How the UN and WHO are Trying to Make Pedophilia Mainstream
A close look at the relentless drive to sexualize children, and those who deny it's happening
Warning: This article discusses adult concepts and contains imagery not suitable for minors.
Sex predators and traffickers enjoy protection at the highest levels of society. Allegations of pedophilia against powerful members of society are invariably sabotaged by aborted investigations and the mysterious disappearances of critical evidence and key witnesses.
We all know about Jeffrey Epstein, infamous trafficker and violator of underage teens, and how he rubbed shoulders with the world's richest and most influential people, including royals, heads of state, celebrities and business moguls. There's no denying many of them flew aboard his "creepy" private jet and visited his infamous Caribbean "pedo island".
As part of his first mind-blowingly lenient prosecution deal in 2008, an unusual clause granted future immunity to "any potential co-conspirators" involved in Epstein’s crimes. Those accomplices or participants were not identified in the agreement, but it's fair to say a lot of very wealthy, famous and powerful people breathed a deep sigh of relief after the deal was confirmed.
That deal was exposed by the Miami Herald in 2018, triggering a sequence of events leading to Epstein's re-arrest in July 2019. All those people who breathed a sigh of relief in 2008 now had cause to start sweating bullets again. Epstein was back in custody, with the possibility of him spilling the beans on all those previously immune "co-conspirators".
The rest is history. Despite no indications of suicidality and being described by prison psychologists as "future-orientated" and in an "ebullient mood", two alleged suicide attempts followed. After the first, Epstein reportedly told authorities someone had tried to kill him. Just what really happened will never be known, because the footage from outside Epstein’s cell that night was permanently deleted.
On August 10, 2019, another "suicide attempt" occurred, and this one was successful in silencing Epstein for good. In a rather puzzling sequence of events, the two officers on duty in the unit housing Epstein allegedly failed to check on prisoners during the night, instead falsifying the slips for the midnight, 3am and 5am prisoner counts.
After his body was 'discovered' at breakfast time, the "clearly dead" Epstein was rushed to New York Downtown Hospital in violation of prison protocol. His cell should have been treated as a crime scene and his body photographed before removal.
Dr Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner who has worked on high-profile cases during his five-decade medical career, observed the autopsy and said the pattern of bone fractures observed in Epstein's neck area were more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicidal hanging.
Once again, we'll never know what really happened because, would you believe it, both of the two security cameras that were supposed to be recording the cell and hallway outside, allegedly malfunctioned.
Of course they did.
A Right Royal Deviant
Among those irrefutably linked to Epstein is Prince Andrew, younger brother of the pompous, conceited and self-entitled King Charles III. But that's hardly where the monarchy's links to serial sex predators ends.
The late serial pedophile and necrophiliac Jimmy Savile was a close friend and confidante of Charles and had frequent access to royal palaces.
The official line is that the royals were unaware of Savile's true character, but that claim beggars belief. As far back as 1978, when Savile was at the height of his fame, Sex Pistols frontman John Lydon gave an interview to Radio 1 in which he called Savile a “hypocrite... into all kinds of seediness... that we’re not allowed to talk about”. That portion of the segment was cut out of the broadcast (just as Lydon predicted) and the singer was subsequently shadow-banned from the BBC.
When asked in 2014 why he said in his 1978 Radio 1 interview he would like to "kill" Savile, Lydon responded: “By killed I meant locking him up and stopping him assaulting young children ... These are things that me, as a young person, was well aware of and I’m disgusted at the media pretending they weren’t aware."
Savile's predation spanned 50 years and an estimated 500 victims. A punk rocker heard (and tried to share) the stories, yet we're supposed to believe Britain's extensive and well-resourced surveillance network (including the Security Service (MI5) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)) remained pig-ignorant to his horrifically prolific abuse until after his death in 2011?
In reality, UK police had been made aware of Savile’s predation at least as far back as the early 1960s. The earliest known complaint about Savile dates from 1963, just as his television career “was really beginning to take off.” It was one of at least eight complaints never registered at the time they were made. A male victim told his local police officer in Cheshire that Savile had raped him. He made the complaint the day after the assault. The officer told the victim to "forget about it" and that he should "move on". The officer did not record what the victim had said, and so there was no investigation into the DJ.
There was a similar second incident, after Savile had begun presenting Top of the Pops. A man told the Metropolitan Police Service his girlfriend was assaulted during a recording of the program. An officer told him he "could be arrested for making such allegations". No report appears to have been logged.
An intelligence ledger concerning Savile held by the MPS Paedophile Unit circa 1964 confirms reports of his predation were not confined to local constabulary. A 2013 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) review with the prominent title “Mistakes were made” (the kind one would use if they wished to deflect suspicions of a deliberate cover-up), noted "We have not found evidence to suggest that any investigation was carried out as a result of that intelligence. The 1964 MPS ledger is not recorded on INI or the Police National Database (PND)."
The report mentions numerous more allegations of sexual assault by Savile, most of which were met with disinterest or written off due to “lack of evidence.” The most recent, a 2009 historical child abuse enquiry involving a male who complained he was sexually assaulted by Savile, did not lead to any charges following "legal advice."
