Tucker Carlson on "gay marriage": "Should people able to get married if they love each other? Yeah, they should, that's fine."

He goes on to say the real threat to society is transgenderism. pic.twitter.com/fiAYwSRB5S

— Andrew Anglin (@WorldWarWang) December 17, 2022

Tucker Carlson this week came out and endorsed so-called “anal marriage” in an incredibly disappointing turn for the only mainstream media figure beloved by the internet.

On the topic of so-called “gay marriage” (also known as “two fisted matrimony”), Carlson said: “Should people able to get married if they love each other? Yeah, they should, that’s fine.”

This is the first time Carlson has been on record endorsing this vile abomination before the Lord, and has led to severe backlash from the internet, which believes that America needs to follow God’s law rather than Satan’s law (also known as “Jewish tribal law”).

Referring to anal sex as “love” is particularly repulsive and unforgivable. This is much more severe than if he had simply made a legal case or a libertarian case. He actually endorsed the idea that a man sadistically ramming his penis, his fists, and other objects into another man’s anus, an act of the most demonic hatred, is in fact “love.”

If you love someone, you don’t ram things into their rectum, causing them to bleed and blast feces all over the place. That is in extreme opposition to love.

Of course, he got away with saying this – or believes he got away with saying it – by saying that tranny genital mutilations are bad. He says “well sure, I endorse gay marriage like all reasonable people, but this tranny stuff has gone too far.” Apparently, he thinks this is very clever. In fact, this is the slippy slope that right-wingers have been complaining about for decades, and it is unlikely he is fooling anyone by endorsing the previous point on the slippery slope while denouncing the latest iteration.

The only reason we have trannies is that gay marriage was legalized. On the practical level, after gay marriage was legalized, there was many big money lobbying groups that wanted to keep making big money, so they repurposed themselves into tranny advocacy groups, and started pushing for the tranny agenda to be forced on school children. More importantly, on the psychological level, after you’ve normalized one offensive agenda, you can then begin pushing for the next phase.

If you believe in the Bible, this is all very obvious. God says there is one way to live. No one is going to live up to that in the final reckoning, but everyone must try to live up to it, and we must always recognize right from wrong. If you start declaring evil to be good, then there is no bottom on how far you can fall. There is simply no way to say “I want only a certain amount of evil to be good, I don’t want the really extreme evil to be good.” You can’t say that because you do not have a moral compass.

Under what moral order can you say that gay sex is good, and gay marriage is good, but mutilating people’s genitals or having sex with children is bad? The only thing you can do is go into weird abstraction notions of good and evil which really aren’t based on anything. To say adult gay sex is good but child gay sex is bad, you have to go into notions of consent and the doctrine of consent theory, which is muddy and ridiculous. This is not even a system, and is actually just totally arbitrary. I would never engage in consent-based arguments, because I don’t believe in consent, but if I did, I could easily say “a man can’t consent to having his anus violated because if he wants to consent to that he is mentally ill and therefore incapable of issuing consent.” Meanwhile, a consent-believer can just say “children can consent” (they are already saying this with regards to the mutilations).

It has been clear for some time that these progressive conservatives who want to go back to business as usual after the evaporation of the revolutionary energy around Donald Trump were going to use transgenderism and especially the child tranny movement to say “this is too far,” while also pushing to normalize everything that came before that.

We ultimately have to ask: who does this even appeal to? The right-wing movement in America is a Christian movement primarily, and it is impossible for a Christian to say “anal sex is love.” Meanwhile, the only “gays” I’ve seen against the child tranny movement, and the “drag queen story hour” molestation movement, is a lesbian woman that Tucker Carlson interviews. For months now, he’s been pushing a narrative that being gay doesn’t automatically mean you support these movements targeting children. I have no idea if that is true, but it is very clear that upwards of 95% of homosexuals do support this. Even if 4-5% don’t support it, that is a very small group to target with your political agenda. It’s ultimately unclear why the normalization of homosexuality would be part of the agenda of any right-winger, unless that person was a bad actor attempting to undermine the Christian foundations of America.

