When it comes time, we are going to be busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. Warning, this is going to be a long one.
Not only is degeneracy no longer discouraged, it is now actively encouraged. Freaks and weirdos once confined to the closet and furtively trolling public parks for an outlet are now out in the open and demanding access to our kids. All of this is happening with the approval and support of what are supposed to be our most trusted institutions. For example.
Get a load of this horror show.
It is some sort of trannie, even with the fake name (Allyn) and the insistence on using "they/them" it is kind of hard to know what is going on here. Who the hell knows. In older pictures there is some stubble so it might be a dude trying to look like a chick or something. Regardless, the individual in question is a freakshow.
The comments in question had to do with getting away from the term "pedophile" because it gives pedos the sadz and instead using the term "minor attracted person". While at Old Dominion University teaching "sociology and criminal justice" (more on that in a moment), this creeper said that it isn't necessarily immoral to be attracted to children.
Walker was discussing their book, “A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity,” when he insisted it’s important to use that terminology instead of “pedophile” because it’s less stigmatizing.
“A lot of people when they hear the term ‘pedophile,’ they automatically assume that it means a sex offender, and that isn’t true,” Walker said during the 28-minute interview. “And it leads to a lot of misconceptions about attractions towards minors.”
Walker acknowledged use of term “minor-attracted persons” — or MAPs — suggests to some that it’s OK to be attracted to children, but said labeling anyone wholly by their sexual desires doesn’t indicate anything about their morality.
“From my perspective, there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they’re attracted to at all,” Walker said. “In other words, it’s not who we’re attracted to that’s either OK or not OK. It’s our behaviors in responding to that attraction that are either OK or not OK.”
Walker said child sex abuse is “never, ever OK,” but that having sexual urges toward children isn’t necessarily wrong — as long as those carnal desires aren’t acted upon.
“We have a tendency to want to categorize people with these attractions as evil or morally corrupt,” Walker continued. “But when we’re talking about non-offending MAPs, these are people who have an attraction they didn’t ask for.”
This "Child sex abuse center" is not some random one person office in a seedy strip mall. It is housed at the Johns Hopkins University Moore Center for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse. Hopkins is considered one of the most prestigious medical outfits in the U.S. and here they are hiring a pedo-apologist as a postdoctoral fellow at a center that allegedly is concerned with preventing child abuse. The Moore Center is part of the Hopkins School Of Public Health:
You might notice something in the logo. It is the "Bloomberg" School of Public Health. As in ultra-liberal Michael Bloomberg. The little Tribe billionaire has his fingers in lots of pies and especially when it comes to Johns Hopkins. He has his own little portrait at Hopkins for being a swell guy and an alum but also for this, emphasis in red mine:
Bloomberg served as chairman of the Johns Hopkins University board of trustees from 1996 until 2002. He has donated over $1 billion to Johns Hopkins, including gifts to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and The Johns Hopkins Hospital. The Charlotte R. Bloomberg Children’s Center at Johns Hopkins, named for his mother and funded largely through his generosity, opened in 2012.
In other words, Li'l Mike owns Johns Hopkins. In 2001 they changed the name of the School Of Public Health to add Mike's name to the outfit. Not an egomaniac move or anything.
As you dig into the work of the School of Public Health, you see Li'l Mike's filthy paws all over it including one of his favorite topics, gun control via the "Center for Gun Violence Solutions"
By framing black and mestizo gun violence as a broader "public health" concern, Bloomberg intends to disarm regular American in the name of "health". The center has the usual litany of "solutions" on their website....
"Community Violence Intervention" is code for "huge no strings attached cash grants to black clergy and activists". Firearm Removal Laws is just a term for red flag laws. Licenses to purchase a firearm, rolling back concealed carry laws, mandated rules for gun storage. On and on and none of it will stop black gangsters from shooting each other and therefore won't put a dent in "gun violence" but that is not what it is about.
