Sign up for email updates!


PART 18: LIES OF MEN AND GODS—Who Is Behind These Pedophilia Agendas

Share this!

One must wonder, if all involved in both sides of this issue are truly seeking the betterment of society, why things progress as they do in spite of the opposition. One church in California was vandalized after its pastor openly protested the story hour led by drag queens. The church building was marred with pentagrams scrawled in spray paint alongside “vulgar [and satanic] phrases.”[i] These authors believe that there is a link between movements such as these and those that sexually exploit and traffic children behind the scenes. In a nutshell, the violation of our youths’ innocence is being moved from the privacy of the back room and into the public sphere. Where such atrocities have been met with outrage and increased awareness/crackdowns, the powers that be have maneuvered to make it appear that children actually want to be involved in their sick fantasies. Conditioning kids to want to participate isn’t very hard. But what about the adults who promote this activity? These authors also believe that many of the grown-ups active in these circles are actually being played as well. After all, as we’ve stated, one of the manipulation methods used by the enemy is to skew the comprehension of what it means to love. And, some of those who speak out for such advancements of humanity are well-respected, educated people who have advocated for other aspects of human equality or emancipation, with the “sexual liberation” of children being only one aspect of their agenda. Consider the words of Kate Millet, American feminist writer, author of the book, Sexual Politics, and activist, who stated of children in 1980: “Certainly, one of children’s essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well…the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution…What is really at issue is children’s rights and not, as it has been formulated up to now, merely the right of sexual access to children.”[ii]

We must understand that the public is filled with well-meaning—albeit often misled—individuals who will stand for what they believe is right. In fact, much like the scenario regarding the elderly woman and her money, many believe they are taking a stand for the interests and liberation of children when they advocate for this premature and intimate self-expression. They’re unaware that as the final phases of the sexual revolution occur—ringing in the era of children’s erotic liberation—deviancy previously hidden will be embraced publicly at our children’s expense.

Many of those advocating for this movement are doing what they believe is right.

Therein lies that key element that can be spun against humanity by the craftiest of them all. How is it that entire populations will allow children to be exploited in such a way? It is by conditioning the children to show curiosity and even express interest in being involved in these activities. When this occurs, those who stand “for the children’s rights” make it a cause for which they perceive efforts to be righteous. In that way, a few key people can trick an entire population into selling the innocence of their young without even realizing the prize that they’ve traded away.

Yet, we must be logical. It doesn’t occur to children on their own that their bodies may interact sexually with an adult’s—or any other person’s, for that matter. These ideas come from outside the spectrum of a child’s thought processes. And in response, many well-meaning adult influences give kids an overly cultivated environment wherein they can follow the curiosity that accompanies implanted ideas. Society teaches our parents that this is how you create a safe, nonjudgmental way for youngsters to develop a healthy view of themselves. Often, in an effort to be helpful (and with key coaching), adults offer too much information in response to introductory inquiries, which stirs further questions in the mind of a child. One can see how this cycle creates a perpetual line of curiosity that appears to be originating from children, but that is actually prompted by conditioning. Soon, a child’s innocence is abandoned or compromised under the heading of self-discovery, while loving, well-meaning caregivers facilitate this robbery. Children are malleable. If they believe what they’re doing is normal and pleasing to the adult influences in their lives, they’ll become conditioned to see nearly any activity as acceptable. Meanwhile, goodhearted guardians are told that this is the way to be a supportive parent.

All the while, pedophiles are increasingly relabeled with such euphemisms as “minor-attracted persons,” and sympathy is fostered for their lack of legal ability to make connections that coincide with their attractions. (Understand that these people should be offered help and they desperately need intervention. This is not a hate statement. However, their attraction is problematic in that it renders a lifetime of pain and should thus be treated.) The currently emerging narrative around pedophilia must change. The presently propagated notion that one can’t help whom one loves and that he or she is powerless to redirect his or her thoughts is the theme by which MAPs are slowly shifting from being recognized as a public threat to being instated as an orientation. Further, those who would redirect this attraction to age-appropriate peers and overcome the compulsion might be able to find a fulfilling, appropriate relationship, thus avoiding a lonely lifetime of isolation.