The steelman here would be that he’s planning to build a Tulsi Gabbard style “economic populism” movement where leftists and rightists come together under a banner of “reasonableness.” Frankly, no one should want that to happen, but from a practical point of view, it is not going to happen. In order to fight back against the kind of monsters that are coming against us, we need to believe in something. No one is going to be willing to die for “economic populism,” whatever that even is. What’s more, the number of leftists who would be willing to accept this “reasonable” alternative, this plan to hit the brakes on the slippery slope, is an irrelevant fraction of the population. The only thing pushing this kind of material into the narrative does is morally undermine and weaken Christianity.

However, we must concede that it is possible that Carlson legitimately believes in this bizarre fantasy of “left and right unite for moderate homosexual values,” and that would mean he is not necessarily a bad actor, but merely seriously misguided. That said, he has also begun aggressively pushing the neocon agenda for a global war against the Chinese, and it’s much more difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Under Barack Obama, the US government began a global program to force everyone in the world to have “gay sex” (anal pounding, rimjobs, anal fisting). This was continued and made more extreme under Donald Trump.

That is one Trump-era program that Joe Biden did not end.

These countries all over the world that are now legalizing gay anal and fisting – even double-fisting – are doing so because of pressure from the US government. There is no other reason.

The Guardian:

A top court in Barbados has struck down colonial-era laws that criminalize gay sex, becoming the third nation in the conservative Caribbean region to do so this year.

The ruling issued Monday by the Barbados high court is a pivotal moment for activists and non-profit organizations who have long fought against such laws on the eastern Caribbean island, including one that demands up to a life sentence for gay men found guilty of having sex.

“It’s gone from a certain ripple effect to a tidal wave in the Caribbean, which is what everyone involved set out to achieve,” said Téa Braun, chief executive of the London-based Human Dignity Trust, a human rights organization.

Téa Braun

While the laws were rarely invoked, they signal that LGBTQ+ people are criminal and lesser citizens, Braun said.

“The striking down of the laws reverses that and overnight tells the entire society that this is consensual contact and that what people choose to do with their private relationships is not the business of the law,” she said in a phone interview.

Several Christian churches and organizations across the Caribbean have opposed the abolition of such laws, with support from some political leaders who invoke God in their arguments.

Braun said there are now only six remaining countries in the Americas with similar laws, including Guyana, Grenada, Dominica, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Jamaica, where members of the LGBTQ+ community have fled following violent attacks. A case in St Lucia is pending. Earlier this year, Caribbean courts have found such laws in Antigua & Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis unconstitutional.

Worldwide, 67 jurisdictions criminalize private, consensual same-sex activities, down from more than 80 a decade ago, Braun said.

A decade ago was 2012, when Barack Obama was starting his second term. Obama began threatening to withhold foreign aid from countries if they didn’t go anal (including fisting and double-fisting), and Trump continued the pressure campaign.

You’ll remember the infamous tweet where Charlie Kirk demanded that the Jewish media praise Trump for forcing Botswana go to extreme fister.

The US is also forcing feminist ideals onto these countries.

It’s a kind of speed-run now to get the moral norms of the third world up to par with the West, as these people plan total global integration under a single Anal Empire.

In the latest act of homophobic repression ushered in by the Fascist Trump/Pence regime, two consenting LGBTP adults are being convicted of LOVE.

A mother who recently reconnected with her homosexual daughter decided to tap into the paraphilic tendencies of fags and take it one step further. The duo wanted to adopt children and believed getting married would aid them in this quest.

The slippery slope the Jews in the media said was a figment of a bigoted Christian imagination in the 90s and 2000s is sliding down gracefully – just as they planned all along!

Fox News:

An Oklahoma woman who married her biological mother in 2016 after they reunited and allegedly “hit it off” pleaded guilty to incest Tuesday.

Misty Spann, 26, of Duncan, Okla., pleaded guilty in Stephens County District Court and under the deal was sentenced to 10 years of probation.

Her mother, Patricia Ann Spann, 44, has pleaded not guilty to incest. Her court date was slated for January. She could face 10 years in prison if found guilty, Tulsa World reported.

Prosecutors said Patricia Spann also married one of her sons in 2008. The marriage was annulled in 2010 due to “incest,” The Associated Press reported.

The mother said she thought the marriage to Misty was legal because she had lost custody of her daughter and two sons years ago and is not listed on their birth certificates.