My point in that excursus is that you keep seeing the same billionaire backers behind every attempt to transform our society, from gun control to normalizing pedophilia.
Back to "Allyn".
There are all sorts of problems surrounding the hiring of xe/xir/whateverthefuck as part of a center that claims to try to prevent child abuse.
First of all, the term "minor-attracted persons" is overly and intentionally broad. Pedophilia has a pretty specific meaning.
"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger."
That is an important definition. "Minor" on the other hand has a much broader definition: "not having reached majority", the age of majority in the U.S. of course being 18 when you are an adult. In that sense a 17 year old is a minor, as is a 7 year old and a newborn baby.
Why is "minor-attracted person" intentionally used in place of pedophile? Because it lumps together entirely different age groups. At the risk of this getting even weirder but because we are all adults, let's dig into this.
As anyone who lived through puberty and adolescence knows, children go through a dramatic change as they enter their early teen years with girls a few years ahead of boys. For most boys it is in middle school that girls very quickly change from being "icky" to being fascinating. By the time we get to high school, typically 9th grade or the freshman year, girls are at or near sexual maturity and shortly thereafter so are boys as we catch up. Parents know how awful those years can be as teenagers are a combustible mix of emotions and hormones.
Most people also understand that while teens are physically sexually mature, they are generally not emotionally mature. That is why we have age of consent laws. Just because you are sexually mature it doesn't follow that you are emotionally mature enough to make decisions like giving consent to having sex with an adult. The age varies of course but is generally around 16 or 17 depending on the state and usually with the caveat that it doesn't apply in situations where there is a significant power/authority differential as is the case with teachers and students. While a 22 year old male teacher fresh out of college and a 17 year old female student are only five years apart, an age difference that disappears in importance as you get older, in that setting it is problematic because of the authority the teacher has which can be, and all too often is, abused. I think we all understand this.
Through the turn of the last century, life expectancy was 40 years of age or under. That created an accelerated timetable for marriage meaning that the average age of marriage for women was near or even below 18, which in turn means that a lot of girls were married before they became "adults" under modern definitions. In the Little House On The Prairie books, the epitome of wholesomeness, Laura Ingalls Wilder marries Almanzo when she is 18 but they have been courting for many years prior to that. Even in the TV series Melissa Gilbert is only around 16 when her character is proposed to by Dean Butler who plays Almanzo Wilder who is 8 years older than her and would have been around 24 at the time. Men have almost always been older than their wives, in more sane days because he needed to establish himself so he could provide for his family.
That is a long way around to get to this point: not every minor is the same. A 16 year old is not a 6 year old and while we don't talk about it much because it is uncomfortable, everyone knows it. There are even different categories specifically for people who express a preference for late adolescent teens (Ephebophilia) and while it is considered icky in modern times, it is not considered a psychiatric disorder. Pedophilia though? That is definitely a mental illness.
So why lump people who find 17 year old teens sexually attractive with people who find 7 year old children sexually attractive? The only possible reason is to provide cover for the degenerates who want to molest younger children. That brings me to my second point.
One of the functions of a society is to provide agreed upon guardrails for acceptable behavior. This is achieved in part via laws, which proscribe punitive responses for certain actions like stealing or murder. More important in a functional society are the cultural guidelines that are instilled into us. The time to stop a murderer is before they murder someone, not afterward. This is one of the primary purposes of cultural religion. For most of Western history this was expressed in a form of Christian morality combining the teachings of the New Testament with the foundations of the Ten Commandments. While I am of the opinion that the vast majority of people didn't believe all or even any of the claims of the Christian faith, we did subconsciously recognize the utility of a set of moral laws that were derived from that religion.
I don't steal not just because of the danger of prosecution. There is plenty of stuff I could steal easily and never get caught. I don't because I was taught at an early age that stealing was wrong, both by my parents and the broader society. We teach one another rules and mores and then reinforce those as part of our broader culture. At least we used to. Now most of the "culture" is aimed at undermining those rules and mores that have worked for so long and replace them with new, dangerous rules.
