Everyone is born with inalienable rights and that includes bodily autonomy, hence parents who are the guardians of their children should have the right to
reject the more than 50 vaccines required before kids enter adulthood, especially as many have proven to be neither safe nor effective, but quite dangerous.
The propagandists and politicos have been pushing this talking point particularly hard over the past decade, from Joe Biden quoting 2023 Teacher of the Year Rebecka Peterson (“‘There’s no such thing as someone else’s child. Our nation’s children are all our children!’”) to MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry saying people need to “break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents” and accept that “kids belong to whole communities.”
And, of course, there’s this now-removed BLM website verbiage:
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
We might be inclined to think this strategy originates with Marx, and he is certainly a proponent of it, but it actually dates back to Plato’s “Republic,” in which he writes, “in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common.”
In Plato’s dystopian utopia, children are not to know their parents, with the state “taking the greatest possible care that no mother recognises her own child.… Care will also be taken that the process of suckling shall not be protracted too long.”
And this is partly what the noble lie is intended to obscure:
“Our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects.… Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.”
Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm, who was to become WHO’s first director-general in 1948, delivered a lecture in 1946 titled “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress,” in which he stated:
“The most important thing in the world today is the bringing up of children. It is not a job for economic or emotional misfits, for frightened, inferiority-ridden men and women.… Fortunately there are recent signs of intellectual stirrings amongst teachers.”
He believes parents teach their children backwards concepts like morality and thus children should be educated [indoctrinated] by the state to free them from such baggage.
I covered this topic extensively in my my Croatian Weekly (Hrvatski Tjednik) interview, and here is the ridiculously long url for that specific Q&A if you would like to read more chilling quotes and get links to the original sources:
There is a perverse irony in the obsession so many erstwhile Communist ideologues have with property and ownership, when Communism itself rejects the idea of private property.
There is an even more perverse irony when those who claim to stand for freedom can think and see nothing but slavery.
As reported at the World Economic Forum, "You will own nothing and be happy." So, it's no surprise that these unelected "officials" claim that we don't own our kids.
I've never met a progressive who could think a logical thought. They just memorize the talking points. Progressives don't even own their own thoughts.
Oh you sweet sweet summer child! Ever since Thurgood Marshall pioneered the tactic, the Left has always set about trying to create a series of legal precedents that leads to the result they want. So you whittle away at segregation bit by bit until the Court finally outlaws it.
The real goal of all these "modest" changes is that kids will be able to have sex (all laws against child sex will become case-by-case where you need to prove the child didn't consent & couldn't consent). Once you can't just throw people in jail for having sex w/ minors, they can have sex w/ minors w/ impunity because proving that particular minor either did not or could not consent is virtually impossible. Heck most victims won't even try.
You need to think like a lawyer & think about issues of proof - how would you establish that a child victim is a victim? How would you establish that the perp knew or should have known?
Right now we have a blanket rule - prove the kid's a kid & the D goes to jail, but once they abolish that hard & fast line, they can do what they want.
This isn't about kids choosing abortion (when minors get abortions it's not lovers, it's rapists who are the fathers), or gender identity; it's about making kids available for sex.
That's the goal & all of these precedents are pushing us towards it. You can't say a kid can pick abortion & castration etc, but not a little sex & courts won't say it - they'll rationalize the law using these precedents to legalize child sex.
A society in which the only restraint on sex is consent will soon be a society with no constraints at all for those sufficiently powerful to coerce consent. The Left is a coalition of the powerful & those who think they can benefit from supporting the powerful (the King & his court so to speak); therefore, the Left wants child sex because they want more power for the powerful - that's their only unifying position. (Why would the Left oppose medical freedom? Because they Left always supports more power for the powerful - that predicts EVERYTHING they do, even the apparent contradictions, like abortion which ensures the powerful can have sex w/o fear of pregnancy.).
If you won't protect your kids from these "choices," you won't be able to protect them from anything much longer.
Think I'm wrong? If Hunter Biden raped your 12 year old, what do you think are the chances you could attain a conviction? What would you & your child have to suffer in the media to press those charges? Just as Hunter Biden is free to do what he likes, powerful people like him will be free to do what they like to your kids once "consent" replaces age. And that's what this is all about.
The people promoting this, at least the manipulators, recognize that children and adolescents are readily propagandized and mind-formed by anyone they perceive as a “just” authority, and so the people who want to break society in their own interests do NOT want to face any obstacles to employing these strategies on children. They *most certainly* mean, “we own your children, or, at least, we get to control them.”
