Celine Dions New Clothing Line

[Masked crusader7]

This is how children dressed in the 1830s, ( one is a boy one a girl)

View attachment 16900

Clothing of the past was more gender-neutral, the blue-pink thing is just capitalist bullshit marketing and is relatively new.

witch trails clothing looks like my brother

 

[rainerann]

Celion Dion has launched a new gender neutral clothing line. In the creep commercial for it, one of the babies new onesies read, ‘New Order’. Commercial is in the link.

Also another one taking away the value of family, our kids aren’t ours.

https://www.faithwire.com/2018/11/14/celine-dion-launches-new-gender-neutral-clothing-line-for-children-with-creepy-ad/

Technically, I agree with what she is saying about children getting a choice in what they like and don't like. There are many areas this would include outside of this present gender issue. For years children have been put in various activities because their parents wanted them to be in these activities. I was watching the show Toddlers and Tiaras and it always hard to see a young child who really doesn't seem to want to be in a beauty pageant being pushed to smile and act like they do. A lot of parents do things like this, so if your child likes Minnie Mouse instead of Mickey. Whatever. They are only three years old or something. So I think children should have some choice like she is saying.

However, it is clear that this is also part of some agenda because she is saying something almost like she is expecting to get a lot of likes for it across social media. People are not stupid and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what you can say to tickle the ears of many people, and if you want to be in this club, all you have to do is say the right things that these people have demonstrated they approve of in the past.

Children should be able to have a choice, but I disagree that this is all centered around pink or blue and girl or boy stereotypes. This is the result of a much more primal connection to your child and how they are a reflection of yourself. This is also the result of a much more primal desire in humanity to have control over another person.

This has nothing to do with buying pink or blue clothing for your child because no one bought pink or blue clothing until the invention of the ultrasound gave new parents the opportunity to know whether they were having a boy or girl before they were born. Before this, all babies were already given gender neutral clothing when they were young because no one knew whether they were having a boy or girl until they were born.

You can look at pictures from the turn of the 19th century where little boys are wearing bonnets and dresses. A boy would wear a dress until they were over a year old because it was easier to change their diaper or to keep their clothes clean if you didn't have any, I would imagine. There were no little snaps to undo like we have for modern clothing. So until a boy was potty trained back in the day, they were also wearing a dress.

So gender roles and parents desire to impose their will on their child has nothing to do with whether a child wears gender neutral clothing or pink or blue as an infant. It is easy to make an association to a larger agenda as a result of forcing this connection as though it were something humanity has always done that could be changed to improve the future of mankind.

 

[Aero]

I watched the commercial and I think it's unbearably stupid.

Not because of the gender-neutral thing though. Because it's just another cheesy gimmick. But personally speaking, I see no reason to care how other people raise their kids. Like as citizens our hands are basically tied in those regards.

Isn't there a phrase that says something like it takes a village to raise a child? Well, I am here to call that a fallacy. It does not take a village to raise a child, it takes one caregiver. And that one person could screw up a child in any number of ways. What are we supposed to do about that? Yell at the bad parents? Throw them all in Jail?

 

[Vixy]

Neeeeeeereeeeeeeeeseeear--
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar--
Whereeereeeeeeveeer you aaaaaare..

Quite alright, @Vixy

Spoiler

Haa-haa, I just died alittle.

Also I just noticed the name in the title says Ceiling Dion. CELINE would be better. Ceiling..ha ha ha.. reminds me of:

 

[Maes17]

Technically, I agree with what she is saying about children getting a choice in what they like and don't like. There are many areas this would include outside of this present gender issue. For years children have been put in various activities because their parents wanted them to be in these activities. I was watching the show Toddlers and Tiaras and it always hard to see a young child who really doesn't seem to want to be in a beauty pageant being pushed to smile and act like they do. A lot of parents do things like this, so if your child likes Minnie Mouse instead of Mickey. Whatever. They are only three years old or something. So I think children should have some choice like she is saying.

However, it is clear that this is also part of some agenda because she is saying something almost like she is expecting to get a lot of likes for it across social media. People are not stupid and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what you can say to tickle the ears of many people, and if you want to be in this club, all you have to do is say the right things that these people have demonstrated they approve of in the past.

