14 min 4 weeks

Anybody who has viewed the Libs of TikTok is familiar with the endless parade of videos featuring mostly young and hep queer types bragging about indoctrinating children in their care into the perverse world of gender theory. They are nearly always liberal American millennials. Usually, they’re gloating about how they get the nippers discussing “pronouns.” They chortle about how they (naughtily) introduced their gender identity and sexual preference to toddlers grappling with the earliest of social concepts. They brag about how they keep their grooming secret from “unsafe adults.”

It is a curious phenomenon, since the police monitor online chats where children are at risk. They entrap paedophiles by posing as children and then arrest them at pre-planned meet-ups where the predator believes he or she is meeting with a minor. By the same token, the exploitation of children by the queer industry is happening with government consent and safeguards. And it’s far from friendly. More and more of these activist teachers are being exposed as “paedophiles.”

Opponents of this social reset deride this trend in education as “grooming.” They describe those teachers wallowing in the abuse of trust as “groomers.” Twitter is now banning anyone from using the word “groomer.” The excuse is that it “promotes violence against trans people.” However, it seems more like a tacit admission that the accusations are true. The liberal establishment is insistent that your children will be shaped by their ideas. When parents object even slightly to this unhealthy practice, they become enemies. The government and media have conflated such contrary parents with “White supremacy.” They’ve invalidated their objections by including them in the basket of “conspiracy theorists.”

The child is being claimed by the state since the state supports this. There is a direct correlation between the queer lobby and the state in directives on American pedagogy. By that, we mean they have prepared kits instructing teachers on how to proceed with grooming children. In a nutshell, it has become policy. No discussion has occurred between parents and the school. To even address the matter, parents are forced to confront the school boards with a limited ability to question them in any depth or length of time. They’re given a brief period to speak, and then somebody on the panel rings a bell, signalling their time is over. And these are just the parents permitted to have their say.

Those parents that have confronted the school boards are treated as if they’re radicals. They are “others.” The essential sentiment conveyed is that they’re being “tolerated,” but that their remarks and the concerns they express are irrelevant. Again, on TikTok, these “progressive” millennial teachers are acting as the agents for this state-queer enterprise, mocking these parents. They effectively laugh at them. The programme is basic communism. The ideology is the product of a warped dialectic. It sprouts from the various forms of liberalism.

We will take it for granted that the practice of sexualising children (and that’s what this is) is not just wrong but evil. We won’t expound on why, since readers of NAB will already understand. Only a matter of a few years ago, there’d have been no need to defend ourselves with any sort of argument. It is an understanding that occurs at an instinctual level.

Meanwhile, the queer lobby responds to criticisms of gender theory (a benign term) with predetermined rhetoric about how they’re “protecting” children. They’re shaping a more tolerant and inclusive world by “educating” them on queer theory. This is what they say. Tolerance is one of the cornerstones of liberalism.

As such, the indoctrination has spread beyond the walls of the classroom and into “gay-friendly” venues, such as bars and cafes. Drag shows are the latest weapon of sexual confusion to attack young children and weaken their natural orientation. These are marketed as “family-friendly” events in much the way the media describes Antifa and BLM riots as “mostly peaceful.”

As is the case with progressive liberalism, it seeks the state’s authority to enforce its goals, which it accords with the “good life.” As such, a minority agenda is enforced on the majority in the name of ensuring individual rights and freedoms.

The Libs of TikTok is active in revealing this subversive form of brainwashing. It is truly mindbending how parents of these children can believe there is anything inherently “good” in allowing sexual deviants to parade before minors in a facsimile of an actual strip show. Indeed, they happen to be actual strip shows. These events include young kids being encouraged to approach males dressed in G-strings, garters, and female underclothes and slipping actual money into the elastic of their lingerie. The adults applaud them. It is a ritual. The child is now “good” and ready for further deprogramming.

You’ll note that we say “gay-friendly” rather than dive into the myriad of identities and “communities” associated with gender theory. That’s because they’re the same and share a common purpose where children are concerned. They wish to “liberate” them from the “hetero-normative” values of the society they’re resetting.

Australians have been grateful that this freak show is being viewed from afar; that we don’t have “that sort of thing” here. But we do. It’s arrived. and was always going to.

Being an ally of America isn’t simply about geographical defence; it’s about ideological crusading. Liberal idealism sits in opposition to nationalism, and as such, nation states are being abolished and with them our values. Vladimir Putin is to be praised for repelling the advance of Western liberal idealism. The West’s obsession with Ukraine has long been interventionist regarding Russia. However, we digress.

The Daily Telegraph reported this week about a child care centre in Roseville, on Sydney’s north shore, contacting police over a concerned parent who confronted them over exposing five-year-olds to this liberal cult. Roseville is an affluent area; one wonders what the reaction would be out west, where it is much more multicultural and “multi-faith.”