Even in the face of police inaction, Savile's behaviour during visits to Charles's official home at St James' Palace would surely have raised alarm bells. A former royal aide said Savile's behaviour was a cause for "concern and suspicion." The pedophile TV presenter, recounted the aide, used to rub his lips "all the way up their arms" of Charles's young female assistants as a greeting.
As reports of Savile's predation steadily mounted, so too did the honours bestowed upon him. Savile was appointed OBE in 1971 and knighted for services to charity and the entertainment business in 1990. In 1990 he also received the honour of Knight Commander of St Gregory the Great from the Vatican.
The Westminster Scandal
In 1984, a dossier on pedophiles associated with the British government was assembled by MP Geoffrey Dickens, who handed it to the then-Home Secretary, Leon Brittan. The whereabouts of the dossier - surprise, surprise - are currently "unknown." So too are the whereabouts of 114 other files on organised child abuse that had been held by the Home Office, but had since been "lost."
Starting to see a pattern here, folks?
Between 1981 and 1985, the brave Dickens campaigned against a suspected pedophile ring he alleged was connected to trading child pornography. In 1981, in the House of Commons, Dickens accused Sir Peter Hayman, former senior diplomat, civil servant and MI6 operative, of being a pedophile. Dickens further questioned why Hayman had not been jailed after it was discovered he had left a package containing violent child pornography on a bus.
In 1983, Dickens said there was a pedophile network involving "big, big names – people in positions of power, influence and responsibility" and threatened to name them in the Commons.
For his efforts, Dickens received threatening telephone calls, experienced two very professional burglaries at his London home, then discovered his name had appeared on a multi-killer's hit list.
Elm Guest House in Barnes was raided in 1982 after neighbours complained about the suspicious arrival of children, but the operation was mysteriously cut short. A 2003 investigation also failed. Pornography involving adults having sex with children was allegedly shot at the property and then circulated commercially. Hayman was among visitors to the property. Others, according to a list seized by Scotland Yard in January 2013, were the late Liberal MP Cyril Smith, the former Russian spy Sir Anthony Blunt, a Sinn Fein politician, a Labour MP, and several Conservative politicians.
They're all in this together.
The Globalist Plan to Bring Pedophilia Out of the Closet
Having to orchestrate extensive cover-ups and staged suicides can be an exhaustive, time-consuming affair. In addition to the time and effort involved, there's always the risk that a pesky journalist could discover too much or that enough people might one day put two and two together and start demanding blood.
Imagine how much easier life would be for these filthy predators and their privileged sympathizers if sex with children and young teens could simply be made legal, and if people could be brainwashed into accepting it as normal behaviour?
Don't laugh or dismiss this as "conspiracy theory", because that is the exact strategy currently in play.
How the World's Parasite Class Plan to Make their Sexual Deviancy 'Normal'
Normalizing repugnant practices like nepiophilia (sex with babies and toddlers), pedophilia (sex with prepubescent children), and hebephilia (sex with pubescent children and early adolescents) requires two key strategies.
One is legalization, the other is social conditioning.
If sex with minors is decriminalized, then its perpetrators will no longer have to fear legal consequences. For high-placed predators to get their way and make the unthinkable a reality, a number of requirements will need to be fulfilled.
A key requirement for a sexual act to be considered non-criminal is that it must be consensual. In order to claim that sex with minors is acceptable, predators are using the consent argument. If both parties consent, then it shouldn't be illegal, they claim.
In order to gain the consent of minors, those minors need to be brainwashed into believing that utterly inappropriate sexual advances by adults are in fact normal and acceptable. This is a key aim of the child sexualization agenda, in which children are being exposed to adult sexual concepts via 'education,' increasingly explicit TV shows, and activities like drag queen book readings, in order to promote 'tolerance.' The more gullible of their parents already believe that allowing children to be exposed to such concepts is a benign, virtuous endeavour designed to promote 'tolerance' and 'diversity.'
Of course, children and young teenagers are still in their formative years, and are not capable of making informed decisions when it comes to sexual activities. The globalists don't care. They are steadily eroding the ability of non-woke parents to prevent their children from making catastrophic life decisions (which is a key function of healthy parenting). These social engineers have already been successful in pioneering laws that allow minors to go behind their parents' back on a growing list of health issues.
In states like Washington and Oregon, minors can't use tanning beds, but they can undergo 'gender reassignment' (sex change) surgery without parental consent.
In Victoria, Australia, students can undertake non-surgical 'gender transition' without the consent of their parents, or carers, and/or without consulting medical practitioners. Schools are required to support these students in their change of sexual identity if staff determine them to be "mature minors."
What exactly is a "mature minor"?
Here is the Victorian Education Department's rather lax criteria:
"To be considered a mature minor, principals or others working with students must be satisfied that the student has sufficient maturity, understanding and intelligence to understand the nature and effect of their particular decision."
