I mentioned in my last post on how far back this advocacy of pedo acceptance went in the so-called intellectual class, but since writing that was reminded by someone - I no longer remember where - of a couple of older Aydin Paladin videos on the leftist history of pedo advocacy. I'll link them at the bottom. Both have valuable insights, but if you only have time to watch/listen to one, listen to the second one - because it traces the roots of pedophile advocacy all the way back to Marx and, most especially, Engels.
Also - there will be some profanity - both in the post and in the linked vids.
In the first video, we're treated to a rundown of how many leftists in the modern day, especially Antifa-tied ones, have ties to NAMBLA, and so on. The second goes all the way back to the philosophical roots of the left: In Engel's writings, you see the roots of modern feminist theory, and the roots - courtesy of then-fashionable socialist utopian ideals - of the Marxist ideal of nuking the concept of family as exemplified by BLM.
Yes, this includes sex with kids, and children being "sexual beings." Yes, almost every aspect of modern feminist thought was baked into Marxism from the very beginning. And yes, this being part of marxism from the word go, and Marxism being proclaimed "scientific", gave legitimacy to these claims.
Also, related to the kiddie-diddlers like Sartre I mentioned earlier - Aydin briefly points out how the books on sexual liberation were sold door-to-door in the Paris Universities where, the French never stumbling across utopian and egalitarian claptrap they wouldn't passionately take up and behead people with, the students of the time bought is up and formed the basis for Sartre and others. She also brings up something I'd not connected - the degree to which Marxism as postulated by Engels was a not just materialistic, but hedonistic. Note the 60's mantra of "if it feels good, do it," as well as the degree to which the left focuses on feelings/perception, and not observable reality
A few points and observations on the vids.
Yes, Aydin is a LOLbertarian. She's also a self-proclaimed bisexual. That said, she's also fairly honest in looking at data, pedantic even. As a result, she admits that her preferred lifestyle is not a good thing to advocate for when it comes to western civ. Furthermore, she unapologetically calls pedophiles sick and wrong.
I'd use the term evil.
Since we're on a touchy subject already - yes, in various historic periods women used to marry as early as 15, etc, and often to older men in their 20's who'd established themselves. And yes, society once considered mid teens to be well on their way to adulthood, taking their first steps in the adult world - with Farragut, Washington, etc. as examples not so much of their sheer competence, but moreso that teenagers were doing adult work, leading teams of men, and tackling difficult jobs like shipboard command, running families, farming, surveying, and navigation as a matter of course.
The thing is, we no longer have the cultural and societal structure to support it - in large part due to the long slow march through the intellegencia that started with Marx and Engels. We used to raise more mature kids who were more often taught to take responsibility without an extended adolescence, and that there were consequences to fucking up and fucking around. Also, when that was a more common practice, society had a number of structures built in to minimize the access of human predators to ready and easily manipulated prey - teenagers who think they know everything and are immortal, while their hormones run rampant - and to minimize abuses overall and maximise the chances of a decent or good marriage partner being chosen. Among them strong incentives to marriage instead of preemarital sex, and requiring the consent of the parents.
A survey of actual ages of consent in developed countries makes me deeply suspicious of anyone pushing to have them lowered, for any reason, even with such structures restored - given that many are holdovers from when stronger societal protections were in place, I'd actually advocate having them raised. Any reasonable-sounding argument those people may make are likely morally the same as those previously made for free speech by the same left that never valued the principle, but only what they could destroy with it. Those arguments are also likely so they can redefine "wrong" so it no longer includes what they want to do.
In the name of freedom, or more accurately, libertinism, these protections of the innocent - the same people we've ramrodded into colleges and left in lifelong debt in this "better" age at their most vulnerable to manipulation - have been stripped away. This is yet another way they've torn us from our roots and atomized us.
I see a future in helicopter flight training schools.