Paedophile Propaganda

We will provide enough police for historic child abuse criminal investigation, says Nick Clegg
06 Jul 2014
Home Office to publish review into links with Paedophile Information Exchange within weeks
07 Jul 2014
Westminster 'paedophile ring': now where does the investigation go?
15 Nov 2014
Anonymous hackers turn fire on global paedophile menace
23 Jan 2015
Rolf Harris: Footage emerges of him joking with Jimmy Savile
01 Jul 2014
Jimmy Savile: pressure grows for full inquiry into historic child abuse
29 Jun 2014

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!”

Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. 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.

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”.

Graham Powell is one of the country’s most distinguished psychologists, a past president of the British Psychological Society and a current provider of psychology support services to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Crime Squad, the Metropolitan Police, Kent Police, Essex Police and the Internet Watch Foundation.

In Perspectives on Paedophilia, however, he co-authored a chapter which stated: “In the public mind, paedophile attention is generally assumed to be traumatic and to have lasting and wholly deleterious consequences for the victim. The evidence that we have considered here does not support this view … we need to ask not why are the effects of paedophile action so large, but why so small.”

The chapter does admit that there were “methodological problems” with the studies the authors relied on which “leave our conclusions somewhat muted”. Dr Powell told The Sunday Telegraph last week that “what I wrote was completely wrong and it is a matter of deep regret that it could in any way have made things more difficult [for victims]”. He said: “The literature [scientific evidence] was so poor in 1981, people just didn’t realise what was going on. There was a lack of understanding at the academic level.” Dr Powell said he had never been a member of PIE.

In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts.

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. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people.

Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.

Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences.

But 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.

It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular.

Even so, there really is now no shortage of evidence about the harm done by child abuse. In the latest frenzy about the crimes of the past, it’s worth watching whether we could, in the future, go back to the intellectual climate which allowed them.

Paedophilia: The Radical Case ex Wiki
Paedophilia: The Radical Case is a 1980 book about paedophilia by the paedophile activist Tom O'Carroll, former chairman of the defunct Paedophile Information Exchange, in which the author advocates the normalization of adult-child sexual relationships. It had a mixed reception. Critics of O'Carroll's arguments pointed out that young girls need protection from sexual abuse by adult men.

Summary
The book is partly autobiographical, and the first part is devoted to O'Carroll's life history. The second is about the concept of paedophilia and the third concerns the activities of the Paedophile Information Exchange. "I am not interested in why I am a paedophile," he writes "any more than others are interested in why they are 'normal'".^[1]

O'Carroll advocates the normalization of adult-child sexual relationships. He states his belief that each stage of the sexual relationship between an adult and child can be "negotiated", with "hints and signals, verbal and nonverbal, by which each indicates to the other what is acceptable and what is not... the man might start by saying what pretty knickers the girl was wearing, and he would be far more likely to proceed to the next stage of negotiation if she seemed pleased by the remark".^[2]

Reception
Paedophilia: The Radical Case was reviewed by the journalist Mary-Kay Wilmers in the London Review of Books,^[1] the psychoanalyst Charles Rycroft in The Times Literary Supplement,^[3] John Rae in the Times Educational Supplement,^[4] Maurice Yaffé in New Statesman,^[5] and Eric Taylor in New Society.^[6] Reviewers were sharply divided. Wilmers, Rycroft and Rae were dismissive,^[1]^[3]^[4] while Yaffé and Taylor were strongly supportive of the author, if not entirely of the "radical case" he had set out.^[5]^[6]

The book was also reviewed by Ken Plummer in Gay News, Hubert Kennedy Books in The Advocate, and Wallace Hamilton in Christopher Street. These reviews were broadly sympathetic.^[7]^[8]^[9] Jim Monk reviewed the book in The Body Politic, writing that while O'Carroll carefully researched and documented his arguments, O'Carroll's personal interest in having sex with children meant that he was not "disinterested" and his work was not academic. While he granted that many of O'Carroll's arguments had been made before, he credited O'Carroll with being the first to bring those arguments together into a comprehensive work, and with making a compelling case. He accepted O'Carroll's view that consensual sex does not interfere with a child's emotional or sexual maturation. Nevertheless, he had reservations, pointing to the possibility of heterosexual men sexually abusing young girls. He criticised O'Carroll's treatment of incest, writing that while O'Carroll stated he would not deal with the topic, he nevertheless implied that "sex play between parents and their children" was desirable. He argued in response that "father-daughter affairs" were not "healthy". He concluded that the book was the solution to problems facing the gay rights movement in Canada, which according to him was suffering from a feeling that its strategies were lacking.^[10]