…

Smith said the mother-daughter-duo was attempting to adopt a child and believed their marriage would shorten the process.

What is surprising is that the state actually prosecuted these two freaks. Under present legal precedents for overturning queer solicitation and sodomy laws (that it is between two consenting adults), how is incest still illegal?

Not long ago, the Jew college professor David Epstein argued this in court after he was accused of having sex with his daughter. He compared his actions to homosexual activity and beat the felonies.

All it would take is one half-hearted, mailed-in (((ACLU))) Supreme Court challenge and incest will be made legal. The hard part of cracking open Pandora’s mudbox was already accomplished in the decades-long LGBTP campaign by the social engineers.

The reason they haven’t done it yet is they don’t think the time is right, it could provoke resistance. The Silent Majority may be just a silent plurality at this point, but in 20 years when America is evenly spit by multiple ethnic groups as a chaotic and incoherent mess, they’ll slip it under the door with pedophilia.

Optics debates aren’t exclusive to the Alt-Right. The case of Kevin Spacey has caused a split in the LGBTP community on whether to support molesting boys, or pretend to oppose it when breeders are looking.

As MILO remarked, touching minors against their will is the homosexual version of the 14 words. By traumatizing yet another generation of young men, fags are able to spawn more and younger sex partners.

Certain forces in the homo-pedo community like George Takei have thrown Spacey under the bus, but the hard core of Jewish and faggot intellectuals sees this as an opportunity to double-down and punch through one of the last remaining sexual taboos.

Eight months ago the Jew Gabrielle Rosenberg and Joseph Fischel defended MILO when he got in hot water. Most Goyim since the 90s have been trained to think there is some clear, impenetrable delineation between homosexuality and touching underage boys against their will, but this is Jewish disinformation to move the needle towards the inevitable in the sexual revolution.

Now Mr. Fischel has decided to condemn LGBTPs policing optics through feigned attacks Kevin Spacey with a new term you better start getting used to: “intergenerational sex.”

Slate:

Everyone loves to hate a pedophile, even if they’ve made him up.

Immediately after Kevin Spacey tweeted an apology on Sunday night for allegedly making sexual advances toward a then-teenaged Anthony Rapp in 1986, he was “Milo-ed”—demonized and outcast under the banner of pedophilia—mostly by gay leaders, but also by everyone else (even here at Slate and by Milo himself).

Eight months ago, my colleague Gabriel Rosenberg and I, responding to the outrage around Milo Yiannoupolis’ comments on gay intergenerational sex, explored how gender and sexuality may complicate the ethics of sex across age difference. Let me be as clear as possible that Spacey’s alleged conduct, imposing himself unwanted on a 14-year-old boy, is in no way defensible, nor is closeted queerness an excuse that authorizes bad behavior. (Spacey’s statement doesn’t dispute either of these points.) However, we can condemn the alleged events of Rapp’s story without falling into the trap of fueling moral panic around the specter of the pedophile. And in its pitchfork-and-torches response, that’s exactly what the gay community is doing. It used to be straights who “pedophiled” gays to deny them civil rights and social inclusion. Now we apparently pedophile our own for moral purification and self-satisfaction.

The scary thing, in the eyes of the mainstream movement, is that Spacey used his apology as an opportunity to come out, to announce that he “live[s] as a gay man.” Braiding queerness into his apology sent gay pundits into a sanctimonious tizzy. Some lambasted him for coming out to deflect attention from his abusive conduct. Gay actors George Takei and Zachary Quinto decried Spacey’s coming out as manipulative and conniving, Frank Underwood-style. Others snarkily rejected his application for membership into the LGBTQ community. Critics likewise accused Spacey of dangerously equating homosexuality with pedophilia, reinforcing one of the most damaging arguments leveled at gays and lesbians in earlier decades. The dread that Spacey’s case might revivify that tactic seems to be many gays’ greatest fear.

Of course, had Spacey not come out, he would have been skewered by the same folks skewering him now: for irresponsibly remaining in the closet as a celebrity, for allowing self-hating homophobia to cloud his twentysomething judgment, for casting doubt on Rapp’s allegation by tacitly insisting on his heterosexuality. And that brings me to my first point: Spacey’s apology, while not displaying the total acceptance of a victim’s story that some might like, is not the manipulative mess many claim.

