Remeber: they don't exist and none of this is happening
Interesting, the child sexualization that the company just apologized for is a "conspiracy" theory.
I guess Legacy Media will get around to verifying its real in a year or so, like the Hunter Biden laptop.
So I found some damage control on the high end Balenciaga kiddie pr0n saga by a definitely objective source called “High Nobility” (Lol). We’re gonna break it down. Walk with me.
I have to do it one at a time. Bear with me. But here we go. So High Nobility’s first steps were to out
@shoe0nhead by name, credentialize her, and then tell readers exactly what they are supposed to think going through the fact check.
High Nobility knows their base can’t think for themselves but will also require only baseline propaganda talking points in order to stay consumers of high end brands.
First of all, A teddy bear in bondage gear?! CLEARLY it’s just a harness-clad teddy bear bag. A perfectly normal accessory for a toddler to be holding, standing on a couch, surrounded by wine glasses.
High Nobility then goes on to state as a fact that children holding BDSM teddy bears “is not indicative of a wider conspiracy”.
“We’ll Why not?” Ordinary readers might ask. Well, we’ll never know for sure. See, instead of “fact checking” they change the subject in the next paragraph, redirecting you back to Sh0e who is the supervillain in their story.
High Nobility needs you to know that the ADIDAS campaign was ENTIRELY SEPARATE and Sh0e IRRESPONSIBLY put together the kids with BDSM teddy bears and the bag on top of kiddie pr0n rulings. AGAIN, TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE CAMPAIGNS YOU KNOW WE FACT CHECKED BECAUSE IT’S ITALICIZED.
But High Nobility’s real gotcha is that U.S. v Williams UPHELD the PROTECT Act. HA!
Yes. U.S. v. Williams did uphold the PROTECT act— But why would anyone choose to display section 5 and page 11, the part that articulates sexually explicit conduct vs. sexually simulated conduct in children? Why that page in particular?
COILD IT BE BECAUSE IT DENOTES HOW SEXUAL CONDUCT AND SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT ARE DIFFERENT. A LOOPHOLE?! NO WAAAAAY
Now this all just seems both gross and nefarious. High Nobility, please stop, you’re making it worse
Morgan Freeman: But High Nobility did not stop. They couldn’t. They were in this now. They were invested. It was ride or die, baby. Ride or die.
See, a Kiddie pr0n ruling on a table is simply a “bizarre set dressing” and nothing more. Period.
So why did they delete their IG posts? Because Balenciaga always deletes old posts, you poors. In this case they deleted all their- *squints* “Holiday gifting campaign” posts before the shopping season even kicked off. Well Yeah. Duh. It’s called “SMART marketing”, you filth.
High Nobility states that Balenciaga apologized for “the drama” No, High Nobility. Balenciaga apologized for getting caught. We know this because their PR team had them blame some low level employees and not the multiple layers of highly paid editors it had to get past.
“[Sh0e] states no facts!” She kind of does tho. Like all facts. In fact, everything she said was backed up with evidence. Unlike you. Which I’ve pointed out
Naturally, High Nobility ends their fact check with a self contradiction. The BDSM bears are now 80s punks.
On a personal note, I don’t remember 80s punks wearing collars attached to their underwear but hey I was 4.
And as sure as the sun rises in the east, High Nobility ties off their fact checking article by restating that this was “utterly baseless”, associating Sh0e with the Elon/Tucker axis of evil, and patting themselves on the back for a fact check well done.
Basically, they did just that, got caught and claimed 'no, that's totally not what we're doing, no sir-ee.' Then the fact-checkers got involved, doxed one of the people who uncovered this and reported on this, and wrote up an article about how the company in question is completely innocent and then went on to say that even if the company did make these toys for children they're perfectly in the clear because of a supreme court ruling! Except said ruling doesn't mean what they claim it means.Can someone give me a tl;dr? I mean, I'm seeing that some company is making, ah, "inappropriate" toys for kids, but am I missing something else/more?
The war within education continues to escalate.
The National Education Association, the country’s largest teacher’s union, has repeatedly placed its political activism ahead of parents or appropriate discourse. Now a new report shows their advocacy is only getting worse.