Gerald Jones gave the book a positive review in the Journal of Homosexuality. Although he described the book as "plainly a political manifesto" and observed that O'Carroll faced the "problem of his own credibility as a pedophile writing a book about pedophilia", he nevertheless credited O'Carroll with "remarkable objectivity".^[11]

The sociologist Jeffrey Weeks described the book as "the most sustained advocacy" of "intergenerational sex". However, he believed that there were two powerful arguments against O'Carroll's views about the possibility of children consenting to sex: the feminist argument that "young people, especially young girls, do need protection from adult men in an exploitative and patriarchal society" and the argument that while adults are fully aware of the sexual connotations of their actions, young people are not, and that there is thus "an inherent and inevitable structural imbalance in awareness of the situation."^[12]

The political scientist Sheila Jeffreys, discussing what she saw as inappropriate support for paedophilia by gay men, noted that in an autobiographical section of Paedophilia: The Radical Case, O'Carroll denied that he is homosexual. She argued that O'Carroll's "interest in children stems from a determination not to become a homosexual", suggesting that when he was growing up, O'Carroll dealt with his "fear of losing face and status by following a sexual interest in boys his own age" by "developing an interest in younger and less powerful boys who could not cause him any loss of power." She further argued that this was "a familiar problem in the male gay subculture."^[13]

The criminology lecturer Kieran Mccartan uses Paedophilia: The Radical Case as an example of "how sex offenders justify themselves".^[14]

The sexologist Richard Green included the book as recommended reading for his students at Cambridge University.^[15]

‘We need the pedophile’ Child-love sympathizer to keynote conference at University of Toronto [ 11 October 2013 ]
The headline is verbatim.
TORONTO, October 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A childhood education conference to take place next weekend at the University of Toronto will feature keynote speaker Dr. James Kincaid, a Professor of English at the University of Southern California who has been criticized as being highly sympathetic to pedophiles.

The conference titled "Bodies at Play: Sexuality, Childhood and Classroom Life" is sponsored by the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies under the auspices of the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

"Kincaid's earlier work in Victorian literature and culture and in literary theory has yielded to publication in cultural studies, most recently in the history and current cultural practices of eroticizing children and instituting elaborate scapegoating rituals to disguise what we are doing," Kincaid's biography in the conference announcement states.

Kincaid is an American academic whose studies into the sexualization of children have led him to the conclusion that all adults are secretly sexually attracted to children but use revulsion at the actions of overt pedophiles to hide their inner feelings.

"If the child is desirable, then to desire it can hardly be freakish,” Kincaid wrote in his book Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture. "To maintain otherwise is to put into operation pretty hefty engines of denial and self-deception."

He believes society condemns pedophilia in order to maintain its moral posturing, while living through child molesters vicariously.

"So, what about the way we talk about child-loving? The talk is monster-talk, first of all, talk that is busy rejecting the pedophile," Kincaid wrote. "We need the pedophile to fill our emptiness, provide the matter we otherwise miss, create our own form of existence."

Kincaid's other books include Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting, My Secret Life, and Novels of Anthony Trollope.

Dr. Charles McVety of the Institute for Canadian Values has written an open letter to Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, asking that Kincaid be denied entry into the country.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

"On behalf of the 125,000 members of the Institute for Canadian Values and Canada Family Action, we request that the Minister refuse admission of Dr. James Kincaid to Canada for a lecture on October 19th, 2013 in Toronto," Dr. McVety wrote.