And what qualifies school staff to accurately determine if a child or teen possesses "sufficient maturity"? While subject to ample indoctrination with state-sanctioned ideology, school staff have little to no training in psychology and medicine. In fact, my observations of Australian school principles and teachers is that many of them are of mediocre intelligence, possess a poor capacity for independent, rational, critical thought, and are unthinking conduits of state indoctrination. Judging by the marked rise of home schooling in Australia, I'm clearly not alone in my assessments.
In Spain, kids as young as 12 can legally change their gender, and those over the age of 16 can do so regardless of parental consent.
In Scotland, children as young as four can change their names and genders at schools without requiring parental consent. Under government"inclusivity guidelines", teachers are urged not to question their students if they indicate a wish to transition genders, but to instead ask for the students' new names and pronouns. Schools have also been told transgender students should use whatever bathroom or locker room they prefer.
Not to be outdone, Canada has transformed the 'right' of youngsters to make crucial decisions without parental consent into a literal life-and-death issue. Canadian MPs are pushing to legalize assisted suicide in children without parental consent.
Parents are slowly being stripped of their right to influence and guide their children in any manner not in accordance with Big Woke.
The globalists are exploiting the natural defiance of kids and teens. What child or adolescent doesn't love flouting their parent's demands and getting away with it? It is natural for kids to push boundaries, and it is the job of parents to sensibly but firmly reinforce those boundaries. The globalists are trying to subvert this ages-old system entirely by disempowering parents and creating an anything-goes mentality towards sex, sexuality and even suicide.
The UN Begins the Legal 'Transition'
A couple of months ago, a UN offshoot known as the International Commission of Jurists published a document titled "The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty."
Composed of "60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world," this outfit allegedly "promotes and protects human rights through the Rule of Law, by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems.
The ICJ allegedly “aims to ensure the progressive development and effective implementation of international human rights and international humanitarian law; secure the realization of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights; safeguard the separation of powers; and guarantee the independence of the judiciary and legal profession."
Not sure if these jokers noticed, but the last 3 and a half years heralded an unprecedented wave of egregious human rights abrogations in which people were subject to lockdowns, cruel isolation from loved ones, mask mandates, and gratuitous violence from state-sanctioned thugs - all under the guise of 'public health.' People were tricked and harangued into taking "safe and effective" pseudo-vaccines that have ushered in a wave of excess mortality not seen since WWII. In order to 'protect' us from a virus with a near 100% survival rate, laws giving our leaders dictator-like emergency powers were enacted and greatly expanded. The legal framework is set for a similar dystopian nightmare to happen all over again.
You'd think the pious ICJ might have something to say about this very timely issue, but no, it is laws proscribing sex, reproduction, drug use and HIV that apparently preoccupy the world's preeminent legal brains trust. Interestingly, despite its professed concern with laws pertaining to sex, the document has absolutely zero to say about the very real problem of sex slavery and trafficking.
Why the skewed set of priorities?
The answers to that question can be found in "Principle 16 – Consensual sexual conduct" and "Principle 18 – Sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression."
Under Principle 16, the ICJ authors assert:
"Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances." (Bold emphasis added)
Whoa.
Politifact, the thinly-veiled propaganda unit whose current and recent funders include Microsoft, Facebook, TikTok, Google, the heavily-left Democracy Fund, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Ford Foundation, wants you to believe this is all benign, and that any assertion to the contrary is "False."
According to a UNAIDS official and anonymous 'experts' Politifact allegedly interviewed, "The report does not propose decriminalizing sex with children, nor does it promote adults having sex with minors."
Perhaps tellingly, the ICJ didn't respond to Politifact, but Christine Stegling, UNAIDS’ deputy executive director for the policy, advocacy and knowledge branch, told the oligarch-funded fact-fudgers "The report has been "misrepresented."
So let's see what it actually says.
"With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner."
That's a rather vague statement. Are they saying any minimum age of consent must be the same for males, females and the myriad of imaginary genders? Or does this argument open the door for 'minor-attracted persons' to claim they are being discriminated against in the fulfillment of their 'natural' desires? What about "mature minors," that remarkable group of people who allegedly achieve adult-like maturity at age 12? Does the above statement pave the way for them to claim (or for interested parties to claim on their behalf) that such laws fail to recognize their unusual maturity, and therefore constitute discrimination?
The ICJ are already on the case for them. Read the following carefully:
"Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees." (Bold emphasis added)
It's the "mature minor" argument again, this time applied to sexual activity. This isn't about decriminalizing "sexting" among misguided teens or refusing to throw a hapless 17 year old on the sex offender registry because he had sex with a 16 year old. Those scenarios are of course unjust. The above statement, if enshrined in legal principle, goes much farther - it will open the door for adult predators to claim the child or teen victims 'consented' to sexual activity, and that those minors have the right to "participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees."
Of course, few children genuinely consent to being violated by sick monsters. In cases where 'consent' allegedly occurred, it came from someone wholly ill-equipped to make decisions regarding sexual activity, a person without the requisite cognitive capacity and life experience.
