Minnesota Representative Leigh Finke (Photo from Wikipedia Commons)
1,172 words
The classic question to ask a leftist true believer is “How much progress is too much progress?” In other words, at what point would today’s radical iconoclast turn into tomorrow’s stodgy reactionary? While important regarding the nature of today’s politics, this question is essentially beside the point, since whoever would answer it honestly likely has little control over the ebbs and flows of history. They would be concerned about right and wrong, good and evil, and hence be too nice to make much of a difference.
A more pertinent question would be, “How much power is too much power?” Because that is what this is all about: power. For the cynical leftist, there can never be too much power.
To illustrate the difference, imagine an openly race-realist white doctor. A leftist “true believer” might wish to cancel him because he cannot be trusted to care for non-white patients. Immoral people will do immoral things, after all. On the other hand, a cynical leftist—that is, a person bent on effecting historical change—will wish to cancel such a person because, by merely existing in the public square, he becomes both an impediment and embarrassment to leftist power. Because there can never be too much power, that cannot be tolerated.
I was reminded of these questions when learning recently that Tim Walz, vice-presidential candidate on the 2024 Democratic ticket, signed a bill back in 2023 which adjusted the Minnesota Human Rights Act to no longer exclude pedophilia from the state’s definition of “sexual orientation.” Previously, there had been explicit language excluding “a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult” from the accepted definition of this term, thus freezing out pedophiles from potential legal protection. The assumption was that pedophilia is a mental disorder as well as a crime, and not a proper sexual orientation. No one could ever place pedo colors on the Minnesota rainbow flag.
Well, that’s gone by the wayside thanks to transgender Minnesota legislator Leigh Finke. This person went out of his/her way to strike the above verbiage from the state law.
MXMNews has the story:
According to a Twitter thread by user @xxclusionary, Leigh Finke introduced H. F. No. 1655 on February 13th, 2023, which redefined “sexual orientation” by removing the section that explicitly excluded pedophilia. The bill passed through multiple revisions, and in every revision, the exclusion of pedophiles remained crossed out. This amendment was ultimately included in the “Take Pride Act,” which was signed into law by Tim Walz. @xxclusionary emphasized that this change reflects a dangerous shift in legal protections and could lead to pedophilia being protected under the guise of sexual orientation.
Finke characterized the amendment as “modernizing” the terminology to reflect supposedly contemporary understandings of sexual orientation and gender, while Republican lawmakers, including GOP House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth, have described the decision to strike this language as “disturbing and inexplicable.”
Of course, Finke did not need to do this. Would the transgender agenda have actually lost any ground if the good citizens of Minnesota had continued to view pedophilia as a bridge too far? Probably not. If anything, drawing a line in the sand against molesting children would have only enhanced the reputation of transgenderism in the eyes of Americans who haven’t made up their minds about it yet—especially those who actually have children.
But the point here was never to hold ground, but to gain it. This is the purpose of progressivism: to surge forward like the Terminator, regardless of whatever destruction gets left in its wake. Assuming that this Finke person and Governor Walz are leftist true believers, they will likely explain the Take Pride Act in same way progressives have always explained the changes they initiate—as an altruistic act of empathy for a disadvantaged and marginalized subset of our population. Years ago, such beneficiaries were children working in factories, or blacks laboring on chain gangs, or women toiling in sweatshops. These days it’s people haunted by a rare and perverse sexual desire that can ruin young lives and get the perpetrators thrown into prison (or off of buildings in certain parts of the world). It’s all the same, right?
Perhaps Finke has this desire his/her self? Or perhaps Finke knows people who do and sympathizes with them over the children they victimize? Who knows? In any event, the Humbert Humberts and NAMBLA types of the world are breathing a little more easily these days because they know that, thanks to their frizzy-haired paladin in the Minnesota government, things are beginning to swing their way just a little bit. And if the history of progressivism in any indication, things ain’t gonna be swinging back any time soon.
But what if Finke and Walz are not leftist true believers? What could their motivation possibly be to crack open the door to child molestation a little bit more than it already is? Well, assuming they are cynical leftists, their motivation is to weaken the Right. To humiliate and bewilder them, to lower their morale and standing in our society, and to give the Left more opportunities to brand the Right as bigoted and out of touch. Basically, to thumb them in the eye and kick them below the belt in our cultural struggles—which many are beginning to learn never had any rules to begin with. This is how you win, and the cynical Left wants desperately to win—because this is the surest and quickest path to power.