In the meantime, via outspoken activists allied with the pedophile’s cause like Mirjam Heine, the attempt at putting salve on such a societal wound as accepting pedophilia is worded by placing the onus on non-pedophiles who are responsible for accepting them into society, understanding that their urges are not their fault. She states:

We are not responsible for our feelings; we do not choose them. But, we are responsible for our actions. It is our responsibility to reflect and to overcome our negative feelings about pedophiles and to treat them with the same respect we treat other people with. We should accept that pedophiles are people who have not chosen their sexuality and who, unlike most of us, will never be able to live it out freely if they want to lead an upright life. We should accept that pedophilia is a sexual preference; a thought, a feeling, and not an act. We should differentiate between child sexual abuse and pedophilia.[iii]

One problem with this logic is that, when a desire is maladaptive or even dangerous, people have two options. One is to seek counseling and intervention for the destructive desire, attempting to trade it for a healthier one. The other is to accept the desire as permissible while attempting to stifle it, which likely won’t work for long. When the individual’s mind and the general population have accepted the desire as appropriate and well founded, they can work together to enact the legalities that justify the action. When the action has the potential to cause physical, emotional, psychological, or developmental harm—and without a doubt, pedophilia does all of these to our children—a case and system for making it appear safe for potential victims will become the championed cause for the most deviant, malicious, and self-serving minds so that the exploitation will be viewed as acceptable.

Legislative Efforts That Protect Perps and Increase Victim Vulnerability

Some recent legislation regarding sexual predators serves perpetrators over victims. As increasing sympathy for the wrongdoer is nurtured and a victim’s best interests are decreasingly prioritized, a disturbing trend emerges. For example, a bizarre law passed in Victoria, Australia, in 2020, essentially placed a gag order on victims of rape and sexual abuse, stating that those who name their abusers could face up to roughly 120 days of jail time or fines exceeding three thousand dollars for violating their attackers’ privacy.[iv]

Yes, you read that right. We’ll give you a minute to digest it.

In fact, we’ll repeat it: Victims of sexual abuse in that region of Australia are now legally prohibited from speaking their perpetrators’ names; they are being censored in favor of privacy for the guilty, even during litigation. This amendment to the existing Judicial Proceeding Reports Act has been noted as a triumph for those who have abused or exploited others, and it would appear that the only way for targets to retrieve their right to tell their story is via court order, “which is a lengthy process and could cost them more than $10,000.”[v] Victims have launched a campaign asking legislators to modify the law to give them back their voice—as they have now been silenced, thus victimized twice over: once by the abuse, and again by the prohibition against telling their story.[vi] Likewise, the measure stops family members of deceased victims from being able to name perpetrators.




This may seem alarming—these authors certainly find it so! One would hope that it’s some calamitous legislative error that will be corrected in the upcoming months. Even as we write this, the amendment is being revisited and debated, with the goal of “[fixing] botched laws enacted…that gagged assault survivors from publicly talking about their experiences without a court order.”[vii] Certainly, the hope is to see this reversed. If not, this is a blatant account of laws designed to protect the guilty and destroy victims’ rights.

We understand that much of our narrative speaks of modern American culture, and that Australia, where this happened, to some, might be too far away to deem relevant here. But, if it can occur in other progressive countries, then it is certain that people in pluralistic America will eventually advocate for similar measures as well. A little closer to home, another bill currently being considered is one in California that would alter the definition of statutory rape as it pertains to certain types of sexual intercourse to protect perpetrators from being classified as sex offenders. The legislation would allow for a ten-year age difference regarding various types of intercourse, citing LGBTQ equality rights as the motivation for this redefinition. The premise is that, currently, “there is…[an] exemption from mandatory registration [as a sex offender] for [heterosexual] intercourse between partners of a similar age difference.”[viii] In other words, the current law is more lenient on statutory lines regarding heterosexual couples than it is on homosexual couples, because their physical method of intercourse is legally categorized differently. As it stands, consensual, heterosexual intercourse between two people on either side of eighteen years of age can result in misdemeanor or felony charges being filed, depending on the situation. Thus, leniency will be added to other types of intercourse within current legislation under the notion of nondiscrimination.

