The world has rightly been shocked over revelations that big name entertainers like Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile have been found guilty of horrible child abuse crimes. But sadly this is really just the tip of the iceberg it seems. Not only is paedophilia an ongoing problem, but the worst bit is how many are actually trying to justify all this.
As much as some people want to live in dreamland here, the sad reality is this: there most certainly is a slippery slope in action here. The deniers can nay-say this all they like, but we have proof of this slope all over the place. Everywhere we look we see various sleazy sexualities being seriously promoted and defended.
And so much of this is due to the success of the homosexual lobby in pushing its agenda. Many others are emboldened by the wins of the homosexualists, and they too are now demanding their piece of the pie. They know quite rightly that the exact same arguments used for something like homosexual marriage can be used for things like group marriage, “intergenerational sex” and other radical sexual causes.
I document all this very carefully and in great detail in my forthcoming book, Dangerous Relations. Whether it is the push for polyamory, or paedophilia, or incest, or bestiality, or what have you, all these movements have now come out of the closet big time, following the homosexual activists and the handy groundwork they have laid.
Of course the slope goes back a bit further than this. In the 60s we managed to convince ourselves that sexuality can somehow be separated from procreation. Thus we took the colossal step of saying marriage was not important, and that de facto and cohabiting relationships were equally fine.
Concerned voices back then warned that if we grant all these special rights to non-married relationships, it would not stop there. Many warned that special rights for homosexuals and homosexual marriage would be the next step once this door was opened.
Of course such people were laughed at, mocked, ridiculed and abused by the secular lefties. “This will never happen! You are just fear-mongering. There is no slippery slope. You are a nut job.” And of course the very thing we warned about is now reality.
And so the same ridicule and smear tactics are being used against those warning about all the other sexual perversions that will follow. They cannot deny the evidence here – they can only abuse and mock and pour scorn on those who are connecting the dots.
The issue of polyamory alone is being promoted everywhere, even in academic and legal circles. I recently had to start a new category heading on my website on this, and already I have 45 articles documenting the push for polyamory.
And believe me, we have the same with paedophilia. All over the place we have voices calling for the legalisation of “intergenerational” sexual relationships. ‘If it is consensual, what is the harm?’ they ask. They are taking the same page out of the homosexual playbook by also claiming people are born this way, and it is unjust and discriminatory to deny them their “rights”.
I have written about this numerous times now. But a recent article out of the UK nicely provides more careful documentation and evidence about all this. Andrew Gilligan has written an important piece looking very closely at the attempt to make paedophilia fully normal and acceptable. He begins:
“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.” Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge. Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds. Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”
He mentions the current cases in the news and continues:
But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex. A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today.
With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia.
In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”.
The public, wrote Dr Taylor, “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. That, he reassured readers, was merely a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of the “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. Why, most adult-child sexual relationships occurred in the family!
The perspectives of most, though not all, the contributors, appeared strongly pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, (who was, incredibly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work) was later convicted of child sex crimes. But from the viewpoint of today, the fascinating thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are still academically active and influential.
He reminds us that the American Psychiatric Association (APA), is now fiercely debating this just as it did homosexuality a few decades ago. Just as homosexual activists pressured the APA to drop homosexuality from the list of disorders in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the 70s, so too now the paedophilia rights crowd are working on the APA.
Says Gilligan, “After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated.” He explains in detail the battle over this, and concludes:
Perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled, and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said.
The push to normalise and make fully acceptable homosexuality is largely over. We are now witnessing before our very eyes the exact same attempt to normalise paedophilia and to make it fully acceptable. Will we sit back and do nothing, as we so often have done in the past, or will we now finally wake up and fight this with all our might?
Oh, and the next time someone tells you there is no slippery slope, you can tell him to take a hike.
27 Replies to “Promoting Paedophilia”
The war against paedophilia etc. is difficult when we have a competing civilization whose civil law code (Sharia) makes this permissible.
Since Rolf has been sent to gaol, I’ve been wondering just how institutionalised sexual abuse is in the ‘Entertainment’ industry. Where young girls are exposed to Celebrity-ism, and where I suspect it is a world fraught with cover-up. Moreso than the realm of paedophile priests you would have more self-interest in execs protecting their star attraction than believing the poor victim.
I suspect a huge amount of pandering, buddying up and celebrity ego would make the entire Entertainment Industry an extremely protectionist racket.
All the kids who suffer celebrity worship and who have stars in their eyes would just have to be so vulnerable in this environment. I’m sure you would even have adults who suffer from this celebrity worship too. And adults who are too concerned about keeping their jobs to speak out against things they have seen.
I know Tracey Spicer wrote something recently about all this. But still too scared to name names.
All the focus on the Churches’ peadophile priests in the media…is this just the Entertainment Industry’s means of deflection?
Sin is normal in human males- and females, too, I believe. We all know that and these people are telling us nothing there, although to imply that normal men want to violate children or anybody else is pure humbug and mischief-making.