So, viewed through the lens of zero-sum realpolitik, the changes to Minnesota’s Take Pride Act are not inexplicable at all. That they are a grotesque betrayal of an impressionable and vulnerable part of our population is not important—at least not when compared to the leftist need to wield power. Maybe Finke and Walz are true believers as far as it goes, but expanding breathing room for pedophiles is such a treacherous act, I have to suspect that naked ambition for power has more to do with it than reflecting “contemporary understandings of sexual orientation.”
This November, when Tim Walz and the Democrats attempt to hold on to the US presidency which they fraudulently acquired back in 2020, American voters should hold their feet to the fire over our presumptive vice president’s indulgent attitude regarding the rape of children. Yes, we can hit him for his stolen valor, for declaring Minnesota a sanctuary state for transgender youth, and for allowing Minneapolis to burn during the Summer of Floyd, among other things. But most importantly, we should frame him as an enabler of pedophilia. And we should not let up since the lives of children are literally at stake here. A vote for the Democrats in this instance would be a vote for pedophilia, either today or tomorrow. It doesn’t matter. Progress will get us there eventually—unless a critical mass of Americans finally realize that the leftists in power indeed have too much power, and that we reached the point of too much progress a long time ago.
11 comments
After pedophilia comes beasriality, which for all I know is already legal. What can possibly follow that?
Bestiality at least has the virtue of not psychologically or physically damaging our children. I can see the leftists proposing it as therapy for the paedophiles. To disagree would be hate speech.
“Vote harder”.
LMAO.
They stole it in 2020, in the crudest, most obvious and most transparently desperate manner imaginable. Rubbed our faces in it and mocked and vilified us for objecting.
You can bet their methods and tactics for “fortifying” the 2024 election are far more refined and elegant.
Basically this: you don’t run a toxically repellent moron like Harris as your candidate if you’re actually worried about losing.
I don’t have a solution or antidote for our predicament. I hate to be gloom and doom.
But voting gets us nowhere. Even our supposed allies in the Republican Party rarely accomplish anything on our behalf.
I suspect we are too far gone. The two halves of the electorate can no longer co-exist in any meaningful sense as Americans.
Yes, I’ll vote for Trump. As a middle finger to the liberals who have wrecked our country. But not with any optimism that he will win or anything will change.
As I point in “The Very Latest Indictment of Democracy,” I do not want people who vote for the likes of Tim Walz or Kamala Harris voting or to be allowed to vote. I guess I do not want to be in the same nation but really such persons should not be allowed to exercise any political authority, anywhere. These are not reconcilable differences, the sort that the Framers imagined people accepting through democratic elections.
Oh my. Any more talk like this and you’ll follow in the footsteps of us third-worlders.
Voting for Jeffrey “Humpty Dumpty” Trump is not a solution to the problem outlined in the article. The Dunpster is counting on suckers who read articles like this to bail him out in November— even though he himself was the first major party candidate to endorse including faggots in the major part platform (back in 2016). The RFK Jr Demicons are one team united under Satan.
Per this analysis then, it looks like some of the pedo agenda is genuine interest by the Pizzagate types. (This does go back a while. This brings to mind Jean-Paul Sartre, his girlfriend Simone the Beaver, and a bunch of other skeezy leftist “intellectuals” signing a petition to get the age of consent lowered in France.) Other than that, some is basically to rub the public’s noses in it.
Those two motives are by the leader types. By the garden-variety NPCs, though, this permissiveness might just be an automatic reflex. They’re programmed to believe that any rules about sexuality are tyrannical. Their minds are so open that their brains fell out. Ask them this – is it OK for a guy to sleep with his sister so long as they’re consenting adults and using birth control? Love is love, right? High-functioning liberals will be grossed out by the idea, of course, but many will have a hard time articulating what’s the matter with it or saying it should be forbidden.
But what if they do want to reproduce with each other – is that an unacceptable risk, or is that their decision to make and society had better butt out of their personal lifestyle choice? Suppose this couple has four incest babies and three are retarded, so they go on welfare because they don’t have the means to take care of them – is that okie dokie? Unfortunately, there was exactly such a case in New, Improved Germany a while back, and some “civil libertarian” types were standing up for those degenerates. This is what happens when your mind is so open your brains fall out.
Just because it’s White doesn’t mean that it is always right. White anti-whites are no different than the nonwhites who advocate for our erasure. White liberals are either dysgenic freaks, virtue signalers, or traitors who pose a threat to our survival. Even if we had an ethno-state, they should be exiled because they will advocate for the very same policies that will lead to our erasure. If it weren’t for the industrialized setting that we lived in, these White anti-whites would not have survived and have the opportunity to pass on their genes. A pre-industrial setting would lead to them easily being subjugated or bred out of existence.