And thus, my second point: Gay pundits’ overblown protests of disgust at Spacey support the very structure of pedophile sex panic—the hyperventilating reduction of queerness to child abuse—that they are trying to fend off. To be clear, under no clinical diagnostic I know of does a drunken, aggressive, and deeply stupid pass at a teenager qualify as pedophilia. Indeed, one working definition of pedophilia is “ongoing sexual attraction to prepubertal children … who are generally age 13 years or younger.” From the perspective of helping children and pedophilic men both, pedophilia is best understood as a mental and public health problem requiring treatment and supervision rather than as a crime. (As a technical matter, there is no “crime” of pedophilia, which is a structure of desire; there are crimes of child molestation, abuse, etc.)

No, based on the evidence available at this point, Kevin Spacey is not a pedophile. But calling him one only helps to bolster the homophobic fantasy that gay men in general might be. This is why gay commentators’ defensiveness against the stain of pedophilia is, while understandable, deeply misguided.

With more people coming out to accuse Kevin Spacey of touching them when they were a kid every day, it’s laughable to think this was a one off “drunken pass.” Spacey has done more and worse.

There is a semantic argument the homosexual activist writer can make here, but what is his motive? It’s generally considered unacceptable for adult men to sexually attack 13 and 14-year-old boys. Fischel wants to “start a conversation” to make it acceptable. In a couple of decades they will muster the nerve to start talking about how sexy babies are.

Now that the lid has been blown off of Hollywood – composed almost exclusively of Jews and fags who love to rape people and touch kids – this may be the direction the powers that be take our media in.

They’ve got the platform, money and power, all they need is to get everyone on message. Soon that NAMBLA Antifa banner will be real.

Say it loud and say it clear:

NO PLATFORM FOR JEWS AND PEDO QUEERS

It’s 2016 – time to start having sex with dogs.

The thing to remember is that the Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy.

Remembering that will keep you from becoming confused about what exactly is going on here.

Breitbart:

Canada’s highest court has just ruled that some sex acts between humans and animals are legal.

In a quixotic ruling, the country’s high court ruled that a man who was on trial for raping and sexually exploiting his own daughters wasn’t guilty of “bestiality.” The man reportedly, “smeared peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and had the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.”

The convicted man took his case to the Canadian Supreme Court, demanding that the bestiality charge be nullified. In the end, the court agreed.

As a result of the rape case, the court ruled 7 to 1 that humans having sexual contact with animals is OK if there is no “penetration” involved in the act.

In its ruling, the court decided that the legislature had not clearly defined the terms in the country’s bestiality laws and the way the statute is written should be read to only outlaw animal penetration, whether that penetration is animal to human or vice versa.

“Although bestiality was often subsumed in terms such as sodomy or buggery, penetration was the essence — ‘the defining act’ — of the offense,” the court’s ruling states as reported by The Independent.

The high court’s lone dissenter, though, said the ruling would mean open season for the sexual exploitation of animals.

“Acts with animals that have a sexual purpose are inherently exploitative whether or not penetration occurs,” Justice Rosalie Abella wrote in her dissent.

Animal rights activist Camille Labchuk agreed with Justice Abella. “As of today, Canadian law gives animal abusers license to use animals for their own sexual gratification,” she told the paper. “This is completely unacceptable, contrary to societal expectations, and cannot be allowed to continue.”

You see goyim, species, like race, is a social construct.

There is absolutely no difference between a dog and a human.

It’s all in your mind, and because of different cultures or whatever.

The Nazis are going to say this is the slippery slope, but the actual fact is that true love knows not race, sex or whether or not someone is your own mother.

How can you deny love?

Daily Mail:

A mother who was reunited with her son after giving him up for adoption more than 30 years ago says the pair are in love and trying for a baby after he left his wife for her.

British-born Kim West, 51, and her son Ben Ford, 32, who lives in Michigan, have been in a relationship since they met in 2014 and says they have ‘incredible and mind-blowing’ sex.

The pair came back into contact two years ago after Mr Ford wanted to find out more about his birth parents and got in touch with Miss West.

They found themselves sexually attracted to each other and shared their first kiss over a bottle of champagne in a hotel before having sex.