Even woke US government agencies like the NIH acknowledge: "The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions."
So the part of the brain responsible for risk assessment and making "good decisions" doesn't fully mature until we're almost 30, but we're supposed to believe children and teens can make sound, informed decisions about something as harmful and life-changing as engaging in sex with adults?
So how will the degenerates who seek to legalize sex with minors navigate this rocky terrain?
Judging by what is now unfolding all around us, the plan of attack is to subject children to a constant barrage of sexualized material and "tolerance" activities in order to distort their natural sense of order, and convince them there is nothing untoward about sexual relations with adults.
Polluting Our Children's Minds With Highly Age-Inappropriate Sexual Content
The education system has a lot to answer for. It's purported goal is to educate and enlighten, but it's real world function is to educate people just enough to carry out their roles as cogs in the societal wheel. The true purpose of education is inculcation, and the discouragement of critical and independent thought. When judged by those criteria, it has been fantastically successful.
As the last 3 and a half years have shown, most people have been so thoroughly dumbed down that they readily accepted the preposterous assertion that healthy people need pharmaceutical drugs to stay healthy. They believed a re-branded flu with a near 100% survival rate was "deadly," and warranted the tyrannical enforcement of lockdowns, face masks and dangerous injections. They believed these injections were "safe and effective", even though the clinical research behind them was a complete farce and the companies producing them had decades-long track records of civil and criminal convictions for dishonesty offences. If you spoke against any of this obvious insanity, they derided you as a "conspiracy theorist". In doing so, they were mindlessly repeating a mainstream ad hominem label designed to avoid consideration of dissenting ideas by instead casting off dissenters as fringe lunatics. If you questioned the reigning narrative, you allegedly lacked the full mental quotient of all the 'sensible' people who simply trusted what the government and media told them.
Having successfully transformed Planet Earth into Planet Dimwit still isn't enough for our reigning technocrats. They still have sexual fetishes they wish to freely fulfill, so they are now turning 'education' into a vehicle that will dumb people down even further - to the point where they will accept child sexualization as normal and acceptable.
Planet Pedo: The WHO Recommends Masturbation 'Education' From Birth
Just like the Great Corona Con, the child sexualization agenda has been in the works for some time. It is part of a decades-long effort to erode the nuclear family unit and replace it with a more ‘progressive’ social system in which people look to governments, corporate-owned media and their so-called 'experts' for life guidance.
'Experts' like these:
During 2008 and 2009, the unelected characters above, appointed by Dr Gunta Lazdane (in the middle at the very rear of the photo above), held four workshops during which they came up with the "WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe."
So just who are these people and how does an unelected panel of so-called 'experts' get to determine the World Health Organization sex education "framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists" in Europe?
From 2003 to 2017, Lazdane was WHO/Europe Regional Office programme manager for Sexual and Reproductive Health.
In this 2012 video, she gushed about the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the heavily pro-abortion outfit co-founded by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Lazdane says the IPPF was a major influence on her before joining the WHO and says the unelected IPPF is an official partner of WHO and participates in all their high-level discussions on 'reproductive health' (the globalist fluff-word for eugenicism and depopulation).
I just visited the IPPF website, and was immediately greeted by a full screen invitation to celebrate "Masturbation Month."
Of all the noble, heroic human endeavours we could devote a calendar month to, the IPPF chooses to honour the act of stroking our whim-whams? Really? This is how low we're setting the bar nowadays?
Clicking on the "Read more" links will take you through to instructions, and wholehearted encouragement, on "How to masturbate if you have a penis" and "How to masturbate if you have a vagina."
If recent surveys are anything to go by, most adults know full well how masturbation works. We're not exactly talking nuclear physics here, folks.
Which means the IPPF is targeting young people. Very, very young people, as I'll show you in a moment.
Not surprisingly, a number of Lazdane's appointees for the education guidelines were from the IPPF, while others hailed from the World Population Foundation and Rutgers Nisso Group, which have since joined forces, and whose longtime funders include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
And what did this collaboration of liberal, progressive 'reproductive health experts' recommend to the educators of Europe, the people charged with shaping and enlightening the young, formative minds of European kids?
Well, they concluded - based on no supporting science whatsoever - that right from birth, children should be exposed to explicitly sexual information. Children from 0-4 should be given information about "enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation ... discovery of own body and own genitals."
Why on Earth do infants need to be taught about masturbation? What possible justification, apart from sexual grooming, could there possibly be for exposing 0-4 year olds to such sexual concepts? What happened to building blocks and Crayola, for crying out loud?
The document goes onto recommend 4-6 year olds be taught about "same-sex relationships," and that 6-9 year olds be taught about sexual "self-expression," "gender orientation" and "first sexual experience."
9-12 year olds should be taught about "sexual rights ... as defined by" none other than the IPPF and World Association for Sexual Health, another WHO-aligned "sexual health and sexual rights" activist group.
Who funds the IPPF?
Taxpayers and oligarchs. In 2014, it was announced that USAIDS would generously donate $72 million of other people's money (US taxpayers) to fund "IPPF’s family planning delivery" which revolves around abortion.