AB-SO-LUTE-LY!!
I’ve made this point dozens of times in comments here (and elsewhere). Remember Kipling: “The strength of the wolf is the strength of the pack”. Prowhites would be much, much, much better off if we were a smaller but racio-ideologically cohesive and territorially sovereign people. Just look to the Israelis as our ethnostatist model. Couldn’t we be tough, resourceful, ethnonational survivalists as they are?
I despise those in the prowhite community who keep trying to “move us beyond Left and Right”, or who try to reach out to leftists (the sadly late Martin Rojas – aka, among other aliases, Chris Roberts – was notorious for this pathetic attempt to entice some tiny number of white leftist scumbags into embracing nationalism by means of adopting certain non-racialist leftwing policies, thereby essentially jettisoning those of us – a vastly larger group – who are both prowhite and ideologically conservative).
The prowhite movement will only grow in power – and therefore the white race itself will only thereby be saved – insofar as we rigorously exclude leftists of every variety from our ranks. At a minimum, anyone who has been an activist race traitor at any point in life should never be allowed into the prowhite cause (they, as with anyone, can donate money, of course, but that … is … it). Race liberalism/leftism is the product of either an evolutionary biological defect, or an evil character. Either way, we’re better off without such untrustworthy genomes living in our midst (ie, just because they’re objectively white).
To reiterate a favorite assertion of mine: what we need is not white nationalism, but prowhite nationalism. After all, many of the biggest enemies of white preservation are undeniably racially white themselves. Tim Walz, anyone?
I guess we have to go through this again. If you’re pro-White first, then your generic politics is second. That’s not the case with you. ‘Conservative’ is more important than ‘pro-White’ but, oddly enough, after four decades of ‘pro-White’ being synonymous with ‘right-wing’ there’s been no significant progress expanding White racial consciousness.
More than half the country does not describe itself and ‘conservative’. And most of those people are White.
What you’re arguing for is that a pro-White movement should reject about half the Whites in North America because they identify as something other than ‘conservative’ or ‘right-wing’.
That doesn’t actually sound to me like a pro-White movement at all but some kind of political club with racial overtones.
The fundamental issue for a functioning and growing pro-White movement is whether your politics and economics and spirituality and everything else is founded on Whites caring about Whites because they are White (and no other reason).
So, if a White ‘liberal’ comes to me and acts on the first principle that all decisions must exhibit the characteristic of ‘Whites caring about Whites because they are White’ what would be the advantage to a pro-White movement in rejecting them?
Further, if someone who is ‘conservatives’ comes to me and says that ‘Whites caring about Whites because they are White’ is less important to them than ‘conservatism’, what would be the advantage to a pro-White movement of accepting them as being ‘pro-White’ (when their first loyalty is obviously not White people)?
White Nationalism is just beginning to develop. As a revolutionary consciousness movement, it’s just beginning to gain momentum.
It’s not a clubhouse where you can put up a sign that says ‘No liberals allowed!’ and expect that to work.
The First Rule of White Club is ‘Whites caring about Whites because they are White’.
The Second Rule of White Club is that everything else is secondary.
Pedophiles have infiltrated the upper level of society. If you have enough money, you can buy children and have sex with them. They are rarely identified and even more rarely convicted of any crime (Giselle Maxwell).
Pedophiles are doing for their perversion what homosexuals did for theirs: gradually normalizing it and making sure they’re protected by law.
It’s like the marijuana decriminalization movement but for sex with children.
By making it legal, they will let the market decide and lower the price for buying children for sex.
All good things in the eyes of ‘free market’ enthusiasts everywhere.
But the most obvious reason for ‘the left’ to support ‘pedophilia’ is that it provides the right with a new distraction.
And, of course, that’s exactly what’s happening.
The logic of ‘equality’ demands that all perversions be equal.
But sexual perversion is not a problem that White Nationalism is designed to solve and trying to do so would just forces White Nationalism into being just another political posture instead of a revolutionary project.
Let me remind everyone that a state powerful enough to force communities to either accept (or reject) sexual perversion is a state that nullifies the very idea of ‘community’.
Lastly, I’d like to say that pedophilia exists not because of an absence of law enforcement, but typically with the active assistance of law enforcement.
If White Nationalists tried to kidnap thousand of White children a year to teach them to care about Whites because they are White, that network would be pursued to the ends of the earth and everyone would do hard time.
But that’s not the case with child sexual abuse.
You have to wonder how that works.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.