Op-Ed: Furry Fandom is Exactly What It Looks Like

The interesting number here is that of bisexuals, which 48% of furries identify as. It wouldn't even be accurate to simply classify furries as "gay," they are broadly paraphiles, or perverts, sexually interested in anything with two (or four) legs. A 2008 survey by Alex Osaki that sampled 7000 furries found that 18.4% self-identified as "zoophiles," a horrifying figure when one takes into account that this is a low estimate due to lingering legal and social taboos on bestiality.

I remember some years ago walking through a major city I was visiting and passing a "fur convention."

When I saw adult men dressed like mascots lining up to go in, I told my female acquaintance: "these are faggots that want to fuck animals." 

I had no basis for saying this. My raw and vulgar peasant instinct was talking.  

And it never fails me. 

Paraphilia in the Furry "Community" 

According to a sociological study by David J. Rust, 75% of furries are homosexual or bisexual. 30% are in "polyamorous" relationships. 

The interesting number here is that of bisexuals, which 48% of furries identify as. It wouldn't even be accurate to simply classify furries as "gay," they are broadly paraphiles, or perverts, sexually interested in anything with two (or four) legs. A 2008 survey by Alex Osaki that sampled 7000 furries found that 18.4% self-identified as "zoophiles," a horrifying figure when one takes into account that this is a low estimate due to lingering legal and social taboos on bestiality.

The average sociological profile of a furry is a male in his 20s, meaning that the "lifestyle" has exploded in the last decade. Attendance at "fur conventions" has risen from a few hundred in 1990 to over 7000 at Anthrocon today

What is driving this phenomenon is a complex question that, amidst American civilizational decay, has few people willing to study it. 

The most authoritative scholar on paraphilia, Dr John Money, found in his research that perversion was a learned behavior, rather than inherited. The biggest predictor was experiencing or witnessing sexual activity at a very young age. 

The contemporary explosion in paraphilia among Millennials and Gen Zs may have something to do with the young age children access internet pornography. A 2013 study by O'Sullivan and Ronis found that little girls who saw pornography or experienced sexual abuse grew up to exhibit paraphilic sexual tendencies. 

Images of sexualized cartoon animals are available all across the internet, and often come up in searches when kids look up pictures of their favorite Disney or Cartoon Network characters.

Animated pornography featuring anthropomorphic figures is aggressively advertised online. Try to watch a pirated Hollywood movie and you will be bombarded with games and 3D videos of animal-like creatures engaging in sexual acts with humans.

The average age a child sees pornography today is 11. 10% of children under the age of 10 are watching porn as we speak. 

It's not hard to see a correlation, if not direct causation, with the rise of young homosexuals, "zoophiles" and even pedophiles. Gary Wilson, author of Your Brain on Porn has outlined how the large-scale, diverse and free available of pornographic materials rewires the human brain into becoming addicted, and leaves it craving more and more depraved thrills in some cases.

Its astonishing that there are so few clinical studies on what exactly porn does to people in the long-term, especially children who watch it. Unfortunately, the American academic system is infused with liberal ideology, and they may simply be afraid of what they will find.

Can Beastiality Become Mainstream? 
 
Now that biological men are winning women's cycling tournaments and "polyamory" is a hit among young bourgeois cosmopolitans, everyone is wondering what's at the bottom of the slippery slope.

A 2008 exchange between America's top "sexologist," the gay Jew Dan Savage, and an admitted zoophile gives us a hint.

In his letter, the man confesses his sexual desire for dogs. Savage recommends he get therapy, but doesn't end there. In his advice column, he recommends that the fellow pervert get a canine companion and take strong precautions to protect his privacy. He treats the attraction as normal, even going so far as to endorse bestiality as long as the dog is mounting the human. Savage compares sexually defiling an animal with eating meat, and decides that the latter is more immoral.   

A Jew named Peter Singer has gone further, endorsing bestiality as perfectly normal and ethical in his 2001 essay "Heavy Petting." Singer is considered one of the neo-liberal West's top intellectuals, even being dubbed "the most influential ethicist alive." Many other Jewish media publications, like The New Yorker, have said similar things. He is credited with introducing the concept of "speciesism" into the public discourse.  

While Singer's proclamation shocked many at the time, other Jews have worked over the years to gradually shoehorn it in. Neil Levy, in the Journal of Social Philosophy, meets Singer 3/4 of the way by declaring that the arguments against bestiality are "not very convincing" and that he is "right in thinking bestiality is not immoral." 

Yet another influential Jewish bioethicist, Jacob Appel, has echoed Singer in calling for the normalization and acceptance of bestiality. 

A number of films have worked to try and foster "understanding" of humans that want to rape animals. The 2007 documentary Zoo is a largely uncritical platform given to self-described "zoophiles." The film was directed and produced by a group of homosexuals and Jews.

A more recent documentary, Dolphin Lover,  features a man who molested a dolphin for years, also largely uncritically. This was directed and written by Kareem Tabsch, a Jew from Miami.  

The truth of the matter is in America, we don't have a moral or ethical boundary capable of stonewalling the breakthrough of these repulsive practices. The American Psychological Association's ideology when deciding what is dysfunctional and what isn't is informed by a libertarian frame: is it immediately harmful to the parties involved? Is there consent? 

These are questions that can be sufficiently answered to justify virtually any monstrous or heinous act within the context of liberal relativism. The modern Western ideology is defined by not-Fascism, which is the legacy of Jewish power over intellectual fields that makes our society a moral wild west. But fucking animals is wrong. Women don't have penises. Kids should not be molested. Cannibalism is sick. Sodomy is unnatural. 

Once conservatives embrace even one of these - see the high overrepresentation of homosexuals in the Trump movement or the "MAGA Tranny" - they pave the way for all.  

Which is why the priority must be to defeat and replace conservatism.
 
Questions like the above can only be answered ethically when our worldview is guided by the social good and reason over individual egoism and hedonism.