"He’s a 10-year-old drag performer, and he’s cooler than you"

dicknixon72

Pelican
So, the lesson here is - its wrong and and shameful to let your pre-pubescent child don the the trappings of a mature woman's manner of dress and parade them in front of lecherous men in a sexualized manner for profit...unless your child is a boy.
 

Horus

Ostrich
Gold Member
dicknixon72 said:
So, the lesson here is - its wrong and and shameful to let your pre-pubescent child don the the trappings of a mature woman's manner of dress and parade them in front of lecherous men in a sexualized manner for profit...unless your child is a boy.

That's actually a brilliant argument. There's no way they could try to squirm out of that one.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
Horus said:
dicknixon72 said:
So, the lesson here is - its wrong and and shameful to let your pre-pubescent child don the the trappings of a mature woman's manner of dress and parade them in front of lecherous men in a sexualized manner for profit...unless your child is a boy.

That's actually a brilliant argument. There's no way they could try to squirm out of that one.

Bigot! Homophobe! Sexist! Fucking Cis-gender male! [/squirming achieved]
 

Captainstabbin

Hummingbird
Sick parents raise sick children. I'd say the kid is better off being raised by wolves but he's probably a lost cause at this point.

Mother Of 11-Year-Old 'Drag Kid' Who Performed At Gay Bar Says Child Protective Services Showed Up At Her Home
“We have been accused of child abuse, exploitation & maltreatment to the point that we have been backed into a corner trying to defend ourselves,” she said, fashioning herself the victim. “We have been under a microscope since early December. I never thought I would have to breach my own privacy & confidentiality to provide proof that has been demanded of us out of malice,” she added.
 

porscheguy

Ostrich
Tim Pool just made a video about this. For those that are unaware, more than a few pedos hang out on YouTube. These pedos go to videos that feature younger children and then they post in the comments section about pedo shit. I’m not an expert on the matter, so my description may not be accurate. In response YouTube has disabled comments on videos that feature kids doing kid things. Guess who’s videos haven’t had the comments disabled? Guess who hasn’t faced any sort of clamp down from YouTube? If you answered Desmond the drag kid, pat yourself on the back.

Start a family friendly channel that features disabled kids finding success in life and you have your comments disabled and probably get demonetized. Show a 10 year, dancing in drag, stripping, and getting paid for it and it’s business as usual.

 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
It's very obvious now how they're using the transgender issue to push directly into pedophilia. Seriously, how can anyone endorse this child drag queen thing? It's not like it's even a slippery slope argument. There's not much of a line between a 10 year old boy dancing around in a gay club as a drag queen because "that's who he is" and a 10 year old boy "choosing" to "have sex" (aka be raped after being groomed and drugged) with older gay men because "that's who he is". And people are literally cheering for this. The West needs to be cleansed with divine fire.
 
I can think of two religions that endorse and promote this kind of shit, one openly, and one secretly, and no they are not satanism / luciferianism, though both of those do as well.

One is subversive, the other is explosive.
 

Abelard Lindsey

Woodpecker
I don't like this either. 10 year old kids are supposed to be playing in the woods, or riding their bikes to the park. They're not supposed to really know what sex is about other than its something the "grown-ups" do in private.

I think the fact that kids do not play outdoors, on their own, is a big contributor to their sexualization. I really do believe that "excessive" or "unusual" sexuality is a result of boredom and a lack of physically stimulating activities done outdoors. Look at the primates in the zoos. They screw all the time because they are in a relatively confined area with little else to do on a daily basis.
 
The fact that this isn't being criticized more in mainstream society tells me how defeated the culture is.

The majority of people just don't care about the children of this society anymore.

20 years ago there would be violent demonstrations to anyone who dared to do this.

Now people are letting it happen.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
scorpion said:
It's very obvious now how they're using the transgender issue to push directly into pedophilia. Seriously, how can anyone endorse this child drag queen thing? It's not like it's even a slippery slope argument. There's not much of a line between a 10 year old boy dancing around in a gay club as a drag queen because "that's who he is" and a 10 year old boy "choosing" to "have sex" (aka be raped after being groomed and drugged) with older gay men because "that's who he is". And people are literally cheering for this. The West needs to be cleansed with divine fire.

I'm not a big fan of flipping the script and saying "well what if it was the other way around, huh!?!?!" because at this point it's just so tired, but this is one of those issues where it really begs the question.

If a pre-teen "transgender" child can dress sexually and dance suggestively while having money thrown at them then why couldn't a NON transgender child do it?

What now is the premise by which someone can say that it's OK for a transgender boy to dress as a girl and pretend to be a stripper while anyone acting as a guardian for a similarly aged NON transgender girl who allowed such a thing to happen much less encouraged it would be locked up in a heartbeat?

Heck, even the spectators tossing money would be locked up.