Children should be able to have a choice, but I disagree that this is all centered around pink or blue and girl or boy stereotypes. This is the result of a much more primal connection to your child and how they are a reflection of yourself. This is also the result of a much more primal desire in humanity to have control over another person.

This has nothing to do with buying pink or blue clothing for your child because no one bought pink or blue clothing until the invention of the ultrasound gave new parents the opportunity to know whether they were having a boy or girl before they were born. Before this, all babies were already given gender neutral clothing when they were young because no one knew whether they were having a boy or girl until they were born.

You can look at pictures from the turn of the 19th century where little boys are wearing bonnets and dresses. A boy would wear a dress until they were over a year old because it was easier to change their diaper or to keep their clothes clean if you didn't have any, I would imagine. There were no little snaps to undo like we have for modern clothing. So until a boy was potty trained back in the day, they were also wearing a dress.

So gender roles and parents desire to impose their will on their child has nothing to do with whether a child wears gender neutral clothing or pink or blue as an infant. It is easy to make an association to a larger agenda as a result of forcing this connection as though it were something humanity has always done that could be changed to improve the future of mankind.

Our founding fathers wore knee high socks and powdered wigs

 

[mecca]

Our founding fathers wore knee high socks and powdered wigs

That's right, because knee socks, wigs, colors, and every other clothing item has nothing to do with a person's sex. It's truly just fabric and it has no connection to biology. We do attach the idea of gender to clothing socially and culturally but it is baseless... and I think people should stop making a big deal out of it.

 

[elsbet]

The advertisement seems odd and as VC pointed out, the company that makes these clothes uses some messed up imagery... But the idea of uniesx baby clothing itself is perfectly valid and beneficial, there's nothing wrong with that. Babies shouldn't be reduced to pink and blue clothing based on their sex, there should be various colors available for any and all children to wear. This clothing line is only in black and white though which is boring... and a lot of the designs are pretty ugly, their clothes are not very good and the company is not worth supporting.

The setup is false to begin with. Babies are not being reduced to pink and blue... as though pink and blue are the only options available for the infant set, now-- they are not. There are already tons of clothes for kids, all varied in styles and colors. It is a non-issue, like so many other issues that do not exist until the media stomps in to assure you that No! these problems are alive and well, and must be combated to the fullest.

That is what makes it a propaganda piece.


From November 2009... and a particularly cute one, at that.

♡

 

[Maes17]

That's right, because knee socks, wigs, colors, and every other clothing item has nothing to do with a person's sex. It's truly just fabric and it has no connection to biology. We do attach the idea of gender to clothing socially and culturally but it is baseless... and I think people should stop making a big deal out of it.

I wear fancy adidas tights under my basketball shorts as well

 

[mecca]

The setup is false to begin with. Babies are not being reduced to pink and blue... as though pink and blue are the only options available for the infant set, now-- they are not. There are already tons of clothes for kids, all varied in styles and colors. It is a non-issue, like so many other issues that do not exist until the media stomps in to assure you that No! these problems are alive and well, and must be combated to the fullest.

I am glad that it is less of a problem today, but these ideas definitely still exist. Many toys and clothing items are pink for girls and blue for boys and they reinforce a lot of stereotypes that children go on to internalize. The media and corporations are the ones who actually created this problem in the first place. The corporations were the ones who designed those products and marketed them in certain ways. Now, they may be moving away from those harmful practices, which is good, but they are acting like they were against it the whole time even though they are directly responsible for the creation of this problem. They are pretending like they actually care about these issues and want to solve them when in reality, they are only pandering to the public to get them to buy their products. The only thing these corporations actually care about is money.

 

[rainerann]

Our founding fathers wore knee high socks and powdered wigs

What you are saying reminds me of something else that is along the lines of the practical side to the history of fashion. Back in the days, all of these things were made by hand. When you have to make something by hand, there isn’t a whole lot of time to find and test other patterns.

So men and women wore wigs and tights because this was what people were capable of making by hand and teaching others to make as well.

It is only in the modern age where we forget practical things like this because we have way more time to become philosophers.