And just three days after they had sex for the first time, Mr Ford told his wife Victoria, he no longer loved her and would be leaving.

He told New Day that he told his wife: ‘Everytime I have had sex with you since I met her, I imagine its her I am kissing, otherwise I can’t perform.’

West, who grew up in Islington, London, became pregnant while studying in California and after giving birth to her son aged 19, gave him up for adoption.

After Ford was adopted a week after he was born, she came back to the UK but was unable to make a relationship work.

But in December 2013, she received a letter from her son, who was looking to track down his biological parents.

And ever since the pair were reunited in January 2014, they realised they were attracted to each other.

Now two years on, he is in a relationship with his mother with the pair living in Michigan in what they describe as ‘Genetic Sexual Attraction’.

And now they plan to marry and are even trying to have a baby together.

West, who works as an interior designer, told Alley Einstein of New Day: ‘This is not incest, it is GSA. We are like peas in a pod and are meant to be together.

‘I know people will say we’re disgusting, that we should be able to control our feelings, but when you’re hit by a love so consuming you are willing to give up everything for it, you have to fight for it.’

Incest is illegal in the couple’s home state of Michigan and judges in the state are able to give out life sentences to those found guilty of the offence.

However, it is unclear if a case against them would be pursued and the couple say they would move if that were the case.

Ford first got in touch with his biological mother in December 2013, while living with his wife in Colorado, as he wanted to know more about his birth parents.

They arranged to meet up and the couple grew close, and eventually shared their first kiss.

Soon after, Ford, a freelance computer coder, left his wife after realising he had fallen for his mother and moved to Michigan, where they met with another GSA couple.

Now the couple are planning a special wedding and hope to have a baby together. They also say they will consider surrogacy, if they are unable to have a biological child.

Genetic sexual attraction is a seldom-talked about phenomenon that occurs between adoptees and their long-lost parents.

It describes feelings of intense intimacy between two relatives who have been separated during the critical years of development and bonding, and then meet for the first time as adults.

When an adult-child and their biological parent finally meet, the brain struggles to associate each other as family.

Instead, they become captivated with one another, sharing similar physical features, likes and dislikes, which is coupled with complex feelings of intimacy. This can lead both parties to express their emotions sexually.

The phenomenon was first identified by Barbara Gonyo in the Eighties, after she a wrote book called I’m His Mother, But He’s Not My Son, which recounted her personal story of reuniting with the son she placed for adoption at 16.

Despite the cries to the contrary, the slippery slope is a proven sociological reality.

They told us that homosexuality was something that couldn’t be helped, and so we just have to accept these people for who they are. Then came the trannies.

Now here we are at the pedos.

The new argument is that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation,” and that we should have understanding for those who are afflicted with this most undesirable attraction to kids.

The thing about all of this is, it can apply to any undesirable behavior. A thief can be born with an orientation toward grabbing things that don’t belong to him. And then we could have thieves who are not active thieves because they resist the urge to steal, even though the urge exists because they were born with it.

But the Jews only use this “born this way” theory selectively. In particular, when they want to make victims out of people trying to destroy society.

From the Salon piece:

I’ve been stuck with the most unfortunate of sexual orientations, a preference for a group of people who are legally, morally and psychologically unable to reciprocate my feelings and desires. It’s a curse of the first order, a completely unworkable sexuality, and it’s mine. Who am I? Nice to meet you. My name is Todd Nickerson, and I’m a pedophile. Does that surprise you? Yeah, not many of us are willing to share our story, for good reason. To confess a sexual attraction to children is to lay claim to the most reviled status on the planet, one that effectively ends any chance you have of living a normal life. Yet, I’m not the monster you think me to be. I’ve never touched a child sexually in my life and never will, nor do I use child pornography.

Get it?

He’s one of those good pedophiles.

But isn’t that the definition of a pedophile, you may ask, someone who molests kids? Not really. Although “pedophile” and “child molester” have often been used interchangeably in the media, and there is some overlap, at base, a pedophile is someone who’s sexually attracted to children. That’s it. There’s no inherent reason he must act on those desires with real children. Some pedophiles certainly do, but many of us don’t. Because the powerful taboo keeps us in hiding, it’s impossible to know how many non-offending pedophiles are out there, but signs indicate there are a lot of us, and too often we suffer in silence. That’s why I decided to speak up.

