you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think they intended children to be included in #2.

Sure they did. Sweden led the way in the sexual liberation of children. NAMBLA was a force to be reckoned with at the same time. Harvey Milk had a relationship with a 16 year old (Jack Galen McKinley) while he himself was in his 30s. What would you say about a politician who was living with and having sex with a high school dropout? This is so OK and acceptable that Harvey Milk recently had a Navy ship named after him. Milk was Jewish, of course.

[–]L_X_A 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the sources. I was aware that Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, etc. all demanded the abolition of the age of conscent. Foucault in particular was a degenerate pedo. I also knew that across the western world, 1968 neo-Marxists and postmodernists were "against the sexual inhibition of children" (ugh). But I didn't know about Die Rote Freiheit (gonna be sending that Spiegel article to every die-hard fan of Lacan, Derrida, and the sexual liberation movement I know just to fuck with them).

And yes, it is possible that they (or at least some of them) actually did believe children should be included in #2. But they didn't write it explicitly. For example, by adding the qualifier "for all ages".

You can't claim that they planned the mutilation of children based on this document alone. You have to base yourself on what is effectively written, not your inference on what it likely implies based on other characteristics of the leftist ideological umbrella.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

gonna be sending that Spiegel article to every die-hard fan of Lacan, Derrida, and the sexual liberation movement I know just to fuck with them

Good on ya. Sharing this kind of article really helps! Don't let them forget their horrific crimes.

And don't just send the link - they won't read it. Send it with several paragraphs of the most damning information copied from the article. That way they can't stick their heads in the sand.

You can't claim that they planned the mutilation of children based on this document alone.

This isn't a court. There's enough evidence that that's exactly what they meant. The zeitgeist of the time was exactly this. And today, they're acting out the exact same thing: mutilating children beyond any hope of repair. They need to be sent to the wood chipper. Feet first.