"Dr. Kincaid is a well-known advocate for pedophilia, a criminal activity in Canada," the letter states. "His work has been roundly condemned by the New York Times, The Daily Mail, several British Members of Parliament, and Michael Hames of Scotland Yard."

Dr. McVety adds that "the infamous organization NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) lists Dr. Kincaid as an advocate while depending on his arguments for the advancement of child abuse. Dr. Kincaid admittedly refers to himself as a "theoretical pedophile" and frequently uses the collective terms "we" or "us" when discussing child molesters."

Dr. McVety concluded, "For the sake of the millions of innocent children across Canada we ask that you refuse Dr. Kincaid's entry to this country in the midst of your government taking actions to protect children for [ sic ] the very thing Kincaid promotes - the criminal abuse of children.”

Contact:
The Honourable Chris Alexander, P.C., M.P.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1L1
E-mail: Minister@cic.gc.ca

Paedophilia a 'sexual orientation - like being straight or gay' [ claims Ian Johnston - @montaukian - 3 April 2016 ]
QUOTE
Paedophilia is a “sexual orientation” like being straight or gay, according to a criminal psychologist. The idea that sexual attraction to children is an “orientation” is highly controversial as it suggests that offenders cannot change.
UNQUOTE
Murderers can change, in fact they do if e.g. they are hanged.

Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt, Theresa May told [ 15 Dec 2010 ]
QUOTE
Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.

In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

A review is currently ongoing into the Vetting and Barring Scheme, introduced following the 2002 Soham murders, amid concerns by ministers that it is too heavy handed.

As well as banning certain offenders, the law currently requires adults coming into regular contact with children other than their own to be screened.

Mrs May ordered the review amid concerns about the vetting of ordinary volunteers such as parents who drive children to football practice and church flower arrangers.
UNQUOTE
The headline is verbatim. Theresa May is dangerous but she might not be vicious or stupid enough to swallow this lie. The Lunatic Fringe is out there looking for chances to inflict their bloody silly opinions on the rest of us.

Paedophiles Market Themselves As Minor Attracted Persons With BBC Backing [ 29 June 2020 ]
QUOTE
Britain's most notorious child-sex offenders are using mainstream websites such as YouTube, Twitter and Instagram to rebrand paedophilia as a harmless sexual preference, an investigation for The Mail on Sunday has found. Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted-Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.

The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community. LGBT-style slogans such as ‘#MAPPride’ and ‘#Mappositivity’, are seen as an attempt to cast paedophilia as part of society’s wider move towards sexual liberation. Material found online includes memes proclaiming ‘Gay MAPs are amazing’ and cartoon characters saying: ‘Repost if you think maps should be able to date minors.’ One paedophile account @SandMapMinorva – since suspended – posted: ‘Minor-attraction is natural.’

Profiles of the anonymous users, which use cartoon avatars rather than photographs, often list the ages of children they are most attracted to, in some cases as low as ‘two to seven’.

Otep Shamaya, a gay rights campaigner, said: ‘They are a fiendish group of sub-humans and they will find no haven in the LGBTQ community. We utterly rebuke their delusional and evil claims.’.
UNQUOTE
The Mail has not fingered the BBC even though they are guilty as Hell; I do - see Paedophile Propaganda for some of the evidence. The Mail is also censoring comments again; it is nervous about the truth. The Beeb protected Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and several other Paedophile Perverts as a matter of policy. They succeeded in marketing Homosexuality. Later they will try in on with Bestiality when they think they can get away with it. The "LGBTQ+ community" don't need this lot of perverts queering their pitch.

Netflix Is Marketing Paedophile Perversion [ 20 September 2020 ]
QUOTE
Netflix Sees Drop in Subscriptions as People Protest Pedophile-Positive Film “Cuties”

People were of course not ready for the full pornofication of prepubescent girls. But someone had to be the first to promote it. Netflix is taking one for the Satanist team.

Penn Live:

People are cutting the Netflix cord after the platform’s release of the French film, “Cuties.”

According to FOX Business, numbers gained by research firm, YipitData, show a significant increase in users who chose not to renew their subscriptions after the movie’s premiere. The streaming behemoth even saw a 1.3 percent drop in shares on Monday.