During 2020-2021, Australian taxpayers unwittingly forked over US $25 million to the IPPF, while the UK 'donated' a massive US $121 million of public money.
The lengthy list of IPPF's private funders includes the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Foundation, Rutgers, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Levi Strauss Foundation.
Bill Gates has made no secret of his desire to reduce the world’s population. It's also worth noting at this juncture that masturbation, homosexuality and gender reassignment surgery involve non-procreative sexual activity. The relentless push to promote these activities among the young generations aligns neatly with the “population control” (i.e. depopulation) agenda of the UN, WHO, IPPF and their oligarchical billionaire backers.
The Rise of Sexual Content in Children's Books
Another disturbing trend has been the incorporation into school and public libraries of books aimed at children and teens with inappropriate sexual content.
The UK Book Trust website boasts that its patron is Her Majesty The Queen of the United Kingdom. Not sure if they've been following the news lately, but they should probably update that page.
At any rate, its review of the 2014 tome This Book is Gay, written by Juno Dawson, classifies the suitable audience age as 13+. Dawson was born male but began his "transition" to female in 2016. "A fantastic book for classrooms and school libraries," declares the Book Trust, "This Book is Gay is a must-read for teachers and parents, as well as teens themselves."
So what will 13 year-olds gain from this "must read" book? Well, they'll be exposed to graphic descriptions of how to engage in gay and lesbian sex. They'll learn about "popping another dude's peen in your mouth," the joys of sticking things up their "arse," and will be encouraged to ponder the questions that throughout the ages have kept great minds awake at night, such as "Why do they always put 'veins' on dildos? It's gross."
So is This Book is Gay. Libraries around the world have taken up Book Trust's call to include it in their collections, but in the US increasing numbers of extremely unimpressed parents have had enough. One mother reported her child's library to the police after learning the book was in her daughter’s school library, while last August a small-town Michigan library found itself in a tight spot after disgusted residents voted against a renewal of funds tied to property taxes.
Predictably, activists are claiming this is part of a campaign to censor LGBTQ authors, which immediately begs the question: Where were these stalwarts of free speech when scores of so-called COVID 'conspiracy theorists' (people who were telling the truth) were being banned, blocked, defunded by social media platforms and payment processors, and even jailed? Where are the acknowledgements and apologies to all those who correctly pointed out masks, lockdowns and social isolation were not just useless but harmful, and that the mRNA/viral vector injections were not true vaccines but poorly tested gene therapies with an alarming potential for harm?
Or is free speech only important when it coincides with the left's agenda?
Other books being promoted to kids and teens during "Pride" months include A Quick & Easy Guide to Queer & Trans Identities by Mady G., All Out: The No-Longer-Secret Stories of Queer Teens Throughout the Ages by Saundra Mitchell, I’m a Wild Seed by Sharon Lee De La Cruz, Trans Mission: My Quest to a Beard by Alex Bertie, My Body My Choice by Robin Stevenson, and Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe.
The Idiot Box Becomes the Deviant Box
Television has long since proved a very effective social engineering tool, and deviant technocrats are now upping the ante. Society has long since become blasé about the idea of adolescents being exposed to TV and movie characters swapping spit and engaging in steamy romps. The next step is to convince them that being directly exposed to fully nude adult strangers is perfectly normal and healthy.
And it's already happening.
March of this year saw the premiere of a new Dutch TV show featuring transgender adults who stripped naked down in front of an audience of 10-to 12-year-old children. The television show called "Gewoon Bloot" or "Simply Naked" in English, was harshly criticized ahead of its March 21 debut, but Dutch public broadcaster NOS said the show is meant to promote "body positivity" and give children "a realistic view" of the human body.
The following month, the UK's Channel 4 debuted "a groundbreaking new series" called “Naked Education.” Again, it involved children being exposed to fully nude adults, again with the alleged "mission to normalize all body types, champion differences, and break down stereotypes." The show recently featured two people who surgically mutilated themselves to try and become the opposite gender. After showing off their double mastectomy scars, one of them, Finlay Games, showed the kids his "neo-penis." Years ago, we would chase people for this kind of thing and hold them down until the police arrived. Now, they're TV stars.
Oh, and for those of you from more proper times who don't know what a "neo-penis" is, it's constructed when a woman who wants to be a man has doctors remove tissue from her forearm or thigh and create a phallic mass of tissue. Finlay explained to the kids how his neo-penis worked, and boasted how the wonders of neurosurgery allowed him to have an orgasm with the pump-operated device. What the show's producers conveniently omitted was that Finlay actually had to undergo six surgeries due to severe complications and has long battled depression. These inconvenient facts were pointed out by science documentary producer Malcolm Clark over on Twitter.