I would argue that this has been the purpose of “public” school from the start, and that the populace allowed this to become compulsory was the original sin of societal destruction. It had to be compulsory, because, as John Gatto (hm, any relation, Cat?) points out, the Dewey folks wanted to beat out the cultural insularity of the German immigrants, who were the ones who *weren’t* going to send their kids to school if it wasn’t punishable by law. And, as usual, the forcers appeal to people’s weaknesses, social acceptance AND a wish to abdicate their responsibilities onto someone else for convenience, and call it virtue.
Raise your children. Make it your job. You get ONE priority at a time. This is it. And don’t think outsourcing it counts. *Someone* is raising them. If it isn’t you, it’s these people.
Very logical piece, and I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that in today’s society logic has been thrown out the window. People in general no longer think logically. We are in the midst of a great spiritual battle. A true evil has overtaken our society, and I’m afraid nothing but a true act of God will be able to save us from what is heading our way.
My pre-pubescent niece kept her hair short, favored jeans, tee shirts, sneakers and sports - with boys, if possible - and eventually blossomed into a beautiful young woman who is now a happily married mother of two.
How about this? You only own your kids as long as they are in the womb. They are yours to do with as you please. But once they emerge, they belong to the state.
“adolescence is notoriously confusing for everyone and uncertainty and disorientation about identity is far from unusual.”
Never have truer words been written. The very last thing adolescents need is this sort of controversy with them at its center. They need stability just to have hope. Without hope there is NOTHING.
It seems as if the advocates of the radical transgender agendas have strong desires for children (and adults) to be the property of the State, the Leviathan, the mortal God. And these radicals have strong desires to manage the affairs of the State. They’re sociopaths.
you don't own your kids?
It's nothing complicated. We are confronting genuinely evil people who want to destroy the family and have sex with children.
Prepare yourselves accordingly.
Everyone is born with inalienable rights and that includes bodily autonomy, hence parents who are the guardians of their children should have the right to
reject the more than 50 vaccines required before kids enter adulthood, especially as many have proven to be neither safe nor effective, but quite dangerous.
The propagandists and politicos have been pushing this talking point particularly hard over the past decade, from Joe Biden quoting 2023 Teacher of the Year Rebecka Peterson (“‘There’s no such thing as someone else’s child. Our nation’s children are all our children!’”) to MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry saying people need to “break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents” and accept that “kids belong to whole communities.”
And, of course, there’s this now-removed BLM website verbiage:
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
We might be inclined to think this strategy originates with Marx, and he is certainly a proponent of it, but it actually dates back to Plato’s “Republic,” in which he writes, “in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common.”
In Plato’s dystopian utopia, children are not to know their parents, with the state “taking the greatest possible care that no mother recognises her own child.… Care will also be taken that the process of suckling shall not be protracted too long.”
And this is partly what the noble lie is intended to obscure:
“Our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects.… Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.”
Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm, who was to become WHO’s first director-general in 1948, delivered a lecture in 1946 titled “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress,” in which he stated:
“The most important thing in the world today is the bringing up of children. It is not a job for economic or emotional misfits, for frightened, inferiority-ridden men and women.… Fortunately there are recent signs of intellectual stirrings amongst teachers.”
He believes parents teach their children backwards concepts like morality and thus children should be educated [indoctrinated] by the state to free them from such baggage.
I covered this topic extensively in my my Croatian Weekly (Hrvatski Tjednik) interview, and here is the ridiculously long url for that specific Q&A if you would like to read more chilling quotes and get links to the original sources:
• https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/i/119927561/vv-among-the-progressives-we-recognize-different-activist-groups-based-on-neo-marxist-collectivism-and-radical-feminism-and-they-focused-their-political-activity-on-the-sensitive-female-population-as-early-as-the-s-realizing-the-importance-of-women-for-the-stability-of-a-society-whose-foundation-is-the-family-in-this-context-what-changed-in-male-female-relations-and-how-did-this-affect-the-destabilization-of-close-family-ties
There is a perverse irony in the obsession so many erstwhile Communist ideologues have with property and ownership, when Communism itself rejects the idea of private property.
There is an even more perverse irony when those who claim to stand for freedom can think and see nothing but slavery.
You can bet the pedophiles are waiting with bated breath to see how this argument turns out.
As reported at the World Economic Forum, "You will own nothing and be happy." So, it's no surprise that these unelected "officials" claim that we don't own our kids.
I've never met a progressive who could think a logical thought. They just memorize the talking points. Progressives don't even own their own thoughts.
Oh you sweet sweet summer child! Ever since Thurgood Marshall pioneered the tactic, the Left has always set about trying to create a series of legal precedents that leads to the result they want. So you whittle away at segregation bit by bit until the Court finally outlaws it.
