Social justice, social work and Agenda 21

To quote: “Did you think it was just chance that there were so many pedophiles in the uppermost echelons of British society? They just happened to all be there en masse, enabling each other?”

“CP has been rather reluctant to explain exactly what change they are seeking, but clues are to be found in their widely pro-EU approach, and their desire to fill the ‘invisible space between the individual and the State with their people.'”

“In targeting young minds with their quasi political change agenda, CP under the hand of Sir David Bell has worked to use the secretive Common Purpose networks to tap into education budgets and thus spread their ‘charitable’ political agenda at the expense of the taxpayer. Moreover this has been done by using staff who have not always been police CRB checked, but who can use powerful and largely undeclared applied behavioural psychology. ”

“Scriven selected Sheffield City Council’s own Executive Director of Children and Young People and Common Purpose trained ‘leader’ Sonia Sharp to investigate and report. Sharp had previously been in the same Director’s post in Rotherham during the widespread abuse of youngsters in the town and  under the protection of the Rotherham Council.”

“To date, CP has ‘trained’ many tens of thousands of children and young people in Britain alone, with countless others overseas. The exact number is unknown because CP regards training programmes, exact content and the names of attendees as secret ‘commercial’ information.  The lack of clear information on CP’s penetration of schools, colleges and academies should be of immediate concern to parents and those involved in child safeguarding. If CP is such an open trustworthy charity, why is it so secretive about its real agenda around children?”

“Access to children via schools, colleges and other venues, coupled with powerful psychology to change the views and values of children must surely be a dangerous cocktail. Couple this with secretive networks of Common Purpose graduates, and their declared interest in “leading outside authority”, and surely this charity becomes a ‘sweety shop’ for perverts? Does Common Purpose recognise the risk of their operating procedures? From their aggressive stance, it appears not.”

“uniform re-education of children into the new world view.”

*cough cough Cultural Marxism cough cough*

A lot of people fret about government control.

Governments are accountable.

Private companies and charities are not.

4th wall break dean winking wahey

Link: Subtle Sexual Abuse

Important point: The sex is the means of control.

Now it’s easy to write something like this off as feminist screed or a shrill piece of victimhood propaganda because it comes at it from the common female angle. Not so.

This could often apply as well to men, and I’m certain it does.

However, since men are more socially proactive in dating and sexually initiative in ‘relationships’, this describes the first reason that men are more often found in this category, which is still Sexual Abuse.

I say ‘relationship’ because those are founded on trust among other things.

I’m likely to get hate or seem to spurn the male reader who might not like the implications of this (and claim it’s his natural right to act like an asshole without consequence) so let me put in a context you can easily understand. Imagine you, probably an average male, were being treated like this by a woman who is ugly on the outside as she is on the inside. Would you take issue with it?

Men often imagine female abusers as sexually alluring and that has nothing to do with it. A man has as much of a right to deny consent to a beautiful woman, a true 10, for no reason at all, as a woman would. No reason is required. No apology, either, although it might be polite based on the way one was approached (also politely).

Men often turn down beautiful women because of work (stress) or previous commitments (married) and as with the no reason point, there is no shame in these. Men aren’t constantly raring to go like 15 year-olds. I’ve seen heartless women try to pick up men at funerals.

I’m posting this because sexual abuse is rarely discussed in the context of adults (rather important) and because abusive men don’t like having limits imposed equally (since they are physically stronger and can force it, which some don’t ‘consider’ abuse).

“I killed him, but I didn’t consider it murder!”

The link between childhood sexual abuse and homosexuality in men

I’m surprised this was published. That’s so sad.

Existing cross-sectional research suggests associations between physical and sexual abuse in childhood and same-sex sexual orientation in adulthood. This study prospectively examined whether abuse and/or neglect in childhood were associated with increased likelihood of same-sex partnerships in adulthood. The sample included physically abused (N = 85), sexually abused (N = 72), and neglected (N = 429) children (ages 0–11) with documented cases during 1967–1971 who were matched with non-maltreated children (N = 415) and followed into adulthood. At approximately age 40, participants (483 women and 461 men) were asked about romantic cohabitation and sexual partners, in the context of in-person interviews covering a range of topics. Group (abuse/neglect versus control) differences were assessed with cross-tabulations and logistic regression. A total of 8% of the overall sample reported any same-sex relationship (cohabitation or sexual partners). Childhood physical abuse and neglect were not significantly associated with same-sex cohabitation or sexual partners. Individuals with documented histories of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely than controls to report ever having had same-sex sexual partners (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.16–6.80, p ≤ .05); however, only men with histories of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely than controls to report same-sex sexual partners (OR = 6.75, 95% CI = 1.53–29.86, p ≤ .01). These prospective findings provide tentative evidence of a link between childhood sexual abuse and same-sex sexual partnerships among men, although further research is needed to explore this relationship and to examine potential underlying mechanisms.