The Drag Queen "Storytime" Agenda
If adults want to view drag shows, that's entirely their right and their business. Me and a bunch of friends saw Hans perform a stand-up comedy skit years ago at Adelaide's old Rhino Room, and I'd be lying if I said anything other than he had us in stitches the whole way through his act. Most of us out here in the real world don't give a flying jiggy-jiggy whether someone is gay or bi or trans, so long as they're not shoving their beliefs down other people's throats. Many of us have gay relatives, friends and clients, who we value just as much as their heterosexual cousins.
That doesn't mean we have to sit back while misguided deviants in positions of power and influence set about corrupting our kids. When adult-oriented forms of entertainment are being pushed onto kids, it become's everybody's business. Victoria, Australia, led by sociopathic tyrant Dan Andrews, has seen a relentless and aggressive push to expose young children to drag queens via library "storytime" events.
Thankfully, parents are fighting back. A series of events at libraries around Melbourne have been called off after widespread community backlash. Besieged councils, who really should stick to rubbish collection and maintaining nature strips, allegedly held an "emergency meeting" after at least 10 drag storytime events across Australia had to be cancelled or postponed over the past six months.
After concerned parents gathered en mass at a Monash council meeting to protest a planned drag storytime event at Oakleigh library in Melbourne's south-east, Andrews and his media allies catapulted themselves into an orgy of libelous nonsense.
“Ugly scenes, ugly scenes on any measure," ranted Andrews in parliament of the protest, "including death threats against council officers and councillors. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace. It’s shameful."
Andrews followed this up with, well, hate speech about Florida: “And my message to those people is very clear: if you want to behave like the worst elements of the Florida Republican Party, well get to Florida. Get over there, where your hateful views might be worth something. They’re worth nothing here. We won’t stand for that ugly behaviour here. It’s appalling.”
“And I again make the point, it’s not about free speech. This is hate speech, plain and simple,” Andrews continued in his demented rant.
“It is wrong, it is out of step with the values of fair-minded, decent, mainstream Victorians. It is on the fringe."
Sophie Aubrey, writing for the Nine Entertainment-owned Age newspaper, portrayed the event as the work of groups "which espouse views often associated with alt-right or conspiracy theory thinking and can be hostile to the LGBTQ community." She knew she couldn’t claim the residents were alt-right conspiracy theorists who are hostile to LGBTQ folks, because that would be a lie. So she went the tenuous guilt-by-association route instead. Her headline claimed "Protesters opposed to drag queen event hurl abuse at councillors" which, as you’ll see shortly, is also taking liberties with the facts.
Of course, neither Andrews nor Aubrey presented any actual footage of the council meeting to confirm their hysterical claims. So let's have a look at footage of the council meeting to see what really transpired:
What that footage shows is everyday Victorians, mostly parents, exercising their democratic right to comment and object to local government decisions that may effect them and their children. As ratepayers, they have every right in the world to do this, even if government tyrants and incurably woke journalists don't like it.
Contrary to the tsunami of nonsense espoused by Andrews and the mainstream media, the footage shows no neo-Nazis, no violence, no death threats. There are indeed raised voices from the crowd, but given that a number of Monash councillors themselves have been accused of far worse, my advice is harden up, buttercups. If you're going to dial 000 every time a concerned parent raises their voice at a council meeting, maybe it's time to consider another career (anyone who has ever worked in customer service in angry Australia, for much lower pay than what these pampered government types receive, has very likely experienced a lot worse).
If you watched that footage above, you'll note that when asked about the reasons behind their opposition, the concerned ratepayers are overwhelmingly calm, reasoned and sincerely concerned. The small group of pro-drag storytime counter protesters, in contrast, come off as insolent, immature and in some cases, rather creepy. When asked if he's a ratepayer, one exclaims "f**k no, bro!" Others, when asked about their reasons for protesting, respond with silence and smirks.
This is the level of maturity and intellect that predominates among pro-drag storytime activists, yet the government and hopelessly left-leaning media wants you to believe that concerned parents are the real whackjobs!
What the Media 'Forgot" to Tell You About 'Child-Friendly' Drag Queen Frock Hudson
Eltham Library was scheduled to hold an event called “Rainbow Storytime”, featuring a drag queen called Frock Hudson - the “queerer alter ego” of cabaret performer Dean Arcuri. The event page expressly indicated the reading was for “babies, toddlers, preschoolers” and “kids.”
Arcuri has already performed at several “Rainbow Storytimes” for children, including in-person and online events at Eltham Library in 2022, Shepparton Library and the Rainbow Families event at The Melba in Collingwood.
After public concern intensified over Arcuri’s booking at Eltham Library, photos surfaced online showing him performing partially naked on stage and holding the genitals of other men.
Aubreys and Andrews clearly aren't fussed by Arcuri's gross antics, but is this really the kind of person we want to teach kids about "diversity"?
Most would agree that indigenous elders would be far better suited to story telling. Melbourne is the most culturally and ethnically diverse city in Australia, yet the woke types who run the library system can't find anyone other than drag queens to promote the values of tolerance, respect and diversity?
Seriously?
Now here's the real cracker: After multiple libraries cancelled drag storytime events after opposition by residents, the notoriously vindictive Andrews figured he'd flip a big middle finger to middle Victoria by holding a drag storytime event at Parliament House. Because, when the economy is collapsing around you, exposing kids to people like Frock Hudson is what's really important.
