What do Decadent Liberals Say about Paedophilia “Cuties’? By Mrs Vera West

     Four 11-year-old girls doing revealing dirty dancing? Isn’t this exploitation? No, the critics and Left are saying that it is liberating etc. Be aware that the show features a Black Muslim migrant girl who is the centre of attention, or is it child abuse? All done by French-Senegalese writer Maimouna Doucoure, who should know better. The dancing merges into paedophilia, as many commentators have said, and that is by non-white feminists too.  The bits I have seen are utterly disgusting, and I had to be ill many times, more than usual doing this writing.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m9SrkvyNLo
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQEWK9jbA3Y
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0NwPEk7GYs 
  http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/09/11/the-cuties-uproar/
  https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/09/11/88-of-elite-film-critics-love-cuties-compared-to-3-of-audience/

“As of right now, a full 88 percent of critics approve of Cuties, Netflix’s piece of soft-core child pornography, while only three percent of the audience agree. That’s not a typo. Three percent. Over the years, I’ve seen some wide gulfs between audience and critic at Rotten Tomatoes, but that probably takes the cake and the pie and the whole enchilada. Keep in mind, Rotten Tomatoes has worked hard to game these scores to protect its Hollywood masters, and still it’s 88 to three. So, despite what the fake media are telling you about criticism of Cuties coming only from the close-minded and unenlightened political right, Cuties is not proving to be at all divisive, at least not among real people. A full 1,047 audience members voted on Cuties, which means 1,047 of everyday people took the time to log an opinion, and only three percent gave it a thumbs up. That works out to a terrible approval score of less than one percent — 0.69 percent, to be precise. So where are all the enlightened and sophisticated Biden voters voting Cuties up? There are none. Well, almost none. Can I say statistically none? Think I can. Think I will. Of course, among the elite critical class there is not much division either. Among the 33 critics who have so far reviewed it, 29 gave Cuties a positive review, while only four logged a negative one. Yours truly sat through Cuties on Thursday and posted a review. Not on Rotten Tomatoes. To have your reviews posted on Rotten Tomatoes you have to join Rotten Tomatoes and I don’t join anything. I’m not a joiner. Naturally, my negative review is already under attack by the foo foo defending 11-year-old girls in short-shorts opening their legs wide-open for the camera. But no one can say I didn’t give it a fair shot, that I didn’t give it the benefit of the doubt. I am the guy, after all, who’s first movie review for Breitbart News (then Big Hollywood) was a rave over Stephen Soderbergh’s two-part love letter to Che Guevera. You can look it up, if you want. I’m not going to link it. Rereading what I wrote two weeks ago is bad enough, so you can imagine how excruciating a 12-year trip down memory lane might be. Anyway, it’s good to see that normal people are not divided on the issue of softcore child pornography. More than 97 percent of us are against it. Of course, to be fair, elite film critics are also not divided on the issue of softcore child pornography. Almost 90 percent of them are for it.”

     So, what is the agenda here? It is no longer about taking down Whites, since the attack here is upon traditional Muslim families, and this is initially surprising, but it shows the agenda is much wider. It is total communism and the destruction of the traditional values, White, Muslim, you name it. We all, the little people have to fight this, the endgame of cultural liberalism and Marxist revolution.
  http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/09/10/the-roots-of-cultural-liberalism/

