You’ve probably seen that Salon has put out a pro-pedophile article. You might have seen #cuckservative Charles CW Cooke defending Salon at NRO. (Interesting, that the #cuckservatives are less condemning of leftists mainstreaming pedophiles, than of viral, cultist Trumpkins). Two years makes for a lot of change on this issue at NRO, although, at least Goldberg is not (yet) cucked enough to jump on this particular bandwagon, although he is cucked enough to think “Salon made a mistake running that piece” rather than knowing that this is intentional. It is “not, to [his] mind, commendable” to promote pedophilia, but normalizing pedophilia is not enough to fight a war to break-up conservatism, unlike backing Trump.
Anyway, #cuckservatives and Trump are not the purpose of this post, so I’ll hold off. You may remember I wrote on pedophilia a couple of times about a year ago when the NYT and TIL wrote their normalization articles. As I said there, I’m not unsympathetic to those struggling with pedophilic tendencies, sometimes people just get dealt a shit hand in life and no temptation exists that is not common to man, including this one, which about 20% of men are afflicted with to some degree.
So, am I a hypocrite? What’s the difference between what I wrote and what Salon wrote? Although, Cooke doesn’t get it, Goldberg almost seems to get it, so I’ll explain.
The difference is normalization. As Goldberg said, pedophilia is currently taboo, and for good reason, sex with children is an unnatural and wrong act. Breaking down that taboo, normalization, is dangerous.
Taboos (or their violation) can really only be discussed without blanket condemnation privately with trusted people, through humour, or through disinterested analytical conversation with the occasional caveat of ‘I’m against this, but to play devil’s advocate…’. As an example, racism is the greatest taboo in today’s religiously egalitarian society, and nigger is the ultimate profane word. Hence, racism can only be discussed in polite company if one is lamenting how horrible it is and nigger can only be used in trusted conversation or by comedians (although, even that is often not safe anymore) by anyone other than blacks themselves.
Pedophilia is currently taboo, as homosexuality was only a few decades ago. (Side note: although, the media will ignore or paper over it, the original platform of the gay rights movement included the end of age of consent. The homosexual movement’s acceptance of NAMBLA continued until they were purged in the 80–90’s). You can’t discuss it outside dark humour or academia without expressing disgust.
Any public discussion of pedophilia needs to be unabashedly denounce it as evil. It can be sympathetic, but it can not be accepting, it must condemnatory. If someone is struggling with pedophilia, the proper place to talk about without condemnation is privately with a close friend, priest, psychiatrist, or an anonymous support board on the internet. Any public discussion of the issue should make it clear that talking about this publicly is not allowed. It is taboo.
Just as you currently can make racist jokes with your drunk uncle, but can’t say them to your coworker; you can tell your friend that you struggle with pedophilia, but you can’t tell the public that children make you hard.
What Cooke fails to get is that the Salon article is not reinforcing the taboo, it is destroying it. It is actively giving a clinical pedophile a stage to say “be understanding and supportive… Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster.” But he is a monster. As I wrote, someone who wants to have sex with kids is broken on a fundamental level. Treating pedophilia as a handicap rather than innate evil proclivity, is removing the stigma from it, it is breaking down the taboo.
Once the taboo is gone, acceptable public discourse will move from “he’s not evil, just troubled, be understanding” to “he’s not evil, he was born that way, be accepting” to “he was born that way, don’t judge him for his sexual orientation” to “it’s only natural to act on your sexual orientation” to “pedophobe”. And unlike Goldberg’s assertion this is a mistake, Salon know exactly what it is doing. This is planned.
You can publicly discuss pedophilia and those suffering that temptation sympathetically, even compassionately, without normalizing it, by making sure a public statement is condemnatory of that evil. Non-judgmentalism is for private conversations.
The left is enacting the Gramscian long march with the ultimate goal of destroying the family, which is the strongest bulwark against the state, so that the managerial state can replace it. Salon and all these other sites are either knowingly or unknowingly in on this. They are not making a mistake, they are purposefully enacting their ideology. Legalizing pedophilia will be another blow against the family and for the state, and this is what they want.
If we don’t crush this now, in a few decades, you will be denounced as a pedophobe for objecting to a 40-year-old man fucking your 9-year-old daughter or sodomizing you 6-year-old son. Then the leftists will start in on normalizing the final sexual taboo: rape.
****
Post-Script: Contra Cooke’s proclamation that “the author seems to be doing exactly what he should be doing given his condition: Namely, a) accepting that he has an unimaginably serious problem, and b) doing his utmost to refrain from acting upon it.”, Todd Nickerson has not shown he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Someone honestly trying to avoid acting on his pedophilic proclivities would not be making “little girl friends” then bragging about it on the internet. Someone honestly trying to help themselves, would be actively avoiding being alone with unrelated little girls.