This concession could leave our teenagers and younger children wide open to ambiguity where sexual assault is concerned. California State Senator Shannon Grove tweeted: “If signed into law, a 24-year-old could have sexual relations with a 15-year-old child without being required to register as a sex offender.”[ix] Causing even more concern for these authors is that, at this time, we have read the bill itself and can find no specification of minimum age. Someone might be all right with legalizing sex between a twenty-seven-year-old and a seventeen-year-old, but what if that same seventeen-year-old becomes attracted to a seven-year-old child? Because the bill is still being debated, this could mean that—should there be a legal bungle such as the one in Australia regarding victims’ rights—an oversight could render it legal for a thirteen-year-old to be seduced by a twenty-three-year-old, and in turn, coerce an elementary-aged youth into sexual acts. The key, in such circumstances, would be determining whether the interaction is consensual. However, studying previous cases of claimed rape, we can quickly see how hard it often is to prove rape when one of the parties asserts that it was consensual. Then we have a case of one person’s word against another, and often it’s not until repeated complaints from multiple victims are filed that charges are brought against an offender. This loophole regarding the sexual safety of minors could open doors that subject our most innocent to a whole new level of depravity—and legally! Furthermore, these would, like the Victoria bill, protect the perpetrator while forgetting the vulnerable. This graying of the waters could quickly become too murky to clean up. And with victims too young to articulate their stance on consent—or even to understand what’s happening to their bodies—this has the potential to negatively impact all of society in ways that we’ll be unable to measure. Additionally, consider this: The legal drinking age in California (and all states) is twenty-one. The minimum age for purchasing tobacco products is eighteen. In many states, minors are prohibited from purchasing products such as spray paint, glues, and other items as well. How is there any logic to creating legislation that permits a minor to have sex with an adult up to ten years older, when that same minor isn’t allowed to purchase spray paint or superglue? The consequences of intercourse are vast, including emotional and psychological repercussions, the sense of loss over virginity, risk of becoming pregnant, threat of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, painful emotional and physical aftermath of abortion or miscarriage, social and romantic fallout, and confusion regarding orientation or sexual identity. Also, even though these authors applaud those willing to carry an unexpected pregnancy to full term, there is also the particularly difficult struggle single parents often face after their physical actions yield consequences their minds aren’t prepared for.

Meanwhile, in the Classroom…

A group of parents in Madison, Wisconsin, came together in February of 2020 to file a lawsuit stating that their children’s school acted unconstitutionally via its transgender policy, which required the school to conceal from parents any sexual-reassignment actions taken by students.[x] The policy allows children to self-designate their own identity based on “male, female, a blend of both or neither,” and vows to “‘disrupt the gender binary’ with books and lessons stating that everyone has the right to choose their gender.”[xi] It also permits students to make off-record changes to their names and pronouns unbeknownst to their guardians, an offense that these parents state undermines their rights to maintain an advisory role in their children’s lives and usurps familial religious values.[xii] The subversive element of this particular instance is that it was instituted in a way that intentionally kept parents out of the loop. While they were to fill out paperwork reassigning names, pronouns, or genders for students, the students were given liberty to do so on an unofficial level—without the parents’ signatures. Then, teachers were instructed to comply with children’s requests when unsupervised, but to revert to the formerly used names or pronouns when parents were present—an overtly deceitful role.[xiii] In some cases, students even dressed in the opposite gender’s clothing or used a different locker room at school, and parents did not learn about it until after the fact.[xiv]


“THE LIES OF MEN AND GODS–EPISODE 2”: What’s Behind Flying Seraphim, Reptilians, And Portals Opening Above Mountains

“THE LIES OF MEN AND GODS–EPISODE 1”: The Vatican, Aliens, and Government Elites. Is It All a Coincidence?

Think back to the situations mentioned earlier in this entry regarding school-arranged abortions, vaccinations, birth control, etc. Now, imagine if schools’ overreach ever maneuvered into the realm of chemical gender transition (if they haven’t secretly done so already). The situation in Madison, in conjunction with the other scenarios we’ve mentioned, shows that it’s not out of the question. Additionally, some puberty-blocking drugs (used to stave off puberty, sometimes for medically necessary reasons such as halting premature puberty, but recently used in conjunction with gender assignment), have been found to have very serious side effects. For example, between 2012–2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug leuprolide acetate, also known as Lupron, manifested more than forty thousand cases of documented side effects. Amongst these, more than twenty-five thousand “were considered ‘serious,’” with that number “including 6,370 deaths.”[xv] The pharmaceutical, formerly used in rare cases of premature puberty to stave off the transition until the appropriate age, has recently been prescribed to children as young as eight in conjunction with “cross-sex hormones” to help young people with gender dysphoria and transition.[xvi]

California endocrinologist Dr. Michael Laidlaw, however, asserts that there are long-term consequences associated with using this drug in such a way, some of which include inhibited genital development and/or loss of all sensation in the genital areas. Laidlaw adamantly points out the flaws in allowing children to utilize their “core internal sense” in choosing a gender, rather than their biology.[xvii] He holds that the practice compromises the long-term safety and well-being of these children; furthermore, he states: “This whole thing is an experiment on children. We are ignoring the voices of desisters and people who have come out of this and recognized their sex…the NIH [National Institutes of Health] is allowing unethical research to be conducted on adolescents.”[xviii]

With the alarming possibility that these drugs could be administered to children without their parents’ knowledge due to a minor being at the age of medical autonomy—and considered in conjunction with the potentially devastating, lifelong side effects—it stands to reason that parents would want to be part of the decision of whether a child should be placed on these drugs. The entire process of transition/gender reassignment is new and still largely untested. Studies and outspoken medical personnel asserting the dangers of these drugs are only now stepping forward. Unfortunately, their statements are often silenced as hate speech, despite any scientific data that supports their position.