Journalist Christopher Rufo explained the disturbing news that the union’s “LGBTQ+ Caucus” has created a badge for teachers to wear with a QR code linking to a website discussing extremely graphic content, including a “how-to guide for ‘queer sex.'”
The website highlights the extremely popular sentiment among Democrats that men can get pregnant, and references “non-binary identities” while promoting activist organizations like The Trevor Project, Scarleteen, Gender Spectrum and Sex, Etc.
Other links direct to the Teen Health Source, which according to Rufo includes a directive on “Queering Sexual Education” by “empowering youth” through extremely graphic how-to guides on sexual practices that go far beyond traditional sex ed.
This is just the latest example of the NEA operating as a political institution first, and educational union second.
Just a few months ago, the union proposed a resolution to change the word “Mother” to “Birthing Parent,” while mandating ineffective masks and COVID-19 vaccines in schools:
Teachers Union Proposes Resolution to Change the Word ‘Mother’ to ‘Birthing Parent,’ Mandate Masks and Vaccines in Schools
One of the nation's largest teachers unions, the National Education Association, recently proposed several disturbing resolutions for their members to consider.www.outkick.com
But promoting radical gender ideology and extremely adult materials to students through innocuous-looking badges that imply they’re simply there to help, is as dangerous as it is unsurprising.
Cowardly left wing administrators have contributed to the concerning spread of extreme materials to children. Instead of standing up for kids and parents, administrators have served as functionaries of whatever progressive ideology demands.
Rufo’s story highlights one specific example of the badges being promoted in a school district in Ohio. According to a local news story, the superintendent defended the use by saying, “The QR code on the back of the badge is not there to be shared with students; rather, it is provided to adults by the NEA should they be interested in learning more about LGTBQ+ issues and supporting LGBTQ+ students.”
Except the resources on the website directly target LGBTQ+ students, not teachers.
Teen Health Source is not targeted to teachers who simply want to learn more about LGTBQ+ issues, it’s designed for teenagers.
It strains credulity past its breaking point to claim that in-depth guides to “anal sex,” or “rimming” are necessary for teachers to refer to when “supporting” students.
This is a common tool of activist educators; misdirecting when confronted with evidence of inappropriate materials being promoted to children.
There’s never an admission that perhaps conversations such as these don’t belong in schools or between teachers and students, just the inaccurate defense that it’s about “support.”
Teacher’s unions have no business getting involved in these discussions or sending children to links with graphic content. Yet that’s exactly what they’re doing.
It’s no wonder concern over what public schools are teaching continues to skyrocket.
Basically, they did just that, got caught and claimed 'no, that's totally not what we're doing, no sir-ee.' Then the fact-checkers got involved, doxed one of the people who uncovered this and reported on this, and wrote up an article about how the company in question is completely innocent and then went on to say that even if the company did make these toys for children they're perfectly in the clear because of a supreme court ruling! Except said ruling doesn't mean what they claim it means.
New York Post said:Balenciaga claims North Six and Des Jardins included the images of the court docs without its knowledge – which was “malevolent or, at the very least, extraordinarily reckless,” the filing states.
“As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, members of the public, including the news media, have falsely and horrifically associated Balenciaga with the repulsive and deeply disturbing subject of the court decision,” the court papers charge. “Defendants are liable to Balenciaga for all harm resulting from this false association.”
And now the ass covering, guilt deflecting lawsuits may begin.
Notably the lawsuit doesn't mention BDSM Teddy Bears, the ficus being on the... Uh... Child Porn related legal documents.
Balenciaga files $25M suit over controversial ad amid ‘BDSM teddy bear’ backlash
Balenciaga has filed a $25M lawsuit against the producers of a controversial ad campaign featuring BDSM teddy bears and a court ruling on child pornography.nypost.com
ATTENTION ARKANSAS Next week the ACLU is bringing 50 lawyers to prevent the "Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act" (SAFE) We need as much support there as possible to fight to get it passed!
@NotScottNewgent
will be there as well as one of our trucks! SPREAD THE WORD
If Epstein files are unsealed you will all see links to Balenciaga. Remember Epstein got many of his victims through Model Agencies. Jean-Luc-Brunel procured more than 1000 girls. Another modelling agency linked to Balenciaga is hiding in plain sight