What disturbs me most about this is that there's not a single police officer or public prosecutor willing to step in here and exercise the responsibility that comes with their authority. That alone is the starkest indictment of the state of our societies. This is not mere degeneracy because mere degenerates can still be arrested and tried in court. This is sanctioned by the deep state from top to bottom, or else the handlers of these poor children would be in jail by now.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
When you have the majority of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, and the middle class still shrinking, the average cop is not going to do anything that could threaten his livelihood. A relatively affluent middle class would have been a lot more difficult to control, that's one of the main reasons the oligarchs in N. America and Western Europe gutted their industrial base.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
scorpion said:
It's very obvious now how they're using the transgender issue to push directly into pedophilia. Seriously, how can anyone endorse this child drag queen thing? It's not like it's even a slippery slope argument. There's not much of a line between a 10 year old boy dancing around in a gay club as a drag queen because "that's who he is" and a 10 year old boy "choosing" to "have sex" (aka be raped after being groomed and drugged) with older gay men because "that's who he is". And people are literally cheering for this. The West needs to be cleansed with divine fire.

The issue will be packaged as a "sexual rights" for children. Those who object to pedophilia are standing against the sexual rights of children!

Princeton prof specializing in moral philosophy and ethics says pedophilia is OK, and so is bestiality:

https://www.eutimes.net/2019/06/jew...-pleasure-also-refuses-to-condemn-pedophilia/

Jewish professor says women should have sex with dogs for pleasure, also refuses to condemn pedophilia

Posted by EU Times on Jun 17th, 2019

He also refuses to call sex with children wrong: ‘the issue is whether it harms the ten year old.’

Video has resurfaced, thanks to Mark Powell at The Spectator, of Professor Peter Singer, a Jewish moral philosopher and ethicist from Princeton University, suggesting sex between humans and dogs is harmless provided the animal essentially consents.

In 2010 Singer appeared on the ABC’s Q&A where he explained, “A woman has oral sex performed by her dog. I know women who have said this is something that pleases them. The dog is free to do it or walk away. There is no dominance over the dog. That seems to me harmless.”

When asked in another interview if he had similar thoughts regarding sex with children, Singer refused to call the act itself wrong saying, “The issue here is whether this harms the ten year olds and will harm them in their sexuality later on… My view is not that anything is just wrong full stop.”

Mark Powell rightly said, “The fact that anyone in the community—let alone a ‘moral philosopher’ from Princeton University—is arguing for something like this should be a cause for public outrage.”

Strangely, the public have been rather quiet on this one. The video of Singer’s appearance on Q&A has only received just over 3,000 views in more than eight years.


Singer served as chair of the philosophy department at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996 he stood unsuccessfully as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004 Singer was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. In 2005, the Sydney Morning Herald placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.


Those are the high priests of morality that we're supposed to look up to and obey going forward.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
911 said:
scorpion said:
It's very obvious now how they're using the transgender issue to push directly into pedophilia. Seriously, how can anyone endorse this child drag queen thing? It's not like it's even a slippery slope argument. There's not much of a line between a 10 year old boy dancing around in a gay club as a drag queen because "that's who he is" and a 10 year old boy "choosing" to "have sex" (aka be raped after being groomed and drugged) with older gay men because "that's who he is". And people are literally cheering for this. The West needs to be cleansed with divine fire.

The issue will be packaged as a "sexual rights" for children. Those who object to pedophilia are standing against the sexual rights of children!

Princeton prof specializing in moral philosophy and ethics says pedophilia is OK, and so is bestiality:

https://www.eutimes.net/2019/06/jew...-pleasure-also-refuses-to-condemn-pedophilia/

Jewish professor says women should have sex with dogs for pleasure, also refuses to condemn pedophilia

Posted by EU Times on Jun 17th, 2019

He also refuses to call sex with children wrong: ‘the issue is whether it harms the ten year old.’

Video has resurfaced, thanks to Mark Powell at The Spectator, of Professor Peter Singer, a Jewish moral philosopher and ethicist from Princeton University, suggesting sex between humans and dogs is harmless provided the animal essentially consents.

In 2010 Singer appeared on the ABC’s Q&A where he explained, “A woman has oral sex performed by her dog. I know women who have said this is something that pleases them. The dog is free to do it or walk away. There is no dominance over the dog. That seems to me harmless.”

When asked in another interview if he had similar thoughts regarding sex with children, Singer refused to call the act itself wrong saying, “The issue here is whether this harms the ten year olds and will harm them in their sexuality later on… My view is not that anything is just wrong full stop.”

Mark Powell rightly said, “The fact that anyone in the community—let alone a ‘moral philosopher’ from Princeton University—is arguing for something like this should be a cause for public outrage.”

Strangely, the public have been rather quiet on this one. The video of Singer’s appearance on Q&A has only received just over 3,000 views in more than eight years.


Singer served as chair of the philosophy department at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996 he stood unsuccessfully as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004 Singer was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. In 2005, the Sydney Morning Herald placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.


Those are the high priests of morality that we're supposed to look up to and obey going forward.

We might find this fellow white person's take on bestiality and pedophilia abhorrent (as you should if you are sane), but it is completely in line with the basic premise of classical liberalism that replaced the old order, and to which many people here still adhere to but aren't satisfied with its more disgusting fruits: the replacement of natural law based morality for harm/consent based morality - ditching objective and absolute norms given by God (and that obviously can not be changed) for subjectively and personally perceived norms such as consent or harm.