Children want to be accepted, and throughout childhood they often “try on” several identities that they later abandon for the identities they choose permanently. Allowing them to take chemical substances that could make one of their “trial” identities permanent could have lifelong consequences. At this moment, such actions are applauded in the public sphere, meaning that a child who doesn’t fit in with peers may choose such an avenue as a means of finding belonging and affirmation. Questioning one’s gender is trending heavily right now, and it’s vital that parents are not left outside the conversation when their children have such questions.

Schools such as those in Madison, Wisconsin, aren’t the only places where sexuality is being conditioned. Pedophilia is being floated as an orientation in classes at a University in California, according to student Alex Mazzara.[xix] He notes particularly that those with this orientation call themselves “self-identified pedophiles” and comments on how openly they report their troubles.[xx] In his opinion, this idea is headed into the mainstream arena of orientations in the upcoming years, and these authors fear that this is a well-founded concern.[xxi] Others have come forward with names that euphemize the position, such as “non-offending pedophiles,” while still other groups have broken the label into age groups of attraction: “pedophile” for pre-pubescent attraction, “hebephile” for those who seek eleven- to fourteen-year olds, and “ephebophile” for those whose desires are for youths between ages fifteen and nineteen.[xxii]

Ultimately, what’s behind this agenda is the enemy’s desire to destroy the lives of the innocent. If he can do that—with the permission of society, cultural counterparts, guardians, and even the children themselves—then he’s even more pleased. In a land that has already allowed the blood of innocents to be shed under the label of convenience via abortion, the trusting, vulnerable children who are our nation’s next generation are now at risk of being further compromised for the fulfillment of twisted pleasures of the depraved. It is time to stand, now, and defend the defenseless.

The world we live in has been set to ensnare our children with a million traps that will destroy their lives and jeopardize their souls. They’ve been placed in schools where—for whatever reason—their education often becomes second to an ulterior agenda that costs them academic success, peace of mind, and compromised innocence, and they’re separated from parental influences and familial religious values. The world is waiting at every turn to make them doubt what God created them to be, to instill qualms about their sexuality, and to isolate them so that the nefarious movements will hold allure for their young minds. The world that surrounds our children—your children—is being groomed to passively allow pedophilia to creep in via the guise we call “orientation.” Well-meaning individuals will fight for this atrocity to occur under the heading of personal, civil rights. If we remain silent, this is the world that will come to be in a shorter span of years than most people realize.

UP NEXT: Mark of the Beast

[i] “Church Vandalized with ‘Satanic Symbols’ after Pastor Opposed Drag Queen Story Hour.” Instagram. September 23, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[ii] Omega Frequency. “The New Normalization.” August 23, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020. YouTube Video, 1:11:30.

[iii] TEDx. “Pedophilia Is a Natural Sexual Orientation Mirjam Heine University of Wurzburg ugwbBgDOro.” August 30, 2018. Accessed November 6, 2020. YouTube Video, 13:30.

[iv] Di, Kris. “Major Victory for Pedophiles as Baffling Law Is Passed That Could See Rape and Sexual Assault Victims Thrown in PRISON Just for Telling Their Stories.” I Heart Intelligence. August 26, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Henriques-Gomes, Luke. “Families of Deceased Sexual Assault Victims Would Need Court Order to Speak Out under Victoria Law.” The Guardian. October 26, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[viii] Blitzer, Ronn. “California Bill to Lower Penalties for Sexual Relations with Minor Heads to Newsom’s Desk.” Fox News. September 3, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Richmond, Todd. “Parents Sue Madison Schools over Transgender Policy.” AP News. February 18, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Erin Brewer. “Teachers Trained to Assist Children with Transitioning…And Hide It from Parents.” August 19, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020. YouTube Video, 32:06.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Prestigiacomo, Amanda. “Transgender Puberty Blocking Drug Linked to Thousands Of Deaths, FDA Data Reveals.” Daily Wire. September 26, 2019. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Prestigiacomo, Amanda. “Doctors Are Now Giving 8-Year-Old Girls Testosterone, Claiming They’re ‘Transgender’.” Daily Wire. April 4, 2019. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[xix] Morse, Brandon. “The Normalization of Pedophilia Is Underway, and a California University Is Already Trying to Push It on Students.” RedState. September 16, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] “Minor Attracted Person vs.. Pedophile vs,. Sex Offender.” Global Prevention Project. August 13, 2018. Accessed November 6, 2020.

Category: Featured, Featured Articles