I was doing some research the other day and saw an odd image pop up on my phone: a little blue cartoon dog with a drag queen.  I vaguely remembered watching Blues Clues many years ago and assumed this was simply a meme made as a joke about propaganda to children (why we need that when “drag queen story hour” is a thing, I couldn’t tell you). However, someone assured me it was real.  After a little more digging it became clear that yep, Blues Clues decided to feature a drag queen for a sing along. 

Identity Dixie –

This make a lot of sense when you consider how evil the elite of today are.  One of their goals is to spread this filth and insanity to everyone and the best way to make it take root is to “get ‘em when they’re young.”  Only terrible parents would actively take their children to see a drag queen, but how many working parents put their kids in front of the TV to keep them busy while the parents relax after a long day?  How many supervise everything their kids are watching? 

It’s not just more mainstream shows.  There was that odd Elsa and Spiderman YouTube phenomenon a year or two ago which was anything but subtle.  It seems there’s now seemingly benign sex-ed being pushed onto children online.  Here is one such example which asserts it’s ok to masturbate.  A cursory glance at this “Amaze Parents” and “Amaze Jr.” seems to indicate that they’re willing to answer the “big questions” little kids have to make it easier for parents.  For example, nonsense about “gender identity.” 

It’s very clear what the bias of this group is by looking at their website.  For example, they point out that while abstinence has health benefits, you shouldn’t encourage it for children from a “moral angle.” I can understand a parent wanting to avoid the “talk” about sexuality, but by pawning off the responsibility to others, you’ll create a far worse conversation down the road.

How will you explain to your child about sexual sins when you let your child watch these things in their formative years that said masturbating is ok?  The kid will likely respond asking why you and the pastor are contradicting what you had told them or at least let them watch for a long time. That sounds like a fun conversation, doesn’t it?

While we’re on the topic of seemingly innocuous organizations that are producing negative propaganda aimed at children, why not bring up UNICEF?  You know UNICEF, right?  It’s a wing of the United Nations, specifically the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund.  It’s one of the many organizations that plays sad commercials to blackmail you into funding what may actually just be shady child trafficking rings.  Oh, and before you say that’s an Alex Jones talking point, you need to remember 1) He’s been proven right about gay frogs and 2) An AP investigation showed that more than 100 UN Peacekeepers ran a child sex ring in Haiti for years and none were ever jailed, so jot that down. 

Anyway, what does UNICEF/the United Nations say about this terrible type of advertising to children?  Well, nothing explicitly.  In fact, they say something even worse.  “UNICEF says any efforts to block children from accessing pornography online might infringe on their human rights.”  That’s right, dear reader.  UNICEF says you trying to prevent kids from looking at porn is a human rights violation. For full disclosure, yes, “pornography” has a wide definition and that quote comes from a commentary from a 3rd party’s analysis of the report.  However, it’s not an unfair conclusion.

You can see this on the Report itself starting on page 35.  It asserts there is no consensus on the impact of porn, which is an outright lie.  Well, not a lie, per se.  It’s just there’s a debate on if it’s bad or terrible for you.  Also, UNICEF hedges their assertion that looking at porn may be a human right by trying to put it in context of health.  “From a rights perspective, extreme care would be needed to avoid excluding children from sexual and reproductive health information online: sexuality education, including resources for LGBTQ education, may be categorized as pornography in some contexts.”

Here’s the issue with that.  It may sound good in theory because of the broad definition of “pornography” that exists.  That’s precisely the issue.  Things like “health” and “pornography” have a wide definition.  It’s important to remember that abortion is considered a public health issue. Almost certainly, “health” would encompass things like a how-to guide on how to engage in Anal Sex safely (like what was shown in Teen Vogue).

So, to summarize, we’ve got children’s shows broadcasting trannies and sex-ed with a left-wing bent being propagandized to small children while simultaneously the UN is saying that attempts to restrict the access of minors to pornography could be a violation of human rights.

I’m sure some people may try to take a “big brain centrist” approach to this.  Maybe you want to make the argument that the government shouldn’t restrict access to these things.  Well, here’s the issue with human rights stuff: it applies to parents, too.  If it’s asserted that access to pornography is necessary for kids as some sort of nonsense human rights issue, that means parents would be violating human rights by restricting access, too.  After all, it is a violation of your children’s human rights if you deprive them of access to education or food or water.  People have lost custody of their children for refusing to let their kids do the hormone treatments to attempt to switch their gender.  Is forcing you to let your child watch porn more extreme than what is already happening? 

Read More

Identity Dixie