In reality, all of the discussions like this should remind us of everything we have to be grateful for rather than critical of whether or not people bought pink clothing for their daughter when she was an infant.

This is where I feel Celine veered off track. She used this reality as a criticism rather than demonstrating an appreciation of the opportunity to continue to create something new. There is no reason to make a political issue out of the introduction of gender neutral clothing for children.

Fashion changes after a while because fashion changes. People just like having making something new and different.

 

[elsbet]

What you are saying reminds me of something else that is along the lines of the practical side to the history of fashion. Back in the days, all of these things were made by hand. When you have to make something by hand, there isn’t a whole lot of time to find and test other patterns.

So men and women wore wigs and tights because this was what people were capable of making by hand and teaching others to make as well.

It is only in the modern age where we forget practical things like this because we have way more time to become philosophers.

In reality, all of the discussions like this should remind us of everything we have to be grateful for rather than critical of whether or not people bought pink clothing for their daughter when she was an infant.

This is where I feel Celine veered off track. She used this reality as a criticism rather than demonstrating an appreciation of the opportunity to continue to create something new. There is no reason to make a political issue out of the introduction of gender neutral clothing for children.

Fashion changes after a while because fashion changes. People just like having making something new and different.

Wigs are not practical, @rainerann

 

[rainerann]

Wigs are not practical, @rainerann

I know you are kidding around, but in all seriousness, without hair products and the ability to wash your hair regularly; a wig could be considered a very practical aesthetic solution.

 

[elsbet]

I know you are kidding around, but in all seriousness, without hair products and the ability to wash your hair regularly; a wig could be considered a very practical aesthetic solution.

That
Is what
A Hat
Is for.

I kid, yes... but the wigs always seemed like "pomp" more than anything. Imo, anyway. I believe the English courts still use them.

 

[Vixy]

This YouTube video is about Céline and further about the agenda to feminize boys. Honestly, I haven’t ever seen anything by the person who produced it, so idk much about the source.

It kind of crosses over, for me, into the thread about masculinity. I just dabble in knowlege about mk, nwo, Illuminati, etc. I’m in the shallow end, if you will, of knowledge about these topics, but some of this is so glaringly obvious I think those who are not even being observant should be able to recognize the purposeful deception.

Sometimes I still have to pinch myself to realize the drastic difference between the world I live in now and the one I grew up in.

Yeah, I saw that one to. When her handler (who seemed to be ahlright) passed, she was free hunt for the elite. Their evil never cease to surprise me.

 

[Vixy]

I know you are kidding around, but in all seriousness, without hair products and the ability to wash your hair regularly; a wig could be considered a very practical aesthetic solution.

Yeah, speaking of that..They had such poor hygiene that in school we were taught that they had moldy underskirts. MOLDY!

 

[Aero]

 

[DesertRose]

The Childrens Clothing Brand From Dajjal (Anti-Christ & Céline Dion)

VC's article sums it up well and gives more info:
"There are many other images, but we’ve seen enough. All of them point in the same direction: Occult elite depravity and the shameless preying on children. All of this crap is “clothed” in the self-righteous vocabulary of gender neutrality and “freeing children”. Who better than Céline Dion (and her wholesome aura) to make this appealing to moms with money to burn?
NUNUNU? More like NONONO."

https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/something-is-terribly-wrong-with-celine-dions-genderless-clothing-line/

 

[VigCizMember]

The Childrens Clothing Brand From Dajjal (Anti-Christ & Céline Dion)

VC's article sums it up well and gives more info:
There are many other images, but we’ve seen enough. All of them point in the same direction: Occult elite depravity and the shameless preying on children. All of this crap is “clothed” in the self-righteous vocabulary of gender neutrality and “freeing children”. Who better than Céline Dion (and her wholesome aura) to make this appealing to moms with money to burn?
NUNUNU? More like NONONO.

Those "founders" are creepy as hell...I can't tell if that one is a woman or a guy

 

[DesertRose]

Those "founders" are creepy as hell...I can't tell if that one is a woman or a guy

Yeah the heck with their "New Order" darn them.

 

[UnderAlienControl]