I’ll let you figure out the pedophile implication on your own.

Anti-gamergate SJWs are pro-paedophile

Well, they’ve already got the foot in the door from homosexuality. Most paedos are same-sex.

They’ve had it re-labelled an orientation and the MSM hasn’t covered it.
This is their endgame, a Brave New World where evil adults, there is no other word for it, but evil, will ruin the lives of innocent children for pleasure.

h/t Vox Day.

The Story of Moira Greyland (Guest Post)


I was born into a family of famous gay pagan authors in the late Sixties. My mother was Marion Zimmer Bradley, and my father was Walter Breen. Between them, they wrote over 100 books: my mother wrote science fiction and fantasy (Mists of Avalon), and my father wrote books on numismatics: he was a coin expert.

What they did to me is a matter of unfortunate public record: suffice to say that both parents wanted me to be gay and were horrifed at my being female. My mother molested me from ages 3-12. The first time I remember my father doing anything especially violent to me I was five. Yes he raped me. I don’t like to think about it. If you want to know about his shenanigans with little girls, and you have a very strong stomach, you can google the Breendoggle, which was the scandal which ALMOST drummed…

View original post 3,064 more words

Trans Slate says sexing a baby for records at birth is abuse

Literally looking and say what is there. They try to make it scary by calling it infant gender assignment. Biological sex isn’t gender. Sex isn’t assigned, you have never been anything else since you existed. Can’t scalpel away every cell in your body.

The metaphor they use can hilariously also be applied to vaccination (peer pressure, side effects)

It ends with:

“Is it better to play the odds, or play it safe? Think carefully. Infant gender assignment might just be Russian roulette with your baby’s life.”

Fearmongering? What fearmongering? There’s no personal agenda here?

I can tell this won’t happen because it interferes with Gov’s desire to acquire personal medical information.
Still fucking annoying though. These people need to be stopped from controlling the lives of others, especially real vulnerable groups like children. It interferes directly with the medical profession on the basis of personal minority belief (but Christianity is meant to be evil) and their ability to do their job. Including save lives.

Imagine the implication. If a child is suffering from a sex-specific ailment, the doctor cannot acknowledge it to treat it. These crazy trans groups enforcing their beliefs on the rest of us will directly cause deaths if they are given their way.

Article: Liberal Sex Education and Rational Opposition

article here;

Sexual Education is often a go-to topic used by liberals to attack conservatives as being unreasonable and uneducated. The cliché of the sexually lacking ignorant Christian opposition is well known. It is equally accepted as truth that people, in general, were repressed and unhappy until liberal sexual liberation flooded the cultural mindset and freed them all. The argument over abstinence – only education implies that the only choice parents have is to accept whatever sexual education is presented or hope their kids don’t have sex. The problem, however, is not in the nature of sexual education, but the agenda behind it.

In a piece mocking conservative opposition to sexual education beginning in kindergarten, defended the program stating, “…students will receive age-appropriate information about wellness, anatomy, puberty, and sexual health that’s tailored for every grade.” This is used to demonstrate that clearly conservatives are being irrational about the whole thing. Why would anyone oppose discussing wellness, puberty and sexual health that are “appropriate” for each grade? What does modern psychology think appropriate is? Psychology Today, in an article titled Is Your Child’s Sexual Behavior Normal? states, “…the vast majority of children, from a young age, derive enjoyment from genital manipulation… As long as children are nurtured through this time and taught to cherish their sexuality without flaunting or exposing it indiscriminately, it can be a healthy experience for the child.”, a website reporting to prevent sexual abuse of children, openly discusses children under age 5 enjoying sexual activity with peers.

The same Psychology Today magazine defines pedophilia as a combination of abnormal sex hormones and possibly experiencing sexual abuse as a child. It even implies witnessing sexuality may cause the potential pedophile to imitate. It opines, “The prognosis for pedophilia is difficult to determine. For pedophiles, these longstanding sexual fantasies about children can be very difficult to change.” At no point does the liberal mindset behind both concepts connect the dots to see how aggressively asserting children hold valid and equal – to – adult standards of sexuality and pedophilia could be associated.

