Post: #151

(06-01-2016 05:01 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  There are sick jokes in the Caribbean about how female teachers from the West are teaching "practical" Sexual Education to students. This is how people from foreign countries perceive the West to be so degenerate, that teachers are mandating to have sex with their students as "sexual health".

Police search for teacher, pregnant with a 13-year old's child

Post: #152

(05-31-2016 09:14 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  [quote='AnonymousBosch' pid='1313607' dateline='1464686561']
^ Well, realistically, what is stopping the Alt-Right organising and spreading this information and reaching out to School Parents Groups and Child Abuse Agencies, organising protests and marching down to the Salon's offices, entering the premises and occupying them?

Some food for thought:

Quote: Riot police broke up far-right protesters in Cologne on Saturday as they marched against Germany’s open-door migration policy after asylum seekers were identified as suspects in assaults on women on New Year’s Eve. Police said around 1,700 people attended the rally organized by the far-right anti-Islam PEGIDA movement, which has seized on the alleged involvement of migrants in the Cologne attacks as proof Merkel’s policy is flawed. A police spokesman said roughly half of those at the PEGIDA protest were from the ‘hooligan scene’. Some in the crowd threw bottles and fire crackers at officers, and riot police used water canon to disperse the protesters. Two people were injured in the clash, and police detained a number of demonstrators, a Reuters witness said. In all, about 1,700 police officers were on the streets of Cologne, dwarfing the number on duty during the chaotic scenes of New Year’s Eve when at least 120 women were robbed or sexually molested. “The events on New Year’s Eve led to a lot of emotion,” said a police spokesman. “We had feared that emotions would boil over.”

This food is rotten.

1,700 people attended the rally and there were 1,700 police officers?

Does not compute.

Post: #153

(06-01-2016 05:01 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 11:38 AM)EDantes Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 08:10 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  ^ They gonna "normalize pedophilia" for the LGBTQP crowd and feminazis, but they will continue to demonize men for preferring hot 21-year-old chicks as of 2016, not adjusted for inflation.

If I recall right back in the 1960s and 70s NAMBLA and pro-pedophile groups were subfactions within the LGBT rights movement.

They apparently dawned a lower profile after the counter-culture movement died down but are now attempting resurgence again, probably because the internet allows counter culture extremists unrestricted publicity which wasn't available in the past.

If they keep pushing this though it may lead to the SJW movement splintering within; I don't think they're ever going to be able to reconcile feminism with men who get off to 5 year old girls.

Wow...NAMBLA

My theory, which I copied partially from Roosh during his speech, is that the society will criminalize the average man for having sex with a legal-age chick, but they will celebrate the actions of the female teacher or LGBTQ freak for having sex with a 12-year-old, which means that the pedophilia will be allowed only for the government class, but the Average Joe who wants to have sex with 5-year-old girls will be attacked and shamed as usual, unless he becomes a civil servant or member of the LGBTQ protected class.

This is why many people are disturbed at the Sex-ed which is currently being taught in the West. There are already freaks in education and childcare who aim to show pornography to 5-year-old Kindergarten students under the "veil" of sex-ed, while currently an 18-year-old Average Joe who shows porn to a 17-year-old is convicted of sex crimes against a minor.

There are sick jokes in the Caribbean about how female teachers from the West are teaching "practical" Sexual Education to students. This is how people from foreign countries perceive the West to be so degenerate, that teachers are mandating to have sex with their students as "sexual health".

I would not be surprised if a feminazi teacher/LGBTQ member claims that engaging in sexual activity with 12-year-old school children are considered "sexual education", while they bleat out that 30-year-old men who date 21-year-old women are "pedophiles", and also lobbying for laws which specifically imprisons 18-year-old young men for dating 17-year-olds regardless if it was the 17-year-old female who initiated the relationship.

