normalising enslaved sows

Using humans as breeding machines is pure evil.

It’s discussed in the comments, not at the top.

a main purpose of trafficking is to steal white DNA, mostly skin, but especially lighter eyes and hair

it’s a primary purpose of slavery

Surrogacy is a women’s rights issue, and not a human rights issue for homosexual men. This view removes women from the centre of the debate, reframing male entitlement to women’s reproductive function as a pitiable cause to elicit sympathy from would-be progressives. 


rumour has it cults like the Mormons are deliberately producing children to be trafficked

as young as babies

and then there’s the Cinderella effect with child abuse, the probability of gay parents abusing “their” kids (as stories are coming out of pedo parents) and the misogynistic entitlement as if Darwin didn’t already select you out of the gene pool

r-strategists’ sense of entitlement never ends

so all the tradlarpers saying they’re okay with gays, like it’s harmless, tell us you’re okay with letting them rape your sister (“natural conception”)

go ahead, go full Swede

because that’s on the table now

but cucking to Muslims is wrong, huh?

But, perhaps to obscure this reality, the language of the CPSA went to great lengths to erase biological sex. A significant number of edits were made by Democratic lawmakers wherein “mother” was crossed out and replaced with “gestational carrier,” or “person who gave birth.” Such terminology explicitly mirrors the way conservative anti-choice advocates view women, referring to women as “host bodies,” for example.

those guys aren’t conservatives, they’re Satanists

Christian men have a duty to protect women from evil men

Similarly, many instances of the term “woman,” “man,” and “paternity” have been removed and replaced:

know the Satanists by their fruit – abuse girls and women, dehumanise both

and this isn’t white men, if you look into it

farming half-white children

that’s their utopia of white genocide

no white men necessary, so death of their line too, indirectly

In this case, “gestational carrier” is used to refer to the woman whose body is being used to gestate a fertilized embryo that does not carry her DNA, though “handmaid” might be a more appropriate term.

human farming, like “surrogacy” farms in India

they want to legally be able to force women to birth children for them, or something something ‘discrimination’

this flies in the face of the Bible prohibition on rape (Death Penalty), respect for women (god’s children) and sexual selection, whereby women keep many of the crazier genes (spiteful mutants) out of the pool with the ‘creeps’ (real reason IVF m-m ‘couples’ cannot find a willing woman)

it’s anti-Christian

it’s a direct attack on the nuclear family

This is especially troubling given that there are no official records kept regarding how many women die in the surrogacy industry. In January, Michelle Reaves died due to complications from a surrogacy birth. Reaves succumbed to a condition known as an amniotic fluid embolism. According to a statement from the Center for Bioethics and Culture (CBC):

(how) are no records kept


“Recent studies have shown that surrogate pregnancies are different and are high-risk. Studies show that women pregnant with donor eggs (as in gestational surrogacy) have a more than three-fold risk of developing pregnancy induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia.”

except white women are human (obviously), the future of the extreme global minority race and already huge victims of trafficking for that breeding sow purpose (usually by Arabs), have been for centuries
giving birth kills women every year, it’s on par with major surgery and the bodily changes/birth can be traumatic

this is like sexual pressganging with a side of rape

even egg donation confers risks of developing endometriosis, infertility, or the fatal condition of OHSS.


but women are not fish, you can’t steal our eggs and expect us to be fine

forcing anyone to carry alone would be traumatising, I don’t see men queuing up to get a womb transplanted because it messes with your head, women hate being pregnant and that’s when it’s their husbands’!

the concept of being entitled to reproduce is exclusively heterosexual in the exclusive mutual agreement of a marriage

the document you’re looking for is a marriage certificate, nothing less gives you reproduction rights over another human. Nobody is entitled to have children and the people who disagree are narcissists, who should be legally banned.

I wonder if they’re trying to normalise this human rights abuse before the pedo stuff comes out

I think we’re starting to see why patriarchy both protects its daughters and hates homosexual men.

It’s still little known that most rapists are practically bisexual (“pan” if you believe in that). They tend to go after women because of the physical weakness of women, not a preference. Look at places like Afghanistan where they overpower little boys and goats.

A wife does not have the right over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a husband does not have the right over his own body, but his wife does.

And a man’s reproduction choices are the jurisdiction of his wife, not him. It isn’t one way, it’s equal yoking.

r-types never stop sinking to new lows, including the tranny parent pushers

they believe they own their children and ruthlessly control their life, even going so far as to buy them by force (madwomen like Jolie do this too, it would be false to assume her adoptions were all legal)

Girlhood, Interrupted: Angelina Jolie Forcing Shiloh Into Tomboyhood, Overall Deviance

there was another CDAN blind about Jolie forcing her kids to write sexual fantasies in a journal and give it back to her everyday

these people are insane

insanity looks fine until you talk to it

like the guy who says he’s proud to be gay but feels entitled to rape your niece’s teen womb

rapists are evolutionally after reproduction so it’s rape in multiple senses of the word

A few years ago there were a couple separate cases of couples, one gay and one hetero suing ivf clinics because the kids came out a different race and so was obviously not related to them. I’ve often wondered how common these mix ups are. I bet a lot of times they remain undiscovered because the kid has the same ethnicity as the bio parent so no one guesses.

no that’s deliberate

genocide, only white couples get “mixed up”

who owns the IVF companies (Israel)

Cultural Marxism and World Cup propaganda

Cultural Marxism is often misunderstood as having, or wishing to create, something new, it isn’t, it is a wrecking ball with no further purpose than to destroy. This is why its internal logic is so often paradoxical and, generally, an incoherent mess. One example of this is the way the modern Left claim to stand simultaneously for Islam and Gay Rights. It doesn’t make sense, it isn’t supposed to, what matters is that both gays and Muslims are groups lining up to attack the traditional society Europeans have created. Placing blacks as aristocrats, or coming soon, characters in Beowulf, opens up yet another paradox in New Leftist thought. If blacks are a historically oppressed and abused group at the hands of racist Europeans then by the Left’s own logic it is absurd to cast them as being a historically integral part of European civilization, as aristocrats and viking warriors etc. If we are now supposed to believe that blacks made up the classes of the British ruling elites are they, then, culpable and guilty for slavery too? what do today’s blacks think of this?.

If they can convince you into insanity once, they never need do it again.

Asch’s lines. How many lines do you see?




Or Moscovici’s blue/green study appropriately dubbed “minority influence”.

In many of the conformity studies described so far it was a minority group who were conforming to the majority.  Moscovici (1976, 1980) argued along different lines.  He claimed that Asch (1951) and others had put too much emphasis on the notion that the majority in a group has a large influence on the minority. In his opinion, it is also possible for a minority to influence the majority.  In fact Asch agreed with Moscovici.  He too felt that minority influence did occur, and that it was potentially a more valuable issue to study – to focus on why some people might follow minority opinion and resist group pressure.

They want all histories on a wiki so they can edit as times go on as is expedient.

Moscovici made a distinction between compliance and conversion. Compliance is common in conformity studies (e.g. Asch) whereby the participants publicly conform to the group norms but privately reject them.  Conversion involves how a minority can influence the majority. It involves convincing the majority that the minority views are correct. This can be achieved a number of different ways (e.g. consistency, flexibility).  Conversion is different to compliance as it usually involves both public and private acceptance of a new view or behavior (i.e. internalization).

Why does that push for “awareness” and “acceptance” sound familiar?