“The following excerpt comes from Henry F. May’s book The End of American Innocence, 1912-1917: “It was not the fervent romanticism of an earlier period, though it drew on the romanticism of all times. The new believers in art did not expect, as Coleridge had for instance, that intuition would transfigure and illuminate the universe. They did not hope, like Ruskin, that beauty would ennoble society. Art did not necessarily lead to any truth but its own; there might not be any other kind of truth for it to lead to. Aesthetic values, down to the last delicate nuance, must be cultivated for their own sakes, desperately, without regard to ordinary morality, if necessary at the cost of madness and despair. In 1857, the same year that Flaubert published Madame Bovary, caricaturing the old romanticism, Charles Baudelaire inaugurated the new with Flowers of Evil, the bible of the antimoralists. Unlike many of his followers, Baudelaire meant what he said and was superbly able to say it. In his famous invocation he recognized as the worst of mental monsters, the most likely source of horror and destruction, an apparition fully familiar to Europeans in the nineteenth century but hardly glimpsed in busy America: Ennui. Baudelaire and his followers made a cult of Edgar Allan Poe, admiring in him exactly the qualities which American critics continually deplored: his febrile intensity, his love of exotic and bizarre subjects, his rejection of modern civilization, and his insistence that “Poetry” was independent of moral judgment. For three quarters of a century after Baudelaire, a series of schools of poets moved further into many kinds of moral and technical experiment. French verse, fertile, various, and brilliant, experimental in both form and point of view, became the single most importance influence on Western Literature. Its great figures, particularly Mallarmé, Verlaine, and Rimbaud, became the heroes and martyrs of the aesthetic cause in all countries except America. These poets, different as they were, had in common at least a new kind of devotion to art, a dedication so proud, so intense, and so exclusive, that it seemed simply insane to surviving believers in material progress. Toward the end of the century European aestheticism, or part of it, branched off the main road into decadence. The distinction is not precise; perhaps it is only one of seriousness and intensity. Defying conventional morality became, instead of a desperate necessity for a few, a fashion. Conscious artificiality, deliberate cultivation of the perverse and excessive were the hallmarks of decadence. Perhaps the epitome was the overrated, languid, black-mass foolishness of Joris-Karl Huysmans. Even matter-of-fact England had her amoral aesthetes; from Victorian preachers of beauty the path led through Swinburne to the brief vogue of Oscar Wilde and Aubrey Beardsley. Witty and courageous, the London decadents were fundamentally trivial and imitative.

When the public learned that Wilde had defied its standards in action as well as words, the movement collapsed. On the continent, however, aestheticism experimented, even the extremes of decadence continued in vogue. Everywhere in Europe the picture of the artist, drawn by himself, was familiar to the bourgeoisie. The revolt against nineteenth-century progress and morality took a more vigorous form in Germany with Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche, who continually prophesied that he would be misunderstood, has been made into many things, including an old-fashioned idealist in disguise and a modern naturalist. If he was an idealist, the disguise was a good one; if he was a naturalist, his kind of naturalism was new in Western culture. God, he announced, was dead, which was not at all the same thing as saying that He had never existed. Science was dying, too, and intelligent men, having realized that it could never get very close to reality, were abandoning it. Nietzsche, in contrast to his predecessor Schopenhauer, and in contrast to the antimoralist aesthetes, was called an optimist, a great yea-sayer. Again, if he was an optimist, it was in his own terms only. Progress, utility, reason, democracy – the things on which modern civilization prided itself, were to Nietzsche symptoms of sickness and approaching death: joy and health lay only in the self-fulfilling and self-transcending individual. For him there was hope, but only if he boldly threw aside the restraints of Christian morality. The abandonment of outward cruelty and selfishness had been a dreadful error, a source of inward sickness, the result of a plot by the feeble and cunning against the strong and beautiful. Only by moral revolution, by a reversal of values, could man recover tragedy, his only real kind of happiness. In his long and tortured search for a new god to replace the old one, Nietzsche considered and rejected art as well as science. The true principle of reality was the will to power, present in all things and reaching its highest form in the noble, overcoming, superman. Thus Nietzsche cannot be classified with aesthetes except in a very broad sense. What he had in common with them was their enemy: modern culture. In this sense Nietzsche’s “joyful wisdom” was a part of the same great turn in the history of European thought. In the period of its apparent triumph, the modern world and its values – humanitarian progress, comfort, and conventional morality, values often identified with America – were violently rejected by scattered groups of intellectuals. The true morality, these sad protesters agreed, lay in experience and its expression for their own sake, not in success but in tragedy and transcendence.”

  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8711611/AstraZenecas-COVID-19-vaccine-trials-hold-suspected-reaction.html?ito=push-notification&ci=32676&si=12817605
  https://www.newsweek.com/trust-coronavirus-vaccines-poll-politics-1529989