Long ago, sex-ed used to be talking about mainly from a biological perspective, but now it appears that since the rise of feminism and LGBTQP movements, they have radically changed the Sex-Ed to sexualize young kids.

Adding on, one of the co-authors in the Ontario 2015 Sexual Education health curriculum is in jail for lurking on pedophile forums to procure people to molest prepubescent children and posession of child pornography..He's viewed as a credible University Professor in Toronto who lectures teaching graduates at UofT.

Definitely appears that the radical left is motivated by nihilism, destruction of the "status quo" just for the sake of destruction.

Anything considered "normal" is basically a tool of oppression by "the evil majority", and anything considered deviant, up to and including lustful desires toward 5 year olds is therefore good simply because it offends the majority. Their only goal is to destroy regardless of what they "replace" it with.

Post: #154

(06-01-2016 10:25 PM)LeeEnfield303 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 05:01 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  There are sick jokes in the Caribbean about how female teachers from the West are teaching "practical" Sexual Education to students. This is how people from foreign countries perceive the West to be so degenerate, that teachers are mandating to have sex with their students as "sexual health".

Police search for teacher, pregnant with a 13-year old's child

I've heard of cases like this where the underage boy was still forced by the state to pay child support for the child despite being a victim of molestation.

How ironic, because apparently the state thinks that the boy is too young to consent to sex, yet still somehow "consented" to raising a baby. (Imagine if an adult male impregnated a 13 year old girl, and the state forced her to provide child visitation rights to her rapist).

Post: #155

(05-31-2016 02:43 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Notice how in cases like this, as well as the LGBT movement, these people are never content just being perverts in their own bedrooms; they feel a need to demand society's larger "acceptance" of it?

Not only do they want a "right" to be a pervert by they think they have a "right" for everyone else to like what they do? Never totally understood that honestly.

They are never content with being themselves and just having their own private lives anymore. And now that they have been given social immunity, their compulsion to spread their diseased worldview keeps growing along with their need to bolster their perpetually dying ranks.

Post: #156

(06-02-2016 01:30 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 02:43 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Notice how in cases like this, as well as the LGBT movement, these people are never content just being perverts in their own bedrooms; they feel a need to demand society's larger "acceptance" of it?

Not only do they want a "right" to be a pervert by they think they have a "right" for everyone else to like what they do? Never totally understood that honestly.

They are never content with being themselves and just having their own private lives anymore. And now that they have been given social immunity, their compulsion to spread their diseased worldview keeps growing along with their need to bolster their perpetually dying ranks.

Yeah, the internet seems to be bolstering them since it gives them unrestricted ability to push fringe views which wouldn't get on mainstream media in the past.

Though the internet may be their downfall as well, since people can now see first hand just what's being pushed in these universities and "safe spaces". Even though the entertainment industry is promoting their views as the "norm" this is really an illusion I believe; most of the entertainment industry is just a holdover from the Baby Boomer counter-culturists of the 1960s who went on to take over our universities and entertainment, but the more that average joes wake up to this, and shun MSM in favor of independent outlets the less ability they'll have to force their fringe views on the masses.

Post: #157

Just found this; apparently Salon.com's "virtuous pedophile" may be an actual child molester and advocate of "pro-contact pedophilia":

http://louderwithcrowder.com/salon-com-p...-his-past/

Someone really ought to start contacting Salon's advertisers and initiating a boycott.

Post: #158

(06-02-2016 01:30 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 02:43 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Notice how in cases like this, as well as the LGBT movement, these people are never content just being perverts in their own bedrooms; they feel a need to demand society's larger "acceptance" of it?

Not only do they want a "right" to be a pervert by they think they have a "right" for everyone else to like what they do? Never totally understood that honestly.

They are never content with being themselves and just having their own private lives anymore. And now that they have been given social immunity, their compulsion to spread their diseased worldview keeps growing along with their need to bolster their perpetually dying ranks.

