty and economic growth rates.

   That is why the New American Left is so extreme on lifestyle issues. For there is not, in fact, any “marriage equality” between a lifestyle that creates certainty vs. one that creates confusion. Between one that reduces crime and poverty and one that doesn’t. And between a lifestyle that increases economic prosperity vs. one that doesn’t. “Marriage Equality” is a fiction that is based on an ideological point of view rather than on facts. And it is high time for someone to call this issue out.

   For we are, literally, piling up dead bodies due to a lack of traditional family life in the high crime areas of our country. I have no interest in playing along with someone’s ideologically based fictions when we are having corpses being created by real life problems. And when that real-life problem centers around a lack of traditional family life – not around a lack of ‘choices’ or ‘alternatives’.

  Enough is enough; I will call it the way that it is.

END OF ARTICLE

    Again, thank you for listening, so far, to what we have told you here at WeMustUnite. But I must issue an urgent request: next read the article from the following link. It is even more grave than what you have just read.

Culture Watch IV

   Finally, please feel free to visit the rest of our site – other news, other subjects, other articles – all written up for the average person. Our Home Page Link is below:

We Must Unite!

To the Web site viewer: The people I am referring to in my second presentation are the same Library employees as my first presentation. This involves the same issue of exposing chronically underage children to sexual themes and materials.

Please pardon, again, my way of doing a rather unorthodox opening point. I will go a little bit off our subject matter for a moment – before getting back to it. Now, have you ever heard of an Evidence Whisperer?

True story: I once did some pro bono investigative work for a wrongfully convicted person. During my evidence whispering (someone who vets evidence for missed clues) I noticed several witness interviews with some odd statements. Just sifting through this evidence, it led to a critical conclusion. For seventeen years a witness had been known to the prosecutors – but had been suppressed from the defendant. This witness could have verified his claim about where he was.

And thus, you have the tragedy involved. For seventeen years this truth could have come out earlier – if other investigators had simply noticed the connections. But they hadn’t: there had been seventeen years of wrongful incarceration when the evidence was available to stop it. To be fair though: the evidence in this case did need a little bit of whispering, it was somewhat hidden.

Now to get the present set of issues: though there is no physical incarceration involved, we are now jeopardizing the welfare of an entire generation of Americans. But, unlike the case mentioned above, we are doing it despite clear – nothing hidden about it – evidence that what we are doing is wrong. That we are, effectively, subjecting not just one person – as in my investigative case – but literally of millions of people to a grave injustice. And there is a reason for this that has some parallels from the criminal justice system. It sometimes happens in the justice system – and in public policy debates – that people will often ignore clear evidences just because their minds are already made up.

In my last presentation, for example, I highlighted a horrific problem with many adolescent youths in the State of California. They are being condemned to a life of mass, and unnecessary, confusion. I don’t have time to go in depth on it but this is done on notions that many would consider utterly ridiculous. Or even against, what most people would consider anyway, basic common sense.

As I noted in the previous presentation about the mass confusion in California: “So what causes a rare confusion to become such a rampant one – if it is not the type of people that are seated in the front of this 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?”

This was what I would describe as one of those basic, common sense arguments. But, if simple common sense is not enough, what about some more actual evidence to justify my previous claims – about how mass confusion can get started? I can give you an overwhelming case for how you can massively, and again unnecessarily, get young children into complete confusion. And I can do this by simply stating one word: McMartin.

McMartin? Yes, but because of time constraints, I can only summarize. This was a very high-profile criminal case that demonstrated – and beyond all question – just how easy it is to induce confusion into young children. It resulted in numerous false convictions – on what was utterly fictitious testimony from these same young children. It further demonstrated that such confusions can happen, and easily so, even if there is not any deliberate effort being exerted.

So … what in heaven’s name are we doing introducing young children to sexually sensitive themes and materials? Why is there even a debate on the question of whether this is right or not?
I will conclude by going back to my opening point: I am someone who worked long and hard, and minus the compensation, over an injustice to one person – and where the evidence wasn’t always easy to extract. So how can I say nothing when things are being done that are unjust to potentially millions of people – and where the evidence of wrongdoing is obvious. And where, at least according to many, you shouldn’t even a new slug of evidence because the practice violates even the most basic common sense.
Stop with the clear absurdity of what you are doing.

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.

 

I met DeNova Weaver only recently. Our connection was a shared concern of ours about today’s society. It seems that there is an almost relentless effort to subvert our children. Whether it is the entertainment industry, the journalists, the educators, politicians, etc. it seems like everyone wants to indoctrinate our children – and into things that are far from appropriate for what they should be dealing with. The latest front for this is the King County Library System that was her most recent area of concern.

From my brief and few meetings with her, I can still make some observations. She was not rabidly political or prone to extreme points of view. She was what I would call politely religious (which I would like to think that I am also). And her concerns were entirely valid.

As to our present tense use of “we support DeNova” that does trace back to my own religious beliefs. I do feel it is appropriate to still use the present tense with other believers who have recently passed away. As to that – as a final commemoration we have inserted a portion of her memorial service below:

“People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway. If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway. If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway. For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.

– Mother Teresa”

Yours Truly,
Mark W Christie
Director of WeMustUnite

P.S.

See the following links after this one. They talk about the specifics of this outrageous controversy that she was standing up against.