That things will go this far. Unbelievable.
20 years from now when all goodthinking citizens are terrified of being slapped with the label “pedophobe”, I’ll remember the prescient alt-right blog where I first saw the word in writing.
I am just astonished at how sieve-like American minds are. Just last year, this VERY SAME publication ran an article attacking Ben Carson for comparing ‘homosexuality’ to pedophilia
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/22/ben_carson_stands_by_claim_that_gay_marriage_leads_to_pedophilia_and_bestiality/
They mocked the slippery slope idea, and here they are gleefully rubbing oil slick into that very same slope!
1) Liberals demand sensitivity for ‘homosexuals’
2) Conservatives say it will lead to sensitivity for pedophiles
3) Liberals laugh and call this crazy
4) Liberals demand sensitivity for pedophiles
Are people blind? Stupid? Actually on board with this?
I forget who said it, but he was right: “The Church will one day be condemned for opposing pedophilia, by Leftists who, in their younger days, had condemned the Church for covering-up pedophilia.” Of course, I don’t regard the Conciliar Movement as being a part of the Catholic Church, but his basic idea is right.
Before rape, there are other types of sexual deviancy to normalize, like sex in public or bestiality, for example. I don’t think it would go smoothly. I hope, perhaps foolishly, for the pushback being too strong for that.
The push for pedophilia will come through the form that is already accepted that being woman to boy degeneracy. There was a recent Adam (((Sandler)))) movie “That’s My Boy” that made light of this and you can’t come across a female pedophilia story without a slew of joking comments on the subject. When they were making their foray into accepting gays into the culture they introduced it through women. Remember when Madonna and Britney Spears kissed at an awards show. Since female sexuality is “considered” less dangerous than male sexuality they’ll begin there. Count on it. I don’t know the timeline but if things continue unabated then expect to see more articles and some tv special about a woman and her boy lover. They will NOT emphasize the physical act but the emotion behind it.
Alex Jones has been saying this same thing for over a decade. While I’m not a conspiracy theorist the means of introduction seem logical and given enough time probable considering their success at changing cultural norms.
When I told people about this five years ago no one could believe it. It was absurd but it began years before I heard it.
I think about back in Rome(?) you were fined if you were an attractive man and didn’t have a sodomite companion. Homosexuality is a supremasist movement that wants to force everyone into sodomy no matter if they are married or children. I suppose if you think of the sodomites wanting the angels in the bible that would count as rape.
Sodomy and pedophilia are the same thing. The vagina monologues? About a 12 year old girl and a 40 something woman. Why are they teaching kintergardener’s about sodomy? Beastiality comes also.
I get the impression that pedophilia was more of a thing the left was pushing during the whole “Free Love” thing in the 60s or 70s, when it was highly aligned with (perhaps just synonymous with) the gay rights movement. (From the POV of the old DSM designations, pedophilia and homosexuality were both categorized as paraphilias, abnormal sexual orientations, just like having, IDK, a shoe fetish.) Then radical feminism rose to prominence, with its rape obsession; say what you will for them, rad fems don’t take well to the idea of old men raping little girls. Ironically, AIDS suddenly made people find gays sympathetic, and they quickly ditched the pedophilia in order to withstand their time in the public spotlight.
I remember reading–I think it was actually an assigned reading for Feminism 101, because I really can’t imagine any other circumstances under which I would have been reading such things–an essay complaining that the other gays had thrown the pedophiles under the bus in order to get public acceptance.
I doubt things will actually swing toward public acceptance or normalization of pedophilia, simply because it’s monstrous. (Yes, I recognize that people probably said the exact same thing about homosexuality 30 years ago.) However, while homosexuality has been marketed as involving two consenting adults and therefore a private matter, it’s pretty difficult to get around people instinctually identifying pedophilia as a threat to their own children; general public attitudes toward pedophiles range from “imprison for life” to “hack to pieces with axes.”
Would they be so accepting of psychopathy?
If enough muslims take over then of course it will be accepted since it already is. So is slavery. Only this time there will be no civil war to free them. Raping little girls or boys will be a normal healthy past time just like it is now in the middle east, africa and muslim areas around India.
You don’t have to be the least bit tolerant of such vile filth. Would you be sympathetic toward a person with a “proclivity toward murder?” Absurd to even countenance such an argument. And the final taboo isn’t rape, it’s incest, which they will also work to normalize. The slow ratcheting down of morality, I think Daniel Patrick moynihan called it. 40 years ago. Even DPm probably couldn’t have imagined gay marriage being upheld by the supreme court or the White House bathed in colors symbolic of sodomy.
I doubt things will actually swing toward public acceptance or normalization of abortion, simply because it’s monstrous.
Oh, wait…
Some of my comments go to spam weirdly
I found them and put them back up