Well, the people with “minor-attracted persons” have apparently had a conference lately. They are upset with how things are going with an update/revision of the psychiatry diagnostic manual.
Hopefully, these further efforts by the marxists are enough to make you wake up and agree that there is something going on in our culture other than us being “liberal,” and accepting. Sure you are so progressive, so evolved: you are friends with a gay hair dresser and it doesn’t even bother you. Wow.
Pat yourself on the back for being so modern.
What is really going on is a campaign: tear down the nukelar family, because it is Marx’s unholy trinity of God, family, and commerce that keeps the prevailing society in place. This is the heart of what they call “cultural hegemony.” Or whatever college-larnin’ term they want to put on it.
Sex as part of the family is and idea that must not merely be accepted, along with other versions of the “family,” it must be smashed.
Obama’s guru, Bill Ayers, is supposed to have coined the battle cry, “Smash Monogamy!” These people will try to act mild-mannered to you, so you “Accept” thenm. But they hate the nukelar family and the extended family. That is what stands between them and “revolution!”
Look – I could keep going on and on. But at some point, you are going to have to accept the fact that there has been, and hopefully will ocntinue to be, an American, Constitutionalist Democratic Party, AND, also marxists using our party.
So: I won’t put links on this “smash monogamy” thing. Go google “smash monogamy,” and Obama’s ghostwriter, “William Ayers.”
They know: they have to destroy the family to have their revolution. It is reported that, in order to show commitment, the Weather Underground guys had same-sex encounters with each other. Including Ayers, who nonetheless is so old-fashioned to have his sweetheart of a home-maker wife Barbara Doern – who can cook up a pretty good bomb in the kitchen in no time.
Well, sure, we can accept the same-sex couple. After all, they have always been around, and they are not hurting anyone. But the marxists don’t care. They simply have co-opted the fact that we all know there are same-sex oriented people, and have played that up as a political issue. In the recent hub-bub about same-sex marriage, I heard one declaration that there were 1,200 or 1,400 major restrictions and compromises of civil rights of those who want a same-sex marriage.
Really? Name five. That 1,200 sounds horrible! -I did not go bother to look this up, but I am sure somehow someone combed over all laws and etc., and found there were 1,000 health insurance polices, life ins policies, etc., where a same-sex couple in civil union could not avail what a male-female marriage could.
So, there are a lot of ways to drum up numbers fo remotional appeal of how terrible the cultural hegemony is.
That is just one avenue. The marxists have been working sex-style angles all over the place. In the 60s, the idea of “open marriage” was thrown out there for everyone to consider. Not – ‘hey, let’s tear down society and have a revolution because of this,” – no, these issues are presented as innocuous – if it feels good, do it.
So, the marxists succeeded pretty well in promoting sex outside of marriage, same-sex stuff, and cheating. Really, not much new there. Just the “acceptance.”
Plus, also, as time has gone by, the theme that has been brought up little by little is that of all of these arrangements, there is something bad – oppressive – about a committed heterosexual couple. Somehow, the woman was oppressed. This was back in the same hey-day, and so we got the Stepford Wives movies, and the equal rights amendment effort. OK, nothing wrong with giving the women the right to vote, and we must recognize that it is wrong to replace a wife with a robot – unless the wife consents.
But the campaign is not about accepting differnt ‘lifestyles’ – it is about bringing down the heterosexual committed couple. The “square” couples. “Vanilla.”
This continues on.
So, the boundaries of what is acceptable in mainstream society – the cultural hegemony – are the focus.
This includes the group of people who want to have sex with under-age people. Most of us would call them “sick,” and would identify the behavior as “illegal.” But, the hidden marxists now are pushing, this is just because we are brainwashed by the cultural hegemony. All of those oppressive images on TV of adult-adult relationships are OPPRESSION, they will eventually declare.
But first, they have to warm us up to accept this differnt lifestyle, with a range of arguments, including, “if you are Christian, why do you judge so much?” (A favorite of these atheists – if you are an atheist, why are yo using Christian theology to make an essential point?)
