This post is a response to this article:
This is a “fact-check” article asserting that pedophiles, or “MAPs” – Minor Attracted Persons – are not included in, or recognised by the LGBTxyz Pride community. This invokes a question about the nature of these movements, and how organic or grassroots they really are.
The tone of the referenced article speaks volumes. They claim to speak for the whole Pride lobby community. This line in particular reveals something I think they didn’t intend:
AFP found that, while some MAPs online may have used this flag, it isn’t part of any official attempts to “normalize pedophilia” nor has it anything to do with the LGBTQ community (here).
What does AFP mean by “official” in reference to a grassroots movement?
That one word, “official”, establishes that the Pride lobby is not an organic or grassroots phenomenon, they clearly have an official status, funding, and controlling committees.
Contrast this with the red pill (RP) movement, a genuine organic grassroots movement which has grown in response to feminism, and its decades-long attacks on men. While RP has its big influencers with large audiences, it has no “official” status, and therefore no “official” means of deciding who is and isn’t red-pilled.
For example, a group of pedophiles could claim: “RP includes MAPS who prefer children because they haven’t grown up to become as toxic as adult western women.” There would be no central authority to gainsay them. Sure, Andrew Tate, Better Bachelor, Strong Successful Male, Sandman, and every other big influencer in the RP movement could decry the association, but no “official” exclusion of pedophiles from RP is possible, as on the level of this article.
This is because RP is a genuine organic social movement with no official standing and no centralised control. Nobody owns or controls the RP label. Therefore anyone is free to use it. This is true, by definition, of any genuinely organic social movement. Such movements are concerted natural human reactions to widely disliked policies or social developments.
Are claims of officiality in organic movements disinformation or social engineering?
Now examine the context of this assertion in the article. First, no sources are cited for AFP’s “findings”. It’s as if AFP regards itself as an authority in its own right, with no need to provide research, or evidence. Second, this is an authoritative statement regarding the exclusion of pedophiles from the Pride community, which precludes it being a genuine organic social movement.
Almost as if the same entity, that controls the mainstream media, also controls the pride lobby.
Ergo, one and only one of the following statements is true:
1. The Pride lobby is a centrally controlled and planned social engineering operation by powerful special interests, masquerading as an organic grassroots social movement, giving whoever controls it the power and authority to officially deny membership in it;
2. The Pride lobby is a grassroots social movement and therefore NOBODY, not even the globalists’ “official” press outlet AFP, has the authority to deny any claimant of association. Therefore their claim that pedophiles are not included in the Pride lobby is outright disinformation, since nobody controls, or can exclude anyone from, genuine organic social movements.
So which is it, AFP? Is the Pride lobby a planned social engineering operation with an official agenda, or are you asserting authority you do not have, and in so doing spreading disinformation, thus undermining what little credibility you have left?
My money’s on the first statement.