As Breeanne Howe discusses in an article, Planned Parenthood recently engaged in discussing Sadomasochism, bondage and other “kinky sex” with a young girl. While there has been outrage over this specific and controversial event, in general liberalism has no moral opposition to the concept. Writing in 2012 about the book Fifty Shades of Grey, Debby Herbenick, a sexual health educator at the Kinsey Institute, defended BDSM(Bondage/Discipline/Dominance/Submission/Sadism/Masochism) stating: “Like many, many other sexual behaviors, BDSM is part of a normative sexual experience that feels healthy and enjoyable to many people[.]”

Dan Savage, a well-known liberal sex advice columnist tweeted in response to Breeanne Howe’s post: “@breeannehowe seeking out kinky sex in the absence of info about consent, reality vs. fantasy, etc. That can have disastrous consequences.” and  “Some young people are into BDSM. Shouldn’t they have access to info about safe BDSM practices?” Just as Richard Dawkins stated in 2013 that his own sexual contact with an adult when he was a child was not harmful [DS: ???!] and described the perpetrator as expressing “mild pedophilia”, Savage tweets in defense of Planned Parenthood stating: “…some kids are kinky. If you talked to kinksters you would hear from kids who were tying themselves up at 13…” [DS: No. Anecdotes aren’t evidence either.]

The driving issue is not whether adults should participate in BDSM or if it is right or wrong. It is ironic that the “rape culture” obsessed left would be so enthusiastic about sexual practices that are driven by the domination and intentional application of pain to the sexual partner often involving violent and humiliating actions. But, as in all consensual sexual activity, freedom does not restrict this with adults. The underlying problem is that the acceptance of this activity as being part of adult sexuality is not enough for liberal thinkers. Because liberals focus on “educating” adults on the possibilities of sexuality, they assume dominion over children in the same area. This is what conservatives oppose.

Sexual education is always described as teaching kids about their bodies, diseases, protection and healthy sexuality, but as we can see liberals define those terms differently than an average person might. The agenda liberalism promotes is the idea that sexuality is fluid, amoral and absolutely natural in all of its forms. Children experience sexuality early and should be taught to embrace it fully without question. Parents should encourage exploration and as long as everyone is fully knowledgeable and protected the experiences thereafter will be wonderful and healthy. To deny children access to this is to set them up for dangerous experimentation, exploitation and emotional damage. The assumption is that because liberal thinking people view the world exclusively through sexuality, all people do and therefore everyone must be provided the fullest access to liberal sexual theory as an absolute.

The key piece that is missing, however, is personal responsibility. Where is the individual in all of this? Are we purely driven by various sexual impulses that can only be expressed through mindless action? Assuming every single theory on sexual development by liberal psychology is true, why are we bound to it? Liberalism seems to define itself by its lack of control over its environment.  In order to survive one must be surrounded by warnings, labels, education, protections and emotional support.  There is simply no concept that a person can choose differently.

Underlying the belief of child sexuality, pedophilia, and teenagers engaging in BDSM is that they simply have no other option available to them and must simply do the best with what they have been programmed with. Sexual education has always been driven by the demand that “kids will have sex anyway!”  In 2011 the Heritage Foundation linked to an article about teen sexual behavior stating: “The toll that early sexual activity takes on youths’ physical and emotional well-being and the association of abstinence with greater academic achievement all signal the importance of promoting the upward trend of abstinence through family, community, and public policy.” It also concluded that “…numerous studies have documented the impact that parents can have on their children’s sexual behavior. Youths whose parents discuss the consequences of sexual activity and monitor them more closely are less likely to be sexually active, and teens who feel that their parents would strongly disapprove of their becoming sexually active are less likely to contract a sexually transmitted infection.”

It is important to recognize that if a young person respects themselves and is actively building their future they are less likely to take risks or allow themselves to be devalued. Abstinence is not about denying a person sexuality, it is about empowering a person to choose sexuality with purpose. We are free to explore sexuality as we choose, but why can’t that include experiencing sex in a meaningful or spiritual way? Young people have the opportunity to define their entire lives based on how they view themselves in the present. Why do we assume sexuality is the only lens they have available to them? [Control.] Conservatives do not oppose sexual education, they just simply do not want their children, or children in general, exposed to the liberal version of it. Young people deserve to be more than the sum of their sexual impulses.”

Deny the teen pregnancy rate.
If you get ’em young, they’ll vote in welfare checks. Or consequence-free abortions. Abortions aren’t factored into pregnancy stats because then it’s too obvious.