So when you soften the stigma of being a kiddie diddler by changing pedophile to the more generic and intentionally confusing "minor-attracted person", when you claim that you cannot make moral judgments simply because some guy faps to pictures of toddlers and when you claim that grooming children to become homosexuals and trannies is part of a wholesome education, you are in fact encouraging degenerate behavior.
It seems unlikely that someone goes from normal dude to child rapist overnight. Instead it is a gradual process. Along the way the guy in question is swimming against the cultural current that tells him this is wrong. In the past that mostly was enough to keep most of these urges under control for most people. When you tell that guy that his urges are not only not necessarily wrong but are in fact just something he can't control like his height or race, you normalize those urges and encourage him to act out on them. We don't need to destigmatize pedophilia, we need to amp up the stigma.
This "Allyn" freak knows this and is lying. This isn't about protecting kids, it is about encouraging pedophiles and creating a legal framework to legalize pedophilia. You say that is unfair and over the top? Just look how quickly we went from "love is love" to "bake the cake" to "give us your kids to groom or you are a bigot". Let's take a stroll down the degeneracy memory lane.
In 1996 the Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act and the law was signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton. DOMA as it was known passed the House by a margin of 342 to 66 with 118 Democrats voting for the bill. It then passed the Senate with 84 votes including 32 Democrats. The law was aimed at protecting the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and as you can see from the enormous margins and the signing of the bill by Democrat darling Bill Clinton, it was widely popular.
In 1998, not that long ago really, a landmark case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court called Lawrence v Texas. At issue was an anti-sodomy law in the state of Texas that criminalized homosexual acts. When the Supreme Court ruled that the law was somehow "unconstitutional", as if the Founders intended to protect the "right" to gheybuttsex, it overturned all anti-sodomy laws in America and created a brand new right to plug a dude in the pooper. Progress!
Fast forward a few years to 2015 and Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell was the ruling that found that not only do dudes have a Constitutional "right" to pack fudge but they could get "married" and every state had to recognize this "right". Obergefell was all of 7 years ago but in the meantime we have seen the rise of the Trannie Mafia like this freak above. Unlike 1996 when DOMA was passed, you wouldn't be able to get a golf foursome together of prominent Democrats who will say a peep in opposition to whatever degenerates demand next. To be fair, you couldn't get many Republicans to stand up to them either. Even though the legal basis for Obergefell is at least as shaky as Roe v Wade, do you hear any prominent Republicans calling for a challenge to Obergefell?
The intent here is clear. It isn't to "protect kids" because you certainly aren't protecting kids when you try to normalize pedophilia as something they can't control and claiming that everyone under the age of 18 is exactly the same. You don't hire someone who at best is soft-selling the danger of pedophilia if you want to reduce child sexual abuse. By destigmatizing pedophiliac attraction as not inherently disordered and deviant, you in essence tell these freaks that fantasizing about kids is OK just as long as you don't act on those urges (wink, wink). Sure everyone with half a brain understands that the distance from thinking about it to doing it grows a lot shorter when you approve of fantasizing about diddling little kids, but that is a small price to pay to make them feel better about being degenerates.
As with first normalizing and then mandating the celebration of homosexuality and transvestitism, the movement to normalize pedophilia is aimed at undermining the central cornerstone of Western society, the family. The intent is to replace the family unit with the centralized state and it is proving to be pretty successful at doing so thus far. A people with strong family ties is less prone to being controlled and manipulated by strangers in central bureaucracies but without those support structures, people are easily converted to reliance on central authority. The same small group of people keep pushing to install mentally ill people in positions of prominence and then demanding we take those lunatics seriously.
This is not an isolated bit of nonsense, it is part of the whole broader movement to remake human society and eventually humanity itself. The cast of villains is growing lengthier by the day. Invest in a woodchipper today because we are going to need a lot of them.