So, a next frontier is normalizing “minor-attracted persons.” Hence the recent conference, as noted on a few conservative (=”racist”) websites:
It looks like this is their line of argument: Just as with same-sex attraction, the field of psychiatry does not really have scientific data firmly declaring that “minor-attracted persons” have a “mental disorder;” therefore it is an arbitrary, oppressive prejudice of the cultural hegemony, and we should investigate this further (called “doing research”). In the future, if “science” figures out that a minor-attraction is a scientific “disorder,” and or finds evidence that adult-child romances hurt minors, then, at that time, our civilized, scientific society should go ahead and recognize these things as bad mentally and legally. Until then, the jury is out, and we should be “accepting,” and they say, allow these things to carry on.
There you have it. Until “science” can decide that a behavior is “disordered,” or that, inevitably that someone gets hurt, they say we should accept it.
Well, it is pretty clear that the minors are hurt, right? Well, just watch for these arguments. For these revolutionary marxists, they know what they are up to – so they get to declare the criteria in any debate. cuz it has never occurred to you to make the case that minors get hurt in many ways by pedophilia. we are caught so off-guard, we are stammering. In the meantime, they pull out a handful of “findings,” and “statements,” and observations. They are prepared to counter an obvious side of the issue because we are totally unprepared. For example: it is true that some people have the pedophilia forced upon them, but manage to have a decent life. The marxists will argue that this disproves on e of our beliefs – that pedophilia harms the child. They will say: show the studies. We know. Among ourselves, we know this to be true from cases we know in our own lives.
So, what’s next? For the marxists, the goal is revolution – the overthrow of the cultural hegemony. They believe they have to overthrow the prevailing forces that keep the current society in place. These are: Christianity (and to some extent, Judaism), the family, and commerce. So, any way you can chip away at “the family” is progress.
Bestiality, mammal-to-mammal relationships, are making headway. Google “Cannes Film Festival,” and “Zoo.” A documentary: A guy died from injuries suffered at a group event enjoying man-horse relationships, and that brought the group to the attention of authorities. A film-maker made a documentary of this…
“Independent filmmaker Robinson Devor shies away from prurient imagery, instead enveloping the story in rich photography that gives it a dreamlike beauty overwhelming the sordidness of the subject matter.”
Following that was the issue of whether Roman Polanski would get in trouble, if he returned to the U.S. in 2010, on outstanding warrants from the 1970s for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Plenty of “liberal” people came to his defense. With no good argument, they threw out plenty of lame one: time has gone by, the woman herself does not desire to see him go to prison, hey, he makes great films, it was a different day and age, hey, she was wearing a provocative outfit, and whatever else.
So, with Polanski, we gave the green light to the marxist effort to decrease the terribleness of pedophilia.
Corey Feldman saying this in a recent Hollywood gossip magazine just helps to mae the casce that Hollywood is different – more “progressive,” less old-fashioned.
For us democrats, we went along. We hate the rich who exploit others, unless it is Hollywood. Then, we accept anything. Polanski raised some eyebrows, but Corey’s story has not made much of a ripple. Google “Corey Feldman,” “Hollywood,” “pedophiles.”
So, what is next? How can the marxists push even more that variations of sexual relationships other than marriage are just fine? And that we traditional people are at best old-fashion, and at worst are the “oppressors?”
We have heard that pre-marital relationships are “healthy,” that same-sex relationships are healthy, that mammal-to-mammal relationships are fine, that “open marriages” are fine, that group activities are fine, and that pedophilia is fine.
What next? Looking at the Bible, where we pretty much see all of these ideas listed (we are so old-fashioned as much as we try to invent new things), there is one listed that has not yet popped up onto the periphery of society, as far as I can tell: incest.
It won’t be brought up as: “Hey, this is OK.” It will be brought up in a way that the quote about the man-horse movie will fit: “Independent filmmaker Robinson Devor shies away from prurient imagery, instead enveloping the story in rich photography that gives it a dreamlike beauty overwhelming the sordidness of the subject matter.”
This occurrred to me when pondering how I will be decalred to be old-fashioned, or oppressive, next, and thinking abt what is listed in the Bible. So, I am throwing the prediction out there that this will pop up, as the man-horse deal has at Cannes, and how the currnet group is working the pedophilia/science issue right now.