Thus the need for homo men to 'turn' boys on a constant basis....thanks, Boy Scouts..../sarc

Post: #159

(06-01-2016 10:25 PM)LeeEnfield303 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 05:01 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  There are sick jokes in the Caribbean about how female teachers from the West are teaching "practical" Sexual Education to students. This is how people from foreign countries perceive the West to be so degenerate, that teachers are mandating to have sex with their students as "sexual health".

Police search for teacher, pregnant with a 13-year old's child

As any "empowered" woman, she would have been likely to have called the SWAT team if an 18-year-old male approached her, or even looked at her while she was teaching in class wearing thigh-bearing outfits, as some of her photographs have suggested.

Femi-nazis definitely appear to "don't need no man" because they already got their 13-year-old boys!

When are 13-year-old boys going to pay taxes, because if femi-nazis are refusing to have sex with grown men and criminalizing men in the process, why are men paying taxes for female teachers to get their freak on with barely teenage boys in the first place? Oh yes, the IRS and CRA use the heavily armed thugs in blue to force a man to pay taxes so that femi-nazi teachers can use their job to sex an underaged student.

Post: #160

News.com.au: Doctor studying sexual abuse says we need to change our social response to perpetrators

Quote:THE thought of giving a sex offender a second chance is a hard pill to swallow.

Why should they be given the opportunity to move on in life, after taking the innocence away from another person; particularly a child.

But Andrew Frost, who has been working alongside both offenders and victims for the past 30 years, says in order to rehabilitate these types of offenders — who we often demonise as “monsters” — the method of shunning is not the right way.

“The role of demonising sex offenders, and turning them into monsters gets in the way of detection and investigation of these people,” Dr Frost told news.com.au.

“We all think they are monsters, and when we find out who they are we turn them into monsters — and that doesn’t help at all in any way.”

As October marks Sexual Awareness Month, Dr Frost is in Brisbane today to give a talk on deconstructing the sexual offender at Central Queensland University’s Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research.

Dr Frost will be among several experts speaking on the subject, which will include a discussion around the key consequences of demonising an abuser, and how we should be dealing with these people once they are released from prison.

“There are two regrettable consequences of demonising an abuser,” Dr Frost said.

“The first is that we are less likely to recognise them, such as celebrities. For many decades, cases like Rolf Harris [and Robert Hughes] didn’t come to light until a long time afterwards — because they weren’t the creepy men in the shadows like we are lead to believe all sex offenders are.

“These types of abusers aren’t jumping out from behind a bush with a lolly in hand, and they don’t look like the monsters we normally associate with sex offenders.

Or "rapists"?

Quote:“If there’s an allegation towards Great Uncle X, for example, about what he has done to nephews and nieces, people often say no — because he’s a relative and an upstanding individual, and we don’t want to accuse those we love.”

Dr Frost said it was difficult to categorise sex offenders.

“As individuals, there are psychological characteristics of sexual offenders such as being a lonely or isolated individual, and difficulty with forming an adult relationship,” Dr Frost said.

“They [sex offenders] are a heterogeneous group, and have more in common with the general population than the criminal population.

“They cover all status ranks, incomes and demographics. While they are mostly men, it’s very hard to pin them down. While I’m not saying we shouldn’t categorise these people — because it can be helpful — I think we have got a bit preoccupied in the physical characteristics of these perpetrators, by giving them the title of monster, sick or demonising.”

Dr Frost said the other consequence of stigmatising sexual offenders, or a “shunning campaign”, is that we categorise them as a “monster” which only leads to further secrecy on the perpetrator’s part.

“These men, usually, are released from prison and isolated within a community — which is only more likely enabling them to do it again,” Dr Frost said.

“When isolated and demonised, they go underground — and that’s what creates the lonely circumstances and means they are likely to reoffend.

“For this reason, we have to be serious about rehabilitation. So instead of saying they are a sick individual, we need to acknowledge their problem as a social problem — and take action.”