It’s hard to imagine a more unmanly, cissy, wimpish, weak excuse for outrageous behaviour. So many clever experts want us to celebrate anarchy, debauchery, unbelief and doing what comes naturally. Perhaps we should be more clearly warning people of the wages of sin, and what our Lord said about deliberately leading the innocent into sin.
Whilst I am in total agreement with the contents of this article, I think it’s a tactical mistake to describe all underage sex with an adult as “paedophilia”, even if the public at large does so – mistakenly. Our opponents are clear to make the distinction between paedophilia (sex with a pre-pubescent child) and hebephilia (sex with children in early puberty). Then there is ephebephilia (sex with children in later puberty) as well. We need to argue more accurately and adopt these categories in order not to lose credibility.
If the push to normalise homosexuality is considered to be “over”, then it’s clear that millions and millions of people are incredibly gullible….just as Jesus said they would be. I regularly hear folk saying “oh well, it’s the law now, so we can’t do anything”….I guess they’ll be saying the same thing when governments start passing laws to lower the age of consent and give permission for child marriages.
Every child, whether male or female, will be lined up to be the target of incredible “legalised” abuse if these ghastly people overpower governments with their demands for “rights”. And if anyone thinks homosexual men never think about having it away with minors, I can say that I once watched a gay man staring at children intently, in a bar lounge, especially small boys. You could see the thoughts running round in the man’s eyes.
Thankfully many more millions have not accepted homosexuality as “normal” and never will. You may know that the UK government is desperately trying to keep the lid on a huge paedophile worm-can that is being dragged inexorably into the light of day, involving politicians over several decades.
While our foolish populations lie back and “accept” adult gays, maybe they won’t be quite so apathetic when it comes to the involvement of children. But I won’t hold my breath. The satanic stranglehold on people’s minds is enormous.
Thanks Ian. But paedophilia of course is normally used in the generic sense as well, referring to the condition of being sexually attracted to children. There is nothing terribly amiss with using it in that broader sense. But thanks for your thoughts.
The devil is very active in the APA, I know that if someone were to harm my children that would be the last thing they did. My point is any normal adult or parent would ever think that paedophilia and the active pursuit to sexually abuse children is normal, but the medical specialidiots will try to find a reason to excuse it. No these stupidity has to be countered and weeded out.
thanks and God bless
Some disturbing quotes here –
Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …
“Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.”
As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of ‘child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … ‘childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.”
Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing ‘bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a ‘bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”.
The professor obviously has never spoken to any victims of paedophilia.
And it is already so entrenched:
“There is evidence at least 20 prominent figures – including former MPs and government ministers – abused children for “decades”, a former child protection manager has claimed.”
It’s a while since I read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, but I recall being stunned by a scene early in the book where erotic play between children was portrayed as an ‘enlightened’ social norm. The contention of Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues that little children are erotic creatures is now given credence in state-sponsored educational SRE curricula and their underpinning ideologies. I wonder what Sigmund Freud would think of the 21st-Century fruits of a core principle of his theory of human psychology?
Let me say at the outset: Rolf Harris is a convicted paedophile who couldn’t keep his hands to himself, whose unwanted sexual advances have caught up with him and landed him in jail, and justly so.
That said, however, I have some questions:
1. What happened to the statute of limitations? Some of these offences were more than 40 years ago, in his young days. If one is to be vilified for the follies we have committed in our youth we are all dead men! What does the Psalmist say, “Do not remember the sins of my youth or my transgressions” (Psa.25:7). It is the mark of the godless world that they never forget, and will pursue people to their grave over the sins and faults of youth. Remember what the left did to Peter Hollingworth as Governor General back in 2002 – over alleged faults from 45 years before!
2. The hypocrisy of our modern selective, lobby-driven morality is seen clearly when we compare the fate of Rolf Harris with the hero-worship of Michael Jackson. The latter was a thoroughly corrupt “weirdo” and child-abuser, one from the very dregs of the modern entertainment industry, a thoroughly reprehensible character in all sorts of ways, whose “music” (in my view) contributed nothing to the repertoire of good music. Yet while Harris is vilified as a criminal, Jackson is exalted as a folk-hero. Go figure!
I’m looking forward to your new book, Bill.
Murray, many times when a child is abused they are not ready to go to the police until decades later. They have often faced a traumatic childhood as a result of the abuse and come forward ( if at all) many years later to support others who may have come forward or to start healing their pain.
Getting a conviction of a paedophile goes a long way towards healing the pain and injustice suffered by the innocent victims in many cases for their entire life.
Do you have a release date for the new edition of your book please? Or have I missed it.
Thanks Gerard. Unfortunately there have been many delays outside of my control, so it is still not out. But I could hope for a September release date.
I raised a couple of questions. I would like to know your view.
I realise that, but 40 – 50 years?? How clear is one’s memory after all that time? Moreover, I have questions over the reliability of the testimony of teenage girls (they do tend inter alia to fantasise), and their recollections of what happened in their teenage years, especially from 40 to 50 years on. I fear that the reputations of many men have been unfairly damaged by acceptance of such testimony.