The piece literally goes on to romanticize the instance when he felt sex attraction to a 7-year-old.

Many gays begin to recognize their sexual preferences sometime around puberty, if not before. For me it was the same. I was about 12 when the first inklings of a sexual preference bubbled up in me, though at the time I thought little of it. As I turned 13 it occurred to me that what I initially took as a phase had begun to solidify into something more troubling. Even so, at this point I could still convince myself that I was within the realm of normalcy. Then something happened that all but removed my ability to continue this self-denial: my Eureka Moment.

One day, as I was sketching in my grandparents’ living room, a neighbor of theirs came to visit with his seven-year-old daughter in tow. At first I hadn’t noticed her because she was quiet. I only heard my grandpa and his neighbor chatting in the kitchen while I sketched. Soon the little girl walked into the dining room and stood at the archway entrance to the living room, watching me draw. I can still see her today in my mind’s eye: dressed in blue jeans and a nearly matching denim jacket, with pristine blue eyes and a halo of wispy blond curls framing her face. She seemed somehow larger than life and almost ancient in the way she stood so perfectly still. Then, just like that, she was gone; she and her father left. That singular moment, though it could scarcely have lasted more than a few minutes, has become seared into my memory.

See?

It’s just like “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”

Slightly surprisingly, the author blames his attraction to children on having been molested as a child. Which is what the anti-gays have always said caused homosexualism, and what homosexualists have constantly denied.

So I was surprised to see this line of reasoning used.

This is also romanticized in the piece.

When I was seven years old, I was fondled in the front yard of my grandparents’ home by a man I barely knew. It was a one-time event in my life and not a particularly traumatic one. A man I’ll call Hans, a German who was acquainted with my uncle and aunt from when they lived in Nuremberg, had come to visit America. He spent a day and a night at their place, and they lived next door to my family along with my grandparents, who shared their two-story brick house. That day, the man lingered in the house with my grandma, who was stuck with him while everyone else had gone to work, and as neither could speak the other’s language, it quickly became uncomfortable for both.

Grammy’s solution was to send Hans outside with one of the grandkids. As I happened to be in the room at the time, I was assigned the task. “Take him out and show him Papa’s garden,” she told me. “Tell him the names of the vegetables. He’d probably enjoy that.” I agreed. Besides, even though I knew not a whit of German, I was very much at ease in Hans’s presence. He was painfully thin, with a messy mop of hair and large glasses. I should point out that the men in my life, including my father, were gruff blue-collar types who could intimidate me. Hans was different: gentle, soft-spoken and appealingly awkward—a lot like me!

…

For long minutes we simply enjoyed each other’s company. Then, out of the blue, Hans slipped a hand into my shorts, even though we were only about 30 feet from the poorly paved country road that meandered through this stretch of country. This went on for several minutes. I was confused but not frightened or troubled. The only thing I could think to say while this was happening was “Peepee,” continuing the English lesson with my pet name for my genitalia even in the midst of my own abuse. Hans chortled and repeated the word: “Peepee.” Eventually this came to an end, and Hans, having gotten what he wanted, shooed me away. I can’t imagine why it didn’t occur to him that I would immediately rat him out; maybe he knew and just didn’t care. Anyway, he could hardly ask me not to, could he? I raced back to Grammy and promptly informed her of what had happened. She deliberated over what to do, in the end asking me to keep it a secret from everyone, including my parents, and ordering me to stay away from Hans. No authorities were called, and life went on as usual. Hans stayed that evening with my uncle and aunt and left the next day. I never saw him again.

The author then assures us that getting fiddled as a child is only one possible cause of the pedophile sexual orientation, but that all pedophiles are victims somehow of someone or of society or whatever.

I think it’s safe to say that many pedophiles have deep-seated feelings of inferiority in one way or another, or at least we did when our sexuality was forming, and this becomes a downward spiral during puberty and beyond. Anything can be the trigger of this: disabilities, weight issues, or just general feelings of unattractiveness to peers. These feelings can be influential on one’s developing sexuality, such that even the severe cultural taboo is not enough to override it. Indeed, the taboo itself can negatively influence these vulnerable children.