Over the course of three decades, Dr Frost said he has come to the conclusion that there are at least five contextual elements common to most abuse.

“I’ve worked with boys and men for 30 years, and 10 years in the New Zealand Department of Corrections with sex offenders,” he said.

“One thing that became clear was a common set of circumstances where abuse thrives. These are secrecy, exploitation, grooming, blame shifting and collusion.

“We need to look at abuse as a social problem, because it’s easy to pass it off as a group of sick individuals.

“Where secrecy thrives, such as burying these perpetrators in society, that allows circumstances for abuse to occur in.”

While the sex offender needs to be held accountable for the sake of public wellbeing, Dr Frost says the best way to achieve this is that he or she accepts the bulk of this responsibility and complete rehabilitation programs that are based, among other things, on socialising forms of therapy.

“If we are serious about managing sex offending, we need to be serious about their rehabilitation,” Dr Frost said.

Not the broken childhood they endured, obviously. No, just manage the pedos we create.

Quote:“In Canada and the UK, there is a notion called Circles of Support. What we often see is that when sex offenders are released from prison, they are not met with any support within the community.

“But with this program [Circles of Support], trained volunteers visit these people, and support and monitor them, because they need the opportunity to rehabilitate.”

Dr Frost said while he doesn’t believe sex offenders can be healed — because “they aren’t suffering from an illness” we as a community need to teach them how to meet their needs in a different way.

However, depression IS an illness, we are led to believe. And drugs are the way to cure it.

Quote:“They are like the rest of us, but have chosen a bad way of meeting those needs,” he said.

“Rehabilitation is a matter of helping these men form workable relationships with adults, and leaving the life of secrecy behind.

“Not just romantically, but simple adult relationships — which a lot of people won’t give them the opportunity to do.

“All of us are in pursuit of attaining certain human goods, including a sense of mastery, competence, and a sense of belonging. Those who engage in sexual offending, or any kind of criminal offending, are trying to attain such goals. In doing so they have chosen very poor means of doing so. They need to change these means in ways that respect the rights, needs and feelings of others.”

Yeah, cause re-education has always worked in the past.

Post: #161

EDIT: Arrrr, me old hearty Conscious Pirate beat me to it. I'll leave my quoting here, though.

With bitterness I resurrect this thread to report this shit is now starting to get pushed in Prison Australia:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-li...591195e380

Quote:Dr Frost will be among several experts speaking on the subject, which will include a discussion around the key consequences of demonising an abuser, and how we should be dealing with these people once they are released from prison.
“There are two regrettable consequences of demonising an abuser,” Dr Frost said.
“The first is that we are less likely to recognise them, such as celebrities. For many decades, cases like Rolf Harris [and Robert Hughes] didn’t come to light until a long time afterwards — because they weren’t the creepy men in the shadows like we are lead to believe all sex offenders are.

“These types of abusers aren’t jumping out from behind a bush with a lolly in hand, and they don’t look like the monsters we normally associate with sex offenders.
“If there’s an allegation towards Great Uncle X, for example, about what he has done to nephews and nieces, people often say no — because he’s a relative and an upstanding individual, and we don’t want to accuse those we love.”

Nothing like an element of truth to disguise a lie. Most paedophiles are not, indeed, creepy men at the park. Invariably they're usually close family members, or people brought into a family's life by -- invariably -- the mother.

Quote:Dr Frost said it was difficult to categorise sex offenders.
“As individuals, there are psychological characteristics of sexual offenders such as being a lonely or isolated individual, and difficulty with forming an adult relationship,” Dr Frost said.
“They [sex offenders] are a heterogeneous group, and have more in common with the general population than the criminal population.
“They cover all status ranks, incomes and demographics. While they are mostly men, it’s very hard to pin them down. While I’m not saying we shouldn’t categorise these people — because it can be helpful — I think we have got a bit preoccupied in the physical characteristics of these perpetrators, by giving them the title of monster, sick or demonising.”

