Globohomo's pedopomo prophets openly talk about their love of pedos. The Tavistock Clinic is doing mass medical tranny experimentation on children, and Dr Kentler gave pedos foster kids in Germany.
Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.
-Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex
These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal, but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests and Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature. But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of its civilization.
-Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae
This notion of consent is a trap, in any case. What is sure is that the legal form of an intersexual consent is nonsense. No one signs a contract before making love... When we say that children are 'consenting' in these cases, all we intend to say is this: in any case, there was no violence, or organized manipulation in order to wrench out of them affective or erotic relations.
-Guy Hocquenghem, Sexual Morality and the Law
It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside... The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.
-Judith Butler, Undoing Gender
But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.
-Michel Foucault, The Danger of Child Sexuality
tl;dr Not fucking children is somehow child abuse.
Are you going towards Joos? I'm down to talk about noticing.
I know the mods hate this shit, but Every Single Time happens for a reason. Seems like when someone is promoting or protecting some form of degeneracy, and you look into their background, there's a good 50/50 split on whether it's going to be a member of the tribe. 2/3rds in this case. Now, either people are going out of their way to find Jewish people to quote who are promoting this shit, or Jewish people are disproportionately likely to be promoting this shit. AoV has said that it's just confirmation bias, but I don't look for Jews to see what bullshit I can find that they're peddling. I just see bullshit and find them behind it all too often. Confirmation bias wouldn't seem to apply. Granted, we're talking about a tiny handful of the overall Jewish population, so this isn't a blanket statement on them as a group, anymore than noticing black crime being disproportionate is a statement on every black person being criminal, but I don't think I'm crazy in my observations here.
You've correctly identified that it is a small group. You aren't looking at jews. You are looking at super WASPs. The great achievement of the American revolution was the recognition of private property as kingdoms. It created a great meritocracy.
The jews have managed to create a group of high IQ individuals with a good cultural background promoting work ethics. They naturally started swimming upwards with nature and nurture firing on all cylinders.
The ones who reached the top assimilimated to the WASP class and adopted their progressive religion. Not quite wholly though, they thought the problem was property rights all together. If ripping power from the king helped them, then surely all the other groups that fail in meritocracies must be kept down the same way they were.
It isn't a hard observation to make. They could look around and see things like Jim Crow. Part of assimilation is that the host adopts beneficial traits. It isn't good, but it is beneficial to ruin everyone around you to keep power. Thus, destructive chaos has accidentally become the religion of the upper class, particularly the German speaking Jews that had recently become super WASPs. People like John Reed started running around destroying the world handing out bags of Rothschild money to the worst society has to offer.
This brings us to an interesting quirk of WW2. These German Jews looked back at their yiddish speaking bretheren in eastern Europe and saw a stain on their heritage. Hitler saw the problem, but didn't know what it was. He tried to get a reaction from New York by attacking Jews locally. They were happy to see Hitler wiping out the yids. Hence why the New York Times et al actively downplayed the whole affair, until the 70s when the soviet's Nazi boogeyman(race wars leave interesting scars) was adopted by the Cathedral.
That makes some sense from the Sheldon Adelson/Mike Bloomburg class. Less so from the Jonathan Yanivs and Gayle Rubins, though.
Bioleninism
People who naturally float to the top of meritocracies don't try to protect the system. They have nothing compelling their loyalty to maintain the system, since they achieved greatness on their own and locking out the plebs would be nice.
The problem is As hire As and Bs hire Cs. Once one person gets in that doesn't belong there, they will scramble to cling to their position by producing loyal backers, people who wouldn't get there without being placed. This creates a race to the bottom.
They need to start categorizing people to identify those who will be loyal. Falguini Sheth calls it racialization. Eventually they start openingly selecting for groups they percieve to be worthless. When you see leftists yelling for representation, the groups that they champion are ones that they percieve to be fundamentally worthless, because it will instill loyalty.