We’re not in the habit of cutting and pasting directly from news sources. In this case, we reproduce the article in its entirety because we wish to discuss certain points. It is as follows:

A Sydney parent has said that police were called on him after he raised concerns that an after-school care centre his child was attending was teaching inappropriate lessons on gender and sexuality in the name of raising a more “inclusive” generation of students.

It comes after recent outrage over a Services Australia form that erased ‘mother’ and replaced it with ‘birthing parent’ on official forms.

The parent, whose child attends Roseville Kids Care, which provides before and after school care to students from Roseville Primary School, said that he took issue with children as young as five being exposed to material that included radical gender theory concepts such as being “non-binary” and “pansexual,” as well as children being given “pride” flags to colour in.

“I visited it and was shocked that there was a giant out-sized ‘pride’ flag. It was the biggest flag in the room, far bigger than the Australian flag,” the parent who wishes to remain anonymous to protect his child’s privacy said.

“When I went in there was an entire wall describing different sexualities, giving definitions of things like ‘pansexual’ and ‘lesbian’.”

“My child is five, I don’t understand what possible justification there is for exposing them to sexual identities like this.”

Photos from inside the facility show pride flags that appear to have been coloured in by students, as well as a wall covered in definitions of different sexualities and gender identities, including “gender fluid,” “asexual”, and “nonbinary.”

The parent also says that the centre lodged a complaint with local police as a result of his raising concerns about the program but that after receiving a phone call from a constable, he was told that he had no case to answer and there would be no offence recorded.

Sydney child psychologist Clare Rowe said that the concepts were far too adult for children to grasp.

“There is this thing where we think we are raising socially conscious global citizens by exposing children to these adult topics, but they simply do not have the mental faculties to process layered, complex information.”

“It’s also a parent’s right and responsibility to answer questions and educate their children about these things.”

Dr Bella D’Abrera, Director, Foundations of Western Civilisation Program at the Institute of Public Affairs, called the centre’s activities “outrageous”, adding, “Parents should be extremely concerned that they are entrusting their very young children to an aftercare centre which is indoctrinating them with radical gender theory.”

However, Pauline O’Kane, CEO of the Network of Community Activities, which represents school hour care facilities, defended the centre.

“It’s about raising children with inclusive attitudes,” she said, and claimed that five-to 12-year-olds often ask questions about subjects like transgenderisim.

“Do you shut the conversation off or do you educate and inform positively so they feel like they can ask questions,” she asked, adding that the Roseville centre had been assessed by relevant authorities.

“I don’t think we should curtail children’s inquisitiveness, and I am sure this centre positively did this,” she said.

The article misleads the reader into suggesting that the paper shares the parents’ concerns. Yet, the “objective” format of the piece belies its impartiality. The same paper permits journalists’ outright bias when upholding a narrative. Here, the journalist (figuratively) scratches their chin and steps back from the issue. We can see this by the inclusion of the “balancing quote” from Pauline O’Kane. Why? Because this is a media organ very much embedded in the liberal ideology responsible for gender theory; it cannot openly question it, although the editor is well aware that its readers largely object.

So, gender theory has arrived in Australia. We’re certain that this child centre is far from the only one promoting this perverted ideology. But the question that most are likely to ask is, why? Why is this being allowed? Why would they want to do it in the first place?

We’ve covered the liberal idealism component, but there’s another factor less obvious to the eye. The great reset is about rearranging wealth. It purports to be a more equitable system of wealth distribution, yet it’s anything but. In regards to “wealth,” it aims to limit the majority of us from achieving any. We can’t be trusted with wealth. Without the mobility that wealth provides, we’re more easily controlled.

The same cabal of oligarchs and corporations engaged in this epochal project are obsessed with climate religion. They are crusaders against climate change. The biggest threat to the climate is mankind itself. Nation states are an obstacle to the collective control that liberalism seeks in the name of the “good cause.” But the idea of liberalism and democracy being mutually inclusive is a fallacy. Their agenda cannot be threatened by undergoing the process of attaining consent. Thus, the western crusade is to bring every country into line and strip them of their unique identity. Their values are not in accord with internationalism. They threaten the environment. Humans in total threaten the environment.

What is the best way to contain damage to the environment other than by limiting man’s ability to reproduce? Therefore, the globalists are currently promoting an agenda that impacts the ability of the human race to procreate by striking at the very core of sexual reproduction. Whatever strand of the LGBTQI community you care to name, it is not interested in reproducing. We know this by how it became central to the pro-abortion lobby.

Likewise, the attack on our diets: the promotion of “bugs” like crickets to replace meat is symptomatic of climate paranoia and the elites. But this goes hand-in-hand with starving us. The food crisis sits perfectly with an agenda to limit human growth. If it didn’t, why do we have mysterious stories coming out of the US and elsewhere of food processing plants mysteriously being destroyed? Why are they not reported on? Why are Dutch farmers fighting back over government orders to limit their use of phosphates? Their dictate results in the farmers’ inability to farm. The farmers know it has nothing to do with phosphate fertilizers. Just ask anyone in Sri Lanka or Ghana. What’s happening in those countries foreshadows what we can expect in the greater economic world. ■