Fucking idiot. "Monster" and "sick" are mental characteristics we give to these clowns, describing their behaviour, not their physicall appearance.

Quote:Dr Frost said the other consequence of stigmatising sexual offenders, or a “shunning campaign”, is that we categorise them as a “monster” which only leads to further secrecy on the perpetrator’s part.
“These men, usually, are released from prison and isolated within a community — which is only more likely enabling them to do it again,” Dr Frost said.
“When isolated and demonised, they go underground — and that’s what creates the lonely circumstances and means they are likely to reoffend.
“For this reason, we have to be serious about rehabilitation. So instead of saying they are a sick individual, we need to acknowledge their problem as a social problem — and take action.”
Over the course of three decades, Dr Frost said he has come to the conclusion that there are at least five contextual elements common to most abuse.
“I’ve worked with boys and men for 30 years, and 10 years in the New Zealand Department of Corrections with sex offenders,” he said.
“One thing that became clear was a common set of circumstances where abuse thrives. These are secrecy, exploitation, grooming, blame shifting and collusion.
“We need to look at abuse as a social problem, because it’s easy to pass it off as a group of sick individuals.
“Where secrecy thrives, such as burying these perpetrators in society, that allows circumstances for abuse to occur in.”

Yet another doctor who things rehabilitation is a magic wand to fix an evil personality. Theodore Dalrymple's The Knife Went In is all the counterargument you need to this shit.

There is a reason we shun paedophiles: because society must not, will not, cannot condone their behaviour. Insofar as there is a religious reason for this shunning, it comes from Christian principles of protecting children: "Better that a millstone be thrown round a man's neck than that he should mislead one of these" and so on.

And here's the most hilarious part:

Quote:Dr Frost said while he doesn’t believe sex offenders can be healed — because “they aren’t suffering from an illness” we as a community need to teach them how to meet their needs in a different way.
“They are like the rest of us, but have chosen a bad way of meeting those needs,” he said.
“Rehabilitation is a matter of helping these men form workable relationships with adults, and leaving the life of secrecy behind.
“Not just romantically, but simple adult relationships — which a lot of people won’t give them the opportunity to do.
“All of us are in pursuit of attaining certain human goods, including a sense of mastery, competence, and a sense of belonging. Those who engage in sexual offending, or any kind of criminal offending, are trying to attain such goals. In doing so they have chosen very poor means of doing so. They need to change these means in ways that respect the rights, needs and feelings of others.”

Why should society bend for these offenders? Where is the social benefit in allowing this? Criminals are not trying to achieve "mastery, competence, and a sense of belonging" when they beat the snot out of you while burgling your house. By and large, criminals are doing it simply because they can, because they get a thrill out of it ... or because they are responding to their other addictions. The cost of rehabilitation in these instances -- leaving aside paedophilia -- is prohibitively high and questionably effective. Sex offenders of this particular kind deserve rehabilitation a lot less.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #162

(10-25-2016 01:52 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  EDIT: Arrrr, me old hearty Conscious Pirate beat me to it. I'll leave my quoting here, though.

With bitterness I resurrect this thread to report this shit is now starting to get pushed in Prison Australia:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-li...591195e380

Quote:Dr Frost will be among several experts speaking on the subject, which will include a discussion around the key consequences of demonising an abuser, and how we should be dealing with these people once they are released from prison.
“There are two regrettable consequences of demonising an abuser,” Dr Frost said.
“The first is that we are less likely to recognise them, such as celebrities. For many decades, cases like Rolf Harris [and Robert Hughes] didn’t come to light until a long time afterwards — because they weren’t the creepy men in the shadows like we are lead to believe all sex offenders are.

