The new language of power speaks in the name of gender. Here we find out how the lobbies have set the agenda of many countries through the major UN Conferences

The new language of power speaks in the name of gender. Here we find out how the lobbies have set the agenda of many countries through the major UN Conferences

An analysis by journalist and writer Marguerite Peeters speaking at a convention organized by the Diocese of Brescia, Italy.

Gender? It’s a global political norm today. Marguerite Peeters, an American well-known journalist and writer of many books on ethical themes made a clean sweep of many commonplaces as she looked back through the history of major conferences promoted by the United Nations Organisation from 1990.

Working as a journalist she participated in conferences where she saw various NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) working in fields of “human rights” and equal opportunities progressively gain power. Through time such organisations have not only succeeded in substituting national government programmes by imposing their agendas and influencing them according to the interests of a restricted group of lobbies with economic and speculative interests.

In particular, the Beijing Conference on women in 1995 paved the way for “gender equality” and stated that sexual equality was equal to gender equality. Gender equality from that moment on became subject to global consensus.

In order to understand what has happened, we need to explain the concept of soft power and consensus (global consensus) which is a shrewd way to avoid unanimous decisions being made on thorny issues. When a resolution is not concordant, it is approved without a formal vote or better through a concerted declaration previously made by every State which is simply recognised by the members and then the president of the international body submits through the formula “Are there any objections?” “If not, motion approved”

It is all about a compromise, which is often vague in content and which lobbies make use of to direct the politics of each State to serve their own purposes. UN conferences have imposed a new language using terms such as partnership, stakeholder and above all governance.

Peeters warns that “global governance is an elusive reality: all the terms of this new language are ambivalent, they do not have a clear definition. Their diffusion serves only to hide a precise ideological plan and, for certain minority groups, to acquire power. Governance is not a world government: the difference is that a “real” government has its own democratic visibility and a moral authority which derives from the representation of such. A government is elected with the aim of giving a voice to those who have elected it. Governance, on the other hand, does not have any representation but just the participation of certain lobbies which have acquired power globally.”

In a convention recently held in Brescia, Peeters explains “it is about a political revolution guided by NGOs who focus their attention on issues like demographic growth and environmental issues. Equality between man and woman, in particular, has been used as a vehicle to allow the diffusion of gender ideology. It began by claiming the right, in other words equality (something which nobody denies in the West) and has gradually broadened its meaning to the point that the biological aspect has been deconstructed in favour of a free interpretation of one’s sexual identity.”

On the subject of this, there are at least 58 genderson Facebook alone.

Peeters explains that gender ideology is so widespread thanks to certain myths: “The idea of it being about a plan coming from a homosexual front is prevalent but the actions of radical feminists cannot be forgotten as it was the feminist movement which paved the way for the homosexual movement. In the West, the homosexual movement is prevalent while in developing countries there are feminist programmes which aim to promote a mentality which opposes the filial, maternal and conjugal identity of women. They teach them that the differences between a man and a woman are social constructs, and denigrate the family and the educative vocation as social constraints which oppose equality and freedom of citizens. The underlying message is that in an advanced society these “old fashion” traditions must be discouraged with every means and that there must be continual pressure until legislations on contraception, abortion and in vitro fertilization are made easily accessible. Through these channels, the governance can promote a type of woman who is more autonomous and self-realized without family constraints and who is on a continual search for power and independence”.

The philosophical origins of the phenomena come from the Enlightenment where deism gained prominence. The principle that “if God is not the father, the citizen is not the son and therefore an individual does not inherit an identity from someone, moreover he must build it himself. Therefore, the citizen becomes simply an individual, a political entity both abstract and undifferentiated, an individual who lays claims of rights. His freedom and equality is not obtained by filial means but literally he takes possession of it (like a rebel would!). In this process, paternity is clearly an obstacle as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78 ) acknowledged, and to be a father is a social privilege contrary to equality. This cultural death of the father figure is the consequence of such thought”.

Peeters is shocked by the ideological continuity which there is between the French Revolution and the way in which gender theory has been introduced in school books. “From the death of God to the death of man, to that of the father, the mother and finally the son, 20th century was devastating from an anthropological viewpoint, as now we see children as such no longer exist because they are children of the Republic, caught up in a secularisation process which results in a global gender norm”.

But how does one react to all this without resorting to extreme actions, should we reject everything that is in the Western society or should we wish for a return to the past like some minorities do? The only way is through discernment. “To contest gender ideology it is not relevant to have common knowledge of scientific facts but through the reawakening of our conscience: it is there where we can decide on what is good and nurture it. The choice which we face, is to remain passive because we feel crushed by the gravity of the problem or to act for the good of all and seek to free ourselves from past compromises. The truth is that we no longer live in a true democracy because right from the very start of the system itself there were already the seeds of self-destruction. The West has passed its heyday, it has almost reached the end of its line and today it is necessary to be re-evangelized to be able to return to seeing the human in his essence. The power will not be given back to the people unless we publicly expose this suppression carried out by lobbies. It is not enough to oppose to cultural values: we must open up a discussion on individualism and on how these so-called human rights have evolved. What is needed, in synthesis, is for the human to return to his true existential experience, for him to rediscover the true identity of the son”.

(*) Marguerite Peeters follows political, cultural and ethical initiatives of governance worldwide since 1994. She is author of hundreds of reports on this subject and also on the work “ La mondialisation de la revolution culturelle occidentale”. She is a consultant at the Vatican Pontifical Council of Culture . Her latest book is: “Il Gender: Una questione politica e culturale” (“The Gender Ideology: A Political and Cultural Issue) (2014).