After the newest iteration of sexual kink story hour I was thinking about the gay rights movement and once again can only come to one conclusion, the gay rights movement was a contrived milestone, not the goal. The harshest reality we, as a society, are not willing to come to terms with is how reproachable humanity can be. We have, from the own writings of the modern social architects (Foucault, Young, Butler, et al) that in their own words believe pedophilia is natural and should be accepted into society. The Overton window was slid to the most agreeable milestone, gays who just want to be like everyone else and keep what happens in the bedroom in the bedroom. This of course was a lie from conception, but it gave room for the fingerholds of these social architects.
This methodology is a common business and government practice of what is called freezing and unfreezing(Kotters 8 step method is a similar methodology). When looking to implement change you need to first make a rationale for you change. “Government shouldn’t dictate what happens in a private bedroom”. Remember that line? So with these rationalizations they unfroze the social structure and inserted their addition. This however brings us to the most crucial step, freezing the new idea into our society. This was done, rather ingeniously on two fronts, first was the humanization approach. They took the “victims” and made them relatable. Media and culture became flooded with “Gayness”. These were your sassy fairies with charming quips and non threatening presence. Meanwhile, the second part, and frankly, the most ingenious part, was to unfreeze the next bastion as the other was freezing and make it present in the public discourse. Remember when the first CSI did an episode entirely on furries? This process made the former leap look American as apple pie. Yes, the gay quippy person with a lisp can stay, just keep the weird animal larpers in their hole. Once the refreezing was completed, the gays (Let’s keep the government out of the bedroom) gained license to expand like Oprah at a buffet. Gay rights became lgbt, then lgbtq, the lgbtqia, and on and on. We still to this day have zero proof that gayness is hereditary, or in fact is even innately biological, but even hardcore conservatives wouldn’t be openly willing to take sexual identity out off protected classes. In fact our “conservative” Supreme Court has ruled gender identity as innate and immutable. These constant changes are not from some imaginary chance of human discovery like we have been sold, the end goal is the same today as it was in conception.
The moral majority immediately said acceptance of gays would bring about the normalization of pedophilia.
Those crazy Christians, right again.
You're talking about furries on CSI. I can't relate. Afaik it started with Paul Lind and the other flaming faggot on Hollywood Squares.
Actual homosexuals should be against the extremity of this bs more than anyone!
And yet they're not. So trying to exhort them like this is pointless. They're part of the problem, they know it, and they don't care. Not only that, but they'll happily persecute anyone who points it out.
Almost like, in the end, all wickedness ends up in the same place.
There are groups of homosexuals that are against this, actively. I have no idea what % though.
And yet they will still reap the ill gotten benefits those extremists keep giving them and act like they deserved it anyway.
Being a pacifist or conscientious objector is pretty hypocritical when you still drink from the imperial tit.
I have an idea of what percentage.
Not enough to matter at all.
3% changed history, all throughout recorded history.
In fact it's been widely known for some time now to science that there is NO animal species out there that is known to have any individuals displaying a uniquely homosexual affinity. Emphasis on the "uniquely"...yes, animals exhibit occasional homosexual actions, but individuals are never exclusively homosexual in mating behavior.
So either humans are completely unique in this, which the atheist communists pushing all this wouldn't agree to anyway - or we've been sold a lie about gays being "born that way".
It's basically a fetish. Same with trans. Same with furry. Same with all degenerate sexual behaviors.
It is technically a fetish, however unlike most fetishes it does have a biological basis: hormone imbalances experienced in the womb.
Do we know that?
Has there been womb hormonal development longitudinal studies on those who do and do not have foot fetishes? Furries? Bisexuals? Autopheliacs?
And if gayness is caused by hormonal imbalances, that implies that hormonal dosing would fix it: You can "cure" gayness with a pill. I think both Left AND Right would disagree with that sentiment.
Great post. I was high school age in the late 60's when the whole civil rights/feminism/sexual weirdos thing broke out. I wandered around in it for a few years and then escaped to a small town and mostly ignored it.
I could never have imagined that this monstrosity is where it would end up.
Perhaps it didn't have to be this way. Maybe it was really kickstarted with the court ruling on school prayer :/ They came after the children a long time ago to make them godless, after which the predators among them could do as they please with the pre-conditioned children. It does smack of a long term agenda.
Also look at how freely children are being trafficked for fun and profit, in public, all over the world; the US has to be one of the worst. Perverts are running the world.
bruce gender lmao
did you come up with that? it's perfect.
u/TentElephant possible pedopasta addition?
Thanks! Fascism is... not fucking kids. That's a peculiar position to take.
MULTI-POST PASTA!
The bigger red pill: it was never about "civil rights".
Definitely no civil rights involved. I've said this before and gotten lambasted, but gays never had any less rights than the rest of us. No one could marry someone of the same sex, and everyone could marry someone of the opposite sex. Equal rights already existed. They sneakily used the cover of "equal rights" when they really meant right to legalize degeneracy.
Trans also never had any less rights than the rest of us, no one can change sex, not just the crazy people who want to think they can.
Edit: Whoever's downvoting this, why not show yourself and have a discussion? Unlike leftist mafia we will actually discuss here not block and ban.
Not talking about homos. I'm talking about the black "civil rights" subversion from the 60s that is currently mythologized and elevated in public education over any other happening in american history.