The real goal of all these "modest" changes is that kids will be able to have sex (all laws against child sex will become case-by-case where you need to prove the child didn't consent & couldn't consent). Once you can't just throw people in jail for having sex w/ minors, they can have sex w/ minors w/ impunity because proving that particular minor either did not or could not consent is virtually impossible. Heck most victims won't even try.
You need to think like a lawyer & think about issues of proof - how would you establish that a child victim is a victim? How would you establish that the perp knew or should have known?
Right now we have a blanket rule - prove the kid's a kid & the D goes to jail, but once they abolish that hard & fast line, they can do what they want.
This isn't about kids choosing abortion (when minors get abortions it's not lovers, it's rapists who are the fathers), or gender identity; it's about making kids available for sex.
That's the goal & all of these precedents are pushing us towards it. You can't say a kid can pick abortion & castration etc, but not a little sex & courts won't say it - they'll rationalize the law using these precedents to legalize child sex.
A society in which the only restraint on sex is consent will soon be a society with no constraints at all for those sufficiently powerful to coerce consent. The Left is a coalition of the powerful & those who think they can benefit from supporting the powerful (the King & his court so to speak); therefore, the Left wants child sex because they want more power for the powerful - that's their only unifying position. (Why would the Left oppose medical freedom? Because they Left always supports more power for the powerful - that predicts EVERYTHING they do, even the apparent contradictions, like abortion which ensures the powerful can have sex w/o fear of pregnancy.).
If you won't protect your kids from these "choices," you won't be able to protect them from anything much longer.
Think I'm wrong? If Hunter Biden raped your 12 year old, what do you think are the chances you could attain a conviction? What would you & your child have to suffer in the media to press those charges? Just as Hunter Biden is free to do what he likes, powerful people like him will be free to do what they like to your kids once "consent" replaces age. And that's what this is all about.
They don't care about consistency or logic.
As per the meme, they just want to diddle kids.
The people promoting this, at least the manipulators, recognize that children and adolescents are readily propagandized and mind-formed by anyone they perceive as a “just” authority, and so the people who want to break society in their own interests do NOT want to face any obstacles to employing these strategies on children. They *most certainly* mean, “we own your children, or, at least, we get to control them.”
I would argue that this has been the purpose of “public” school from the start, and that the populace allowed this to become compulsory was the original sin of societal destruction. It had to be compulsory, because, as John Gatto (hm, any relation, Cat?) points out, the Dewey folks wanted to beat out the cultural insularity of the German immigrants, who were the ones who *weren’t* going to send their kids to school if it wasn’t punishable by law. And, as usual, the forcers appeal to people’s weaknesses, social acceptance AND a wish to abdicate their responsibilities onto someone else for convenience, and call it virtue.
Raise your children. Make it your job. You get ONE priority at a time. This is it. And don’t think outsourcing it counts. *Someone* is raising them. If it isn’t you, it’s these people.
Yes, it is indeed absurd for a child be allowed to choose their gender yet not be allowed to choose to have sexual relations with someone.
I am willing to bet that exact same thought has entered the heads of a certain cohort with certain tastes.
Very logical piece, and I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that in today’s society logic has been thrown out the window. People in general no longer think logically. We are in the midst of a great spiritual battle. A true evil has overtaken our society, and I’m afraid nothing but a true act of God will be able to save us from what is heading our way.
My pre-pubescent niece kept her hair short, favored jeans, tee shirts, sneakers and sports - with boys, if possible - and eventually blossomed into a beautiful young woman who is now a happily married mother of two.
How about this? You only own your kids as long as they are in the womb. They are yours to do with as you please. But once they emerge, they belong to the state.
“adolescence is notoriously confusing for everyone and uncertainty and disorientation about identity is far from unusual.”
Never have truer words been written. The very last thing adolescents need is this sort of controversy with them at its center. They need stability just to have hope. Without hope there is NOTHING.
My favourite thought is tattoos.
If I had gotten a tattoo at 13, it might have been a dick.
At 16, it would have been a unicorn
At 18 it would have been a big arsed, ugly dragon.
At 22 it would have been some sort of occult symbol
(and don't forget all those boyfriend names!)
By 30, I would have been disgusted with all of these,
and now that I'm 60 and watching my skin sag, I'm thrilled I have no ink.
That's just me. But - decisions in youth are often regretful.
It seems as if the advocates of the radical transgender agendas have strong desires for children (and adults) to be the property of the State, the Leviathan, the mortal God. And these radicals have strong desires to manage the affairs of the State. They’re sociopaths.
I liked this article describing the State. https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/07/25/the-mortal-gods-drops-its-mask/