Once you ditch objective natural law, the subjective harm or consent can be twisted (and will be twisted, and has been twisted) to mean whatever the individual wants. The moment we start arguing about who can consent or what constitutes harm, we already lost the battle because we are discussing subjectively derived norms that require interpretation. It's important to realize that our societies are not imoral, but amoral.

A lot of other things allowed in our societies that most people here would not object to because they 'do not harm anyone' or because 'it's consented' will have to be rethought if we are to oppose these more obvious abominations successfully as a society - including, for example, casual sex. Our modern society is completely unoriginal in this regard as we can observe these same patterns in many others across history. If we do not reject the subjective moral law in its entirety and go back to objective morality, these diabolic results are always just around the corner.
 

Lazuli Waves

Woodpecker
He's wearing a shirt with a notoroious drag queen called Divine. He is most known for a scene in the cult movie Pink Flamingos. In the movie, a dog defecates on the sidewalk, and Divine grabs the feces with his hands, and eats it. The director claims it is real.

1.JPG

Displaying the tagline "An exercise in poor taste", Pink Flamingos is notorious for its "outrageousness", nudity, profanity, and "pursuit of frivolity, scatology, sensationology [sic] and skewed epistemology."[4] It features a "number of increasingly revolting scenes" that centre on exhibitionism, voyeurism, sodomy, masturbation, gluttony, vomiting, rape, incest, murder, cannibalism, castration, foot fetishism, and concludes, to the accompaniment of "How Much Is That Doggy in the Window?", with Divine's consumption of dog feces (coprophagia) — "The real thing!" narrator Waters assures us. The film is considered a preliminary exponent of abject art.[5][6]

The film, at first semi-clandestine, has received a warm reception from film critics and the LGBT community, and, despite being banned in several countries, became a cult film in subsequent decades.

...


The Marbles run a black market baby ring: they kidnap young women, have them impregnated by their manservant, Channing, and sell the babies to lesbian couples. The proceeds are used to finance pornography shops and a network of dealers selling heroin in inner-city elementary schools. Raymond also earns money by exposing himself — with a large kielbasa sausage or turkey neck tied to his penis — to women and stealing their purses when they flee. One of Raymond's would-be targets, a transgender woman who has not completed gender reassignment surgery, thwarts his scheme by exposing her breast, penis and scrotum, causing Raymond to flee in shock.

The Marbles enlist a spy, Cookie, to gather information about Divine by dating Crackers. In one of the film's most infamous scenes, Cookie and Crackers have sex while crushing a live chicken between them as Cotton looks on through a window. Cookie then informs the Marbles about Babs' real identity, her whereabouts, and her family — as well as her upcoming birthday party.

The Marbles send a box of human feces to Divine as a birthday present with a card addressing her as "Fatso" and proclaiming themselves "the filthiest people alive". Worried her title has been seized, Divine declares whoever sent the package must die. While the Marbles are gone, Channing dresses in Connie's clothes and imitates his employers' overheard conversations. When the Marbles return home, they are outraged to find Channing mocking them, so they fire him and lock him in a closet.

The Marbles arrive at the trailer to spy on Divine's birthday party. Her birthday gifts include poppers, fake vomit, lice shampoo, a pig's head, and a meat cleaver. Entertainers include a topless woman with a snake act and a contortionist who flexes his prolapsed anus in rhythm to the song "Surfin' Bird". The Egg Man, who delivers eggs to Edie daily, confesses his love for her and proposes marriage. She accepts his proposal and he carts her off in a wheelbarrow. Disgusted by the outrageous party, the Marbles call the police, but this backfires when Divine and her guests ambush the officers, hack up their bodies with the meat cleaver, and eat them.

Divine and Crackers head to the Marbles' house, where they lick and rub the furniture, which excites them so much that Divine fellates Crackers. They find Channing and discover two pregnant women held captive in the basement. After Divine and Crackers free the women with a large knife, the women use the knife to emasculate Channing offscreen.

The Marbles burn Divine's beloved trailer to the ground. When they return home their furniture — cursed by being licked by Divine and Crackers — "rejects" them: when they try to sit down, the cushions fly up and throw them to the floor. They also find that Channing has bled to death from his emasculation and the two girls have escaped.

After finding the remains of their burned-out trailer, Divine and Crackers return to the Marbles' home, kidnap them at gunpoint, and bring them to the arson site. Divine calls the local tabloid media to witness the Marbles' trial and execution. Divine holds a kangaroo court and convicts the bound-and-gagged Marbles of "first-degree stupidity" and "assholism". Cotton and Crackers recommend a sentence of execution, so the Marbles are tied to a tree, coated in tar and feathers, and shot in the head by Divine.

Divine, Crackers, and Cotton enthusiastically decide to move to Boise, Idaho, site of a homosexual scandal from 1955 to 1957.[7] Spotting a small dog defecating on the sidewalk, Divine scoops up the feces with her hand and puts them in her mouth — proving, as the voice-over narration by Waters states, that Divine is "not only the filthiest person in the world, but is also the world's filthiest actress".

 
Top