I recall an event from when I was 11, sitting in the family jeep with my dad and his friend Andy when a news piece on the radio reported the sexual abuse of a girl, to which my dad said to his friend something like, “They should take people like that and place weights on top of their genitals until they smash.” Pretty horrific imagery for an 11-year-old to process, and I couldn’t help but sympathize with the abuser. After all, I could recall my own molestation perfectly, and I hardly felt it warranted that kind of response.

Oh wow.

You see what he just did there?

The bile has only multiplied since then, and I believe all that hatred just serves to reinforce pedophilia in youngsters predisposed to it. It’s a form of cognitive bias called the Backfire Effect or polarization. Everyone does this to some extent. When challenged on deeply held beliefs, no matter how uncertain or incorrect they may be, we tend to dig in our heels.

He then whines for a while about the misery of his youth and college days – more “victim of society” – then gets to this bit.

In the midst of that dark era in my life, I discovered an unhealthy pedophile forum. Nothing illegal was happening there, but many of its most influential members were pro-contacters, meaning they believed that sex with children was theoretically OK and supported the elimination of age of consent laws. That forum still exists and I won’t name it here, but suffice it to say, I found myself taking up the same pro-contacter chants, if only to feel like I belonged somewhere. At the time it was all that was available in terms of an actual pedophile community, and I had nothing left to lose by joining the cause, misguided though it was, and even decided to out myself on that forum. Over the ensuing years, though, I was often at odds with the pro-contacters and flitted in and out of their clique; I wanted desperately to be friends with people who shared my sexual orientation, even if they held crazy beliefs, but I could never quite reconcile with their viewpoint.

Then what happened…?

Oh, he’s a victim again.

Not long after I self-outed, a group of web vigilantes called Perverted Justice showed up. You’ve probably heard of them; they’re the people behind the now-defunct TV show “To Catch a Predator.” I was no predator, but that mattered not one iota to these guys; they lumped me together with the child rapists and internet creeps just the same. As I was already out of the closet as a pedo, I was an easy target, becoming one of the first people they profiled on their Wikisposure page, a site devoted to outing online pedos whether they’d broken any laws or not. It has since changed hands but still exists online, buried in a dark corner of the internet, and yep, I’m still on it. Not that I much care anymore. Perverted Justice had their day, but they eventually burned their own house down. Back when they were in full effect, however, they managed to make my already miserable existence that much more miserable. After their expose came out, I was fired from my job at Lowe’s.

But things are getting better. Slowly. These days I struggle with bitterness and apathy; it’s a constant uphill battle, and there are days I just don’t feel like making that climb. I eke out a living (barely) on a freelance graphic design business, in a small town where too many people know who and what I am. Now I have a bachelor’s degree in journalism that I’ve never used and I’m living well below the poverty line, existing on food stamps and the couple hundred dollars I manage to scrape together every month, sometimes augmented with financial help from my parents if the bills get too high. I tried filing for disability over my arm and my emotional issues, but that was a no-go in my conservative Southern state. This is what a law-abiding pedophile has been reduced to in this society. At times I’ve wondered why I’ve even bothered to stay legal. Maybe prison would be better, even at the risk of getting shanked as a Short Eyes. At least then it would all be over with. But alas, I could never hurt a child.

Do you see what he did there???

When he says “sometimes I’ve wondered why I’ve even bothered to stay legal” he is saying he wonders why he doesn’t just go out and molest kids! He is admitting to contemplating doing it, as revenge for how badly society has treated him!

He is openly saying this!

In Salon!

He then goes on to advertise the site “Virtuous Pedophiles,” which has been advertised a bunch of places lately as the kikes are inching their way into this “pedophilia is okay” narrative.

He closes with this:

So, please, be understanding and supportive. It’s really all we ask of you. Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster. If we are going to make it in the world without offending, we need your help. Listening to me was a start.

So, yes. That is definitely a threat that if you are not nice to pedophiles, they will start molesting more children.

He closes with a terroristic threat that he will molest children if you don’t do his bidding.

Wow. Just wow.

What Next?

Well, goyim, the next step on this slippery slope will be mainstream psychological peer-reviewed journals coming out and saying that adult-child sex is not actually harmful to children.