That's right: One of the invited drag queens was none other than Arcuri, the tasteless character who posts pictures of himself giving other men hand-jobs on social media.
Dishonest Extrapolation
A recent 'cross check' on Melbourne's RMIT university website tries to pretend the grooming agenda isn’t really happening. It’s worth noting RMIT relies heavily on government funding. Last year, RMIT received $355 million in Australian federal government grants, and $69 million from Victorian state and local governments.
RMIT’s Executive Director Policy is Tom Bentley, whose previous employers include the Gates Foundation, former Vic Labor premier Steve Bracks, and former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
So it's not too difficult to guess where RMIT stands on this issue.
"Transgender grooming conspiracy theory spreads to Australia," declares the article's headline. "A long-running, dangerous conspiracy theory that baselessly likens members of the LGBTQ+ community to paedophiles now zeros in on transgender people."
The mainstream's attack on anti-grooming commentators is predictable beyond boring: The routine procedure is to dismiss them as right wing/alt-right/far-right, Nazis/Neo-Nazis, transphobes and homophobes. Sure enough, all the usual red flags for left-wing propaganda can be found in the RMIT article, including liberal use of leftist buzzwords like "conspiracy theory", "baselessly," "Nazi", "right wing" and "far right."
The article also makes use of the diversionary straw man fallacy: Critics of the grooming agenda, the author claims, are equating the increasing sexualization of children with "the LGBTQ+ community."
What rubbish. That's a diversion tactic created by the mainstream itself.
The Guardian's Cait Kelly and Benita Kolovos, for example, disingenuously describe the dragtime story events as "LGBTQ+ events," an attempt to falsely portray gay/bisexual/trans people and drag events aimed at kids as one and the same, even though many LGBTQ+ folks are vehemently opposed to such events.
Gays Against Groomers
One major hiccup for folks who want you to believe opponents of child grooming are homophobes and transphobes is the activist group Gays Against Groomers.
Far from being a bunch of redneck gay- and trans-haters, Gays Against Groomers are a coalition of gay and trans folks who are actively "against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+."
As to why they're against ‘educating’ youngsters on LGBTQ+ subjects, here's their answer:
"School is not the place for underage children to be bombarded with information that could exacerbate their natural inner turmoil. Growing up is hard enough as it is. We do not believe they should be exposed to and pressured into contemplating ideologies that prioritize sexuality and identity above real world skills. Children need to be focused on learning pragmatic skills like math, how to be a good friend, setting boundaries, basic communication and how to be a team player. Queer theory and gender ideology are not necessary for development or self discovery; they certainly weren't necessary for ours. When children are exposed to overly sexual material too soon, it can cause behavioral issues that lead them to dangerous situations."
Amen.
To try and claim that a group of gays and transgender folks are homophobes and transphobes because they refuse to go along with the grooming agenda would obviously be ludicrous.
Believe it or not, that's the exact smear strategy Big Tech revisionist Wikipedia and “queer” magazine The Advocate are desperately resorting to.
I could write another 10,000 words on the kind of stupidity and irrationality it takes for someone to make such a preposterous claim, but I'll just let the following three photos of Gays Against Groomers members do the talking. If a picture speaks a thousand words, here's 3,000 explaining why the only thing Wikipedia and The Advocate have 'exposed' is just how truly desperate their smear attempts are.
Meet Kitty Demure, Lady MAGA and Mack. According to the laughable left, these folks are hateful transphobes!
For further demonstration of why Wkipedia and The Advocate should've gone to Specsavers, be sure to visit the Gays Against Groomers "About" page where you can "Meet the Team." You couldn't find a more LGBTQ+-looking group if you tried.
Truth Doesn’t Matter to Media Matters
Media Matters is the last organization in the world fit to accuse others of having a hidden agenda. But that's exactly what it does to Gays Against Groomers, who it accuses of being "right-wing operatives" in one of its agenda-driven 'fact checks'.
Among the definitions ascribed to the term "operative" are "A secret agent; a spy" and "One who works for a political organization, often wielding influence out of public view."
Which is clearly the impression of Gays Against Groomers that Media Matters is attempting to foment. But they have no evidence. Like RMIT, MM makes liberal use of the usual "right wing" and "alt wing" slurs, but not being a leftist is not a crime nor a marker for covert activity.
With one rather weak exception, the rambling article fails to present any actual connection to a political figure or party beyond that of avid supporter. MM also fails to present even a speck of evidence that the group is funded by powerful and politically partisan actors.
Media Matter's entire insinuation that Gays Against Groomers is a covert operative group rests heavily on public posts made by the group’s founder, lesbian Jaimee Michell and one of her board members, David Leatherwood, regarding Trump, MAGA, Qanon and election fraud.
They have tweeted in support of Trump. They have criticized the Black Lives Matter movement. They had "ties" to the Stop the Steal Movement and "right wing influencers." Both have praised people who attended the the Capitol building fracas of January 6.