Murray, victims would not willingly come forward without a great deal of courage as in most cases the rate of convictions is very low if you go it alone not to mention the stresses of cross examination.
The whole thing about paedophilia is that the victim is groomed over time to feel sorry for the perpetrator and unlikely to tell so many years often pass before a victim can make sense of what happened (if ever) and see what they have actually lost. When more victims of the one person come forward, it’s more likely that a conviction is made.
It can take decades and the police and the DPP are reluctant to press forward unless the memories are clear and some evidence is available. Many times the charges are only the tip of the iceberg because unless you can remember good detail and a rough date of each offence, the charges are not laid. In other words, Rolf Harris may have done far worse and more than is outlined in court but the statements of victims are not strong enough to pursue those charges.
Victims don’t tend to fantasize these things as the shame, pain and embarrassment of going to court and to outline what was done to you in great detail to the police for a statement is awful and serious enough. The way that many people believe what the victim is saying is “fantasy” or “untrue” stops many paedophiles from ever facing justice as the victims are not willing to be labelled in that way.
Can you tell me details of the “many men have been unfairly damaged by acceptance of such testimony”?
I find it hard to believe there would be “many”!
Thanks Murray. I of course am not a legal expert, so cannot fully answer your first question, although some of his child abuse activity was much more recent than just 40 years ago it seems. And yes, there is plenty of inconsistency and hypocrisy here about much of this.
I actually know a fair bit about the processes involved. In NSW, the limitation period for bringing child sexual abuse claims in civil proceedings is typically between three and 12 years from the date of the offence. There is no statute of limitation in criminal cases meaning that if you approach police say, 80 years after the abuse presuming the perpetrator is still alive, you can still get justice.
It is becoming clear that we are not going to agree on this issue, but in response I make the following observations:
1. You ask for details of cases where men’s reputations have been unfairly damaged. I could outline several, but I would not even give details, let alone name names – for privacy reasons.
2. The testimony of psychiatrists and psychologists is taken as “expert testimony”, but at times there is the problem: certain theories and methods in psychiatric “treatment” allow them to put ideas in the minds of alleged victims. I know this from actual cases that have come to my attention.
3. To expect anything like proper justice in this world is utopian. Of course, for the atheistic leftist there is no justice beyond this world, hence he has no option but to pursue people to their graves in this world. Earthly judges must do what they can, but in the end leave the rest to the Judge of all. After death justice is done (Heb.9:27), and at the Last Judgment of the Great Day (Jude 6) justice will be seen to be done. In this light, I believe firmly in a statute of limitations, perhaps 40 years max in paedophilia cases.
Murray, I do agree with you on your 3rd point that there is no true justice here in this world but the pursuit of justice for victims of crime in this world is very important on two counts.
1. for the victim to feel a sense of justice and acknowledgement for suffering and
2. as a public deterrent for other would be paedophiles to know that they won’t get away with hurting innocent children and may think twice about doing so.
I don’t meant names and details need be supplied but if you say “many men have been unfairly damaged by acceptance of such testimony”” there must be statistics backing this up. Generally speaking many paedophiles never face justice and the assumption by many people that children make the allegations up is a belief that has helped many a paedophile pursue victims and victims afraid to speak out. It blames the victims again.
Many crimes do not involve a victim being scrutinised, ridiculed and disbelieved as much as paedophilia.
If the testimony of a victim is properly investigated based on the“treatment” you say would allow the psychologist or psychiatrist to put ideas in the minds of alleged victims it would be fairly obvious that the testimony is fabricated and would not stand up in a court case. This is because of the very detailed questions asked when statements are made and the DPP will not proceed if there is a doubtful evidence and a lack of credibility.
The concept of a Moral “slippery slope” is clearly the case. Moreover, as Murray R. Adamthwaite observed
“The hypocrisy of our modern selective, lobby-driven morality is seen clearly when we compare the fate of Rolf Harris with the hero-worship of Michael Jackson. The latter was a thoroughly corrupt “weirdo” and child-abuser, one from the very dregs of the modern entertainment industry, a thoroughly reprehensible character in all sorts of ways, whose “music” (in my view) contributed nothing to the repertoire of good music. Yet while Harris is vilified as a criminal, Jackson is exalted as a folk-hero. Go figure!”
I agree that there are glaring discrepancies such as the Rolf Harris and Michael Jackson situation. Maybe it is partly due to the differences in the British and US legal system.
I think we have each said our piece, There is, I think, a difference of perspective on each side, but I don’t wish to pursue the issue any further, although I could say a lot more.
We’ll leave it there. God bless.
Have you seen this, Bill?
And idiots say there’s no such thing as the slippery slope.
Thanks Antonia. Yes I have, and I wrote it up here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/07/10/umm-we-told-you-so/
This article in today’s paper supports the tests of evidence by the DPP regarding child sex abuse cases that I have referred to above.