You see, goyim, this “non-offending pedophile” concept is a clever Jewish ruse to get you to accept the concept of pedophile-as-pretty-cool-guy.

Once you accept that – and you will, or at least, your society will (seriously, name one thing so far they haven’t accepted), then the next phase comes down on you.

My current thought is that they are going to link it to Islam somehow when they first get it through legally. For those who don’t know, the age-of-consent in Sharia law is nine. They try to say that it is puberty, but it isn’t. It’s definitely nine.

They will also do more movies and shows portraying pedophiles as victims of society who just can’t help the way they are.

So they start on about the Moslem culture, mix it all up with this “born this way” gibberish, throw in a bit of high-quality fictional propaganda and then there you go: legalized sex with kids.

This is known as “the slippery slope.”

Goyim, just because we decide it is okay for adult to have sex with kids doesn’t mean something worse than that is going to happen.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

Even while the filthy Jewish liars continue to claim that the slippery slope is a fallacy of logic, the slippery slope keeps on sliding.

Did anyone really expect that gay marriage – and then boys cutting off their own penises – would be the end of the line? I doubt anyone really thought that.

Recently, the Jews have been calling for the normanlization of polygamy. Now, we see they are also well at work on normalizing incest.

A recent piece by Tauriq Moosa on Big Think gives us an insight into the “logic” they’re going to be using.

In Britain recently, a young lady was ‘caught’ having sex with her brother. Both siblings have blamed the other, citing alcohol, desperation and so, on as motivations. This is not of concern. What is of concern is that “the pair were convicted of committing incest under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995”. The brother is 21, while his sister is 18. Now, according to the law, they should be convicted.

However, laws are not perfect. What should matter to us, firstly, is whether they’ve done something wrong.

Often when people hear incest, they assume rape or paedophilia, too. But here it’s clear that neither rape nor paedophilia are the problem in the recent case, since both siblings are adults and both consented – in the same way any other drunken couple implicitly consent, since neither partner was forced into it.

Assume they were not brother and sister; is the sex act wrong? Given the implicit consent and their ages, it’s not clear that this would be any different than other sexual engagements where, after the fact, one or both (or all three) regret the act. However, neither one feels the other was violated in the sense of calling it rape. So that’s not the issue.

Notice, though, that even if one of these two was violated – whether because s/he was too young or raped – then it would be the violation through rape or paedophilia that made it wrong, not the fact that they’re brother and sister.

So, we’re clear that what makes this wrong is solely the fact that it’s incest – that is, the fact that they’re brother and sister. But why does this make it wrong?

You see that they are building off of previous social victories. The question is framed within the new morality, and of course, within this new morality, there is no reason to believe incest is “wrong.”

By the way, Germany has already legalized incest.

Enjoy the ride, goyim. This slope is as slippery as a wet otter.

Right on schedule, the New York Times has published an op-ed saying that now that gay marriage is legal, we need to work on legalizing polygamy.

With same-sex marriage on the books, we can now ask whether polyamorous relationships should be next.

There is a very good argument that they should. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell did not focus primarily on the issue of sexual orientation. Instead, its main focus was on a “fundamental right to marry” — a right that he said could not be limited to rigid historical definitions or left to the legislative process. That right was about autonomy and fulfillment, about child rearing and the social order. By those lights, groups of adults who have profound polyamorous attachments and wish to build families and join the community have a strong claim to a right to marry.

The author notes that patriarchy should be a concern, but that this can be remedied by making it clear that it is not only men who are allowed to marry multiple women – women can marry multiple men as well.

Gender equality is of course a serious concern. But the arguments above rest on the assumption that plural marriage will involve only one man and multiple women. That assumption is weak. Plural relationships could well be (and in some circles today are) between multiple people of both sexes, not all of whom are strictly heterosexual.

True, most past episodes of plural marriage have been patriarchal. But the lesson of the same-sex marriage case is that we should not be too wedded to historical assumptions. It was not that long ago that many people held vicious stereotypes about same-sex relationships that led them to wrongly assume that gay people were unfit for marriage. We should not make the same mistake in assuming we know what plural marriages in the future would be like.

Incestuous couples, pedophiles and dog-f**kers are reportedly “outraged” that polygamists have pushed their way to the front of the line to ride the slippery slope.