“Cuties” (or “Migonnes” in its original French) follows the story of Amy (Fathia Youssouf) who seeks to escape her family’s traditional conservative ways by joining a dance group. While this may sound like a lighthearted coming-of-age story, audiences became outraged over the sexualized nature of the film, particularly that of its core cast of 11-year-old girls..............

If you feel heartened by the fact that people are not ready for literal pedophilia – please, don’t be. The people who produced this didn’t think people would be ready for it. This is the beginning of a process of normalization.

They will release other media portraying preteen girls this way. Probably very soon – within the year. When the next thing comes out, the same people who were outraged this time will be outraged. But they will be less outraged. Because that is the process of desensitization.
UNQUOTE
The Puppet Masters are at it again; aren't they always? They succeeded in marketing Homosexuality as a life style choice. Quote if you haven't tried it don't knock it unquote. The BBC was at the forefront of that; it still is. Protecting Paedophiles is BBC policy. Jimmy Savile is just one of their known favourites. This time it is girls in France in a "lighthearted coming-of-age story". These are girls of eleven [ 11 ] years old. This is not just Paedophile Propaganda, it is Social Engineering, using the Mainstream Media to desensitise us. The Wikipedia gives us a synopsis and makes it sound inoffensive - see Cuties. The Wiki is just as corrupt as the rest. The Irish Savant got this abomination right when he wrote The Paedophilia Rights Project is underway. You doubt it? See e.g. 'Paedophiles Need Help, Not Condemnation - I Should Know' Says BBC

Netflix Cancellations Increase By 800 Percent After It Incites Paedophiles [ 25 October 2020 ]
The Mail's readers are seriously on side with this one. Be aware that the BBC doesn't just protect the likes of Jimmy Savile. It markets his perversions as well. See e.g. Paedophiles Market Themselves As Minor Attracted Persons With BBC Backing.

Minor Attracted Person ex Wiki
QUOTE
Minor-attracted person (MAP) is an umbrella term for people with any condition that means they are sexually attracted to minors (those below the age of consent), including:

Look up nepiophilia, infantophilia, paedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, MAP, or NOMAP in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Pedophilia – attraction to pre-pubescent children
Hebephilia – attraction to pubescent children/early adolescents
Ephebophilia – attraction to late adolescents

UNQUOTE
Yes, the Wikipedia is there again, keeping you up to speed on perversions you never even thought about, far less tried.

Paedophiles Want Sympathy - Media Helping Them [ 19 November 2021 ]
QUOTE
‘Minor-attracted persons’ – or ‘paedophiles’, in old-fashioned parlance – are not deserving of our sympathy or indulgence, and no amount of woke, academic gibberish will make sane people think otherwise.

Gradually, they are inching towards their goal.

An assistant professor in criminal justice at Old Dominion University, Virginia by the name of Allyn Walker [ a trannie ] (who identifies as ‘non-binary’) has written a book titled ‘A Long Dark Shadow’. The purpose of this work is a sympathetic examination of what the woke progressives now refer to as ‘minor-attracted people’, or ‘MAPS’ (paedophiles, to you and me), in order to “address the stigma surrounding them.”

In a Prostasia Foundation interview, Walker says:

“Having an attraction to minors as long as it isn’t acted on, doesn’t mean that the person who has those attractions is doing something wrong... I think we have a tendency to want to categorize people with these attractions as evil or morally corrupt … From my perspective, there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone, because no one can control who they’re attracted to at all.”..............

It is likely already too late to save Allyn Walker, but as a university professor ‘they/their’ delusions may proliferate and ultimately harm, to a much greater degree, coming generations. Young people may soon find themselves growing up in a world without any discernible ethical framework to protect them.
UNQUOTE
The Daily Mail, often a worthy source tell us that Walker is a trannie. No, not a transvestite but a Transgender crazy. He, she or it can be saved by the gallows. It would certainly cure lots of others. Be aware that the BBC & the Guardian are both in the business of marketing this perversion. See Paedophile Propaganda for more and better details.

Paedophile Propaganda

Related Articles