Blood over Busybodies

UN Operatives Eye the World's Children, but Mothers & Fathers Hold the Keys to Power

Every child comes into this world literally physically tethered to its mother, notes Kimberly Ells of Family Watch International, and whether you attribute it to evolutionary forces or to a supernatural creator, this biological reality gives primal testimony to a state of belongingness. The child belongs to the mother, and the mother to the child. This natural bond precedes all other social, political, and economic claims that would seek to interpose themselves from without.

Also, Ells continues, no child comes into the world without the biological agency of a man. Ideally, the man is nearby and fully invested in the wellbeing of mother and child when the child is born. And historically, marriage has been the institution ensuring that the bonds of belongingness between mother and father, and father and child, are established and recognized by the outside world. In the genius of this design there lies great power, but wherever lies great power, there the envious eyes of the power-hungry and unscrupulous will turn. And fixate. And conspire.

And indeed, they have. Those covetous forces are the subject of Ells's book, The Invincible Family: Why the Global Campaign to Crush Motherhood and Fatherhood Can't Win.

The Global Trifecta

 Like an exacting journalist, Ells lays out the machinations of three long-running, global movements that cut to the heart of this design.

• Socialism: In the mid-nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed a massive reordering of economic arrangements whereby private ownership of property would be abolished. This would eliminate inequality, they said, and result in great happiness and peace, since people would have their needs met and would no longer fight over possessions. Most people know about the economic aspect of the socialist proposal, but fewer know that the leftist duo also called for a fundamental reordering of sexual and familial arrangements.

Yes, The Communist Manifesto espoused the "abolition of the family," which Engels somehow managed to construe into a capitalist ruse devised by men for amassing wealth and passing it on to their children. Effectively, the socialist program called for the redistribution of spouses and children along with the redistribution of wealth and property.

• Feminism:Not feminism in the sense that men and women are of equal value and therefore command equal rights under the law, but feminism of the radical strain that aims to "free" the woman from her own biology. In 1970, for example, Shulamith Firestone picked up where Engels left off with The Dialectic of Sex, in which she called for freeing women from "the tyranny of reproduction" and "the blood tie of the mother to the child." According to this radically deconstructionist conception, the anatomical distinctions of male and female constitute, ipso facto, a state of oppression and inequality. Since men are not bound to their offspring in the same way that women are, they enjoy a higher degree of power and freedom.

And so, lacking the wherewithal to reengineer their own embodied reality, feminists of this ilk are reduced to warring against it, and in so doing, they manifestly undermine motherhood and the natural family, the biological fount from which the entire human family flows. Sophie Lewis, a successor to Firestone, actually proposed "polymaternalism" and "polypaternal abundance" as a way to redistribute "the burden of children" and dissolve "the distinction between reproducers and nonproducers" in favor of "gestational communism."

• Sexual Nihilism:Ells calls it sexual radicalism. That fits, but I think nihilism captures it better. "Nihilism" comes from the Latin nihil, which literally means nothing. Nihilism amounts to the rejection of all knowledge and value claims, and sexual nihilism is quite literally the rejection of any norms or boundaries, such that all sexual relationships and all ways of marrying and forming families are "equal."

But note that when you make all relationships "equal," you empty the relationship categories of "marriage" and "family" of all meaning. If marriage and family dissolve, who will mind and watch over the children?

Pedophiles of the World, UNite

Note also that, to the sexual nihilist, nothing—no value claim or loyalty (such as obligations to a wife or child)—should hinder him from doing what he pleases sexually.

And now we come to Ells's exposé. She focuses in on the United Nations as a global promoter, backer, and funder of these agendas. All three advance under the noble-sounding banner of "rights" and "equality," but what they all end up doing is obliterating the private sphere of life. They dismantle both property rights, which are inextricably linked with human liberty, and the traditional family and parents' rights, which are inextricably linked to the wellbeing of children. In effect, global social engineers at the UN would replace the natural family with the all-encompassing, super-paternal, bureaucratic state as owner, regulator, and distributer of all things pertaining to life.

Including introducing children to sex, the fount of all human life. The most nefarious UN agenda of all is the mass sexualization of the world's children. It flies under the banner of "rights," but we're not talking here about inherent rights that civilized people everywhere already recognize. No, the UN is championing "sexual rights" for children. You will mostly see it put forth with Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE). Ells writes:

Perhaps it doesn't seem plausible that smart, professional human beings would put time and money into promoting sexual rights for children. And yet, the names and logos of top-tier UN agencies including UNICEF, UNFPA, WHO, and UNAIDS all appear on the front cover of International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education, updated by UNESCO in January 2018.

She goes on to quote liberally from the document, which asserts that children should have "agency in their own sexual practices and relationships" and that "young people want and need sexuality and sexual health information as early and comprehensively as possible." These aren't mere words emanating from some distant radicals. They represent protocols being imposed on developing countries, many of which do not want them but are being strong-armed into accepting them under threat of losing foreign aid.

But while UN busybodies position themselves as guardians of children's sexual rights, conscientious adults should know that UN-connected organizations have been at the center of a veritable torrent of sex-abuse allegations, including child sex rings, food-for-sex scandals, and a child porn studio operating out of a UNICEF basement.

The She-Seat of Power

There's heaviness to digest in all this, but Ells ends on an upbeat note. Here are two points to take away.

First, parents will always have sway over bureaucrats. The bonds of love and belongingness conferred by nature will see to it. Returning to the genius of natural design, the relationships of belongingness between parents and children aren't prone to abuse but rather tend toward selfless guardianships directed by love. By and large, parents do not abuse their children. Nor do they expose them to adult sexual matters "as early and comprehensively as possible." (You know who does that? Pedophiles do that.)

And second, contra the radical feminists, biology is not a woman's enemy, but rather it confers on her the astonishing power of being a child's mother. Furthermore, she holds the singularly powerful key of her own (adult and legitimate) sexual rights. By choosing with whom and under what conditions she will exercise those rights, she decides who will be father to her children. If she chooses wisely, he will not only be nearby when they are born, but he will be of sound character and fully committed as well.

The feminists have it all backwards. By nature, women are central to a seat of power no global bureaucracy could ever overturn. Only a clueless fool would give that power away.