Michell and Leatherwood clearly have lots of friends and associates who reside on the "right" side of politics. Just like leftists tend to have predominantly friends and associates who reside on the "left". That's what humans do. Despite all our rhetoric about being open-minded, we tend to mix with people and congregate in groups who reflect our own views.
Media Matters accuses Michell and Leatherwood of "stocking" Gays Against Groomers with "anti-vaxx activists, pro-Trump acolytes, online influencers, and those with connections to right-wing politics."
Yeah, but where are the "operatives"?
The closest Media Matters can come to connecting the anti-grooming group to the Republican Party is to report that one (1) of its "ambassadors", Rafaello Carone, was hired in January 2023 (well after the group was formed) by "embattled" gay Representative George Santos (R-NY). In other words, a gay Republican politician who needs a PR boost gave a job to a gay and probably Republican activist.
That’s it?
Oh wait, Leatherwood is "apparently" employed as a writer and director by conservative communications firm Arsenal Media, for which he appeared in an ad last year for GOP Florida state House candidate Jake Hoffman.
Big deal. None of this is even close to extraordinary and merely indicates a group replete with people who support Republicans instead of Democrats. That's hardly surprising, given that sympathy for woke causes like dragtime story events is far more prevalent on the left.
For the record, while I can't stand that senile, hair-sniffing creep that currently passes for a US president, I don't like Trump either. I don't like anyone who throws billions of dollars at already wealthy drug companies to create a non-vaccine for a non-pandemic. I especially don't like anyone who continues pimping the gene therapies he helped fund into existence even after a mountain of evidence has amassed to show they are ineffective at best and potentially deadly. I don't like anyone who was closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein and called him a "great guy." All of which Trump has done.
Sadly, while a lot of conservatives will rightly call out this kind of behaviour when it occurs on the left, they go into hyper-rationalization mode when it comes to Trump. Before Media Matters gets all high and mighty, scientific research has demonstrated amply that people from both sides of politics do this. MRI studies showed both Republican and Democrat voters had no problem processing negative information about opposition candidates, but when subjected to negative information about their own candidates, their brains literally went into a state of distress and immediately began reprocessing the information in a way that diminished its importance, veracity and negativity.
It's an age-old human trait known as bias. It causes people to denounce opponents, while making excuses and rationalizations for the very same behaviour committed by those they support or agree with.
And guess what? MM is biased as all get out.
Gays Against Groomers maintains "We are a 100% independent, self-funded nonprofit organization" and Media Matters presents exactly zero evidence to dispute this.
Meanwhile, Media Matters itself is funded by a plethora of vested, heavily-left interests that would stand to benefit from the discrediting of so-called "right wing" groups like Gays Against Groomers.
It's clear from Media Matter's Form 990 that it has some very wealthy backers (one of whom donated $1.25 million in 2019 alone), but the organization won't tell us who they are.
That's not very transparent now, is it?
With some dogged sleuthing, however, InfluenceWatch.org quickly uncovered some notable names. It found Media Matters was formed with $2 million in funding from wealthy progressives funneled through the Tides Foundation with additional funding from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network. In 2010, George Soros gave the group $1 million. Media Matters has also received substantial funding from labor unions, most notably the National Education Association.
Major contributions to Media Matters have also been made by the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund and the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program. InfluenceWatch noted these are donor-advised funds, a philanthropic vehicle that can be used to hide donors’ identities which has, ironically, often been attacked by liberal groups as “dark money.”
Media Matters insiders report the group acted as a propaganda unit for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election cycle, while messages released by WikiLeaks showed Clinton’s 2016 campaign also treated Media Matters as a campaign surrogate while coordinating with the group.
So it turns out Media Matters, who accuses Gay Against Groomers of being "right-wing operatives", is in fact a group of left-wing operatives!
So, dear MM, which of your wealthy left-wing backers ordered you to do a hit piece on Gays Against Groomers?
Other MM claims to fame include supporting Jussie Smollett, the Empire actor who falsely claimed he was the victim of a violent hate crime in January 2019. Despite early indications the alleged hate crime had inconsistencies, MM labeled the skepticism as a “right-wing smear”. I told you these people are hopelessly predictable.
MM also accused Twitter and YouTube of artificially promoting content that doubted Smollett’s story. Because we all know Twitter and YouTube have long had a strong conservative bias [COUGH, COUGH]. A red-faced MM were forced to update their article on the event after Smollett was arrested for filing a false police report.
In Conclusion
In this article, I've explained the grooming agenda, how it's being enacted, and exposed some of its terribly misguided apologists. I've presented their opinions, and given my opinion, which is that they are completely full of mierda.
But opinions are like noses: Everyone's got one. Some noses, however, are better formed than others. In the next article on the topic, I'll explain how science is firmly on the side of those campaigning against the sexualization of children.
Until then, watch your kids, for I hear there are lots of "left wing", "far left" and "alt left" operative weirdos out there!
Note: Article updated 23 May 2023 to include extra information on Jimmy Savile.