The red pill that is that those events were a terrible thing for the country. The federal laws that were passed destroyed freedom of association and pulled the idea of federalism itself off of the life support it had been gasping on since the reconstruction amendments were passed.
Yep. MLK was a Marxist. The Civil Rights Acts are unconstitutional.
Yes, black people weren't being treated fairly. But the fact of the matter is that was changing rather rapidly organically. We didn't just suddenly become significantly less racist because congress passed some legislation saying you can't kick blacks out of your restaurants anymore.. that very prospect is laughable, if anything they'd be more pissed. We were already learning to see past race. If the civil rights act was removed in entirety, virtually nothing would change except a restoration of the freedom of association (which if anyone used in a racist way, their business would be mobbed away).
It reminds me of the assaults weapon ban in the 90s. Proponents of another AWB will claim the original reduced gun violence significantly, but in truth it was already on the downturn and continued to reduce after the AWB lifted in the early 2000's.
In short, the only thing the government is good at is taking credit for shit they didn't do.
Yes, and Rosa Parks was a trained communist instigator. They basically cast her into a role.
I can't even begin to imagine being a gay man who doesn't share in the lunacy pushed by the left. It must be incredibly frustrating to be told who you are and how you are supposed to act, and to be viewed as those things regardless of your personality by the psycho woke mob.
Very good breakdown. Thank you
It was always the slippery slope.
No, because I don't watch CSI.
Although I'd bet it happened shortly after the chlorine incident at Midwest Furfest.
Off the top of my head, it was actually earlier. It wasn't just latching onto a headline, someone thought through a script and went "I know: Furries."
from the time of wigar pier we know it.
showing you care about poor people > actual poor people
also check this: https://odysee.com/@ShortFatOtaku:1/concepts-over-people:9
I think this is an example of survivorship bias: the people who call themselves "progressive" today are those extremists who still haven't got what they wanted. The people for whom it was just about gay rights went home satisfied years ago.
The sad truth is that the modern anti-pedo stance only started in the 1970s. Most of America's founding fathers had child brides and most states did not have an age of consent nor child labor laws til the early 1900s.
We're the unnatrual aberration, not pedos.
Pedophilia requires an attraction to pre-pubescence. If you actually looked back at that history marrying a child that young was incredibly rare, because they couldn't produce young and most people wanted babies asap for said child labor.
Now hebephillia and ephebophillia was common enough because they were pubescent and that meant they had all the necessary physical functions to have babies so society didn't have an aversion to it. It was in fact necessary due to infant mortality rates to start young and have a lot knowing a chunk would die. Double so with death in childbirth.
You didn't need a law for god damned everything until recently because most of the time the community took care of itself and social shaming kept a lot of things under control. If Roger down the lane was fucking a 6 year old, Roger probably wouldn't have a good life so Roger behaved. It wasn't until the onset of greater travel ability and the increasing commonality of non-royal rich men that community shaming stopped being effective enough that actual laws were needed.
Its far more complicated than "historically pedo good!" and almost every part of it was logically founded instead of pure sexual hedonism. But that doesn't stop pedos from trying to use it as a shield from their degeneracy.
On top of this, people like to bring up arranged marriages as if they were consummated the day they were arranged even if they were infants, and use that as proof that historically blah blah blah. "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" and Muhammad's child brides and Romeo&Juliet's Juliet being only 13 and all that stuff. Then you look at things like settlement laws and whatnot that have taxes and fines if women over 15 aren't married, or men over 17, and go "clearly, history was pedo".
But no one ever looks at the art.
People were breeding out of necessity. The world really sucks, and sucked even more if we go back in history. Yes, many women were childbearers from the moment they COULD be. But look at art, throughout the world: Chinese vases, Egyptian hieroglyphs, European paintings, Greek statues, the renderings of goddesses and female saints... Those women aren't 12. Large breasts. Full asses. They're fully sexually mature.
There's a difference between necessity and attraction. In some parts of history, especially rough-on-survival parts, childbirth age was very low by necessity. But even in those eras, the art we have generally shows a trend that such was not the ideal form to them, they still had attraction to women of a more developed and mature age.
It's weird that so many making that "tecknikally historikally" argument seem to have never wandered through a museum in their lives.
Even Muhammad in his own religious text where he is depicted as doing horrible things still waited until his youngest bride was 9 before fucking her, despite marrying her at 6. So clearly there were limits and cultural norms even in the Middle fucking East about such things. They are still pushing the line far down, but there still were lines.
And as you say, the big full figured women aspect has been seen as the ideal for almost all of history. A figure girls only begin to develop in the later stages of puberty and post-child birth. The post-child birth part is important because having children too early in life can seriously damage your bone structure and body in ways that we can barely deal with now let alone back then. They still did out of necessity a lot of the time, but to attain the "most attractive form" it would need to be done much more delicately.
Some of the oldest art we have of attraction shows thicc ass bitches, and most men in their heart of hearts still love them that way (proper thicc, not fat "thicc") regardless of their own personal other preferences. Its instinctual lizard brain shit to be attracted to the signifiers of healthy birthing, which tiny barely old enough girls rarely possess even a fraction of.
Its honestly a really deep and interesting chunk of history and biology, culture and norms, but instead is always boiled down to "history was pedo" simplicity.