“These types of abusers aren’t jumping out from behind a bush with a lolly in hand, and they don’t look like the monsters we normally associate with sex offenders.
“If there’s an allegation towards Great Uncle X, for example, about what he has done to nephews and nieces, people often say no — because he’s a relative and an upstanding individual, and we don’t want to accuse those we love.”

Nothing like an element of truth to disguise a lie. Most paedophiles are not, indeed, creepy men at the park. Invariably they're usually close family members, or people brought into a family's life by -- invariably -- the mother.

Quote:Dr Frost said it was difficult to categorise sex offenders.
“As individuals, there are psychological characteristics of sexual offenders such as being a lonely or isolated individual, and difficulty with forming an adult relationship,” Dr Frost said.
“They [sex offenders] are a heterogeneous group, and have more in common with the general population than the criminal population.
“They cover all status ranks, incomes and demographics. While they are mostly men, it’s very hard to pin them down. While I’m not saying we shouldn’t categorise these people — because it can be helpful — I think we have got a bit preoccupied in the physical characteristics of these perpetrators, by giving them the title of monster, sick or demonising.”

Fucking idiot. "Monster" and "sick" are mental characteristics we give to these clowns, describing their behaviour, not their physicall appearance.

Quote:Dr Frost said the other consequence of stigmatising sexual offenders, or a “shunning campaign”, is that we categorise them as a “monster” which only leads to further secrecy on the perpetrator’s part.
“These men, usually, are released from prison and isolated within a community — which is only more likely enabling them to do it again,” Dr Frost said.
“When isolated and demonised, they go underground — and that’s what creates the lonely circumstances and means they are likely to reoffend.
“For this reason, we have to be serious about rehabilitation. So instead of saying they are a sick individual, we need to acknowledge their problem as a social problem — and take action.”
Over the course of three decades, Dr Frost said he has come to the conclusion that there are at least five contextual elements common to most abuse.
“I’ve worked with boys and men for 30 years, and 10 years in the New Zealand Department of Corrections with sex offenders,” he said.
“One thing that became clear was a common set of circumstances where abuse thrives. These are secrecy, exploitation, grooming, blame shifting and collusion.
“We need to look at abuse as a social problem, because it’s easy to pass it off as a group of sick individuals.
“Where secrecy thrives, such as burying these perpetrators in society, that allows circumstances for abuse to occur in.”

Yet another doctor who things rehabilitation is a magic wand to fix an evil personality. Theodore Dalrymple's The Knife Went In is all the counterargument you need to this shit.

There is a reason we shun paedophiles: because society must not, will not, cannot condone their behaviour. Insofar as there is a religious reason for this shunning, it comes from Christian principles of protecting children: "Better that a millstone be thrown round a man's neck than that he should mislead one of these" and so on.

And here's the most hilarious part:

Quote:Dr Frost said while he doesn’t believe sex offenders can be healed — because “they aren’t suffering from an illness” we as a community need to teach them how to meet their needs in a different way.
“They are like the rest of us, but have chosen a bad way of meeting those needs,” he said.
“Rehabilitation is a matter of helping these men form workable relationships with adults, and leaving the life of secrecy behind.
“Not just romantically, but simple adult relationships — which a lot of people won’t give them the opportunity to do.
“All of us are in pursuit of attaining certain human goods, including a sense of mastery, competence, and a sense of belonging. Those who engage in sexual offending, or any kind of criminal offending, are trying to attain such goals. In doing so they have chosen very poor means of doing so. They need to change these means in ways that respect the rights, needs and feelings of others.”

Why should society bend for these offenders? Where is the social benefit in allowing this? Criminals are not trying to achieve "mastery, competence, and a sense of belonging" when they beat the snot out of you while burgling your house. By and large, criminals are doing it simply because they can, because they get a thrill out of it ... or because they are responding to their other addictions. The cost of rehabilitation in these instances -- leaving aside paedophilia -- is prohibitively high and questionably effective. Sex offenders of this particular kind deserve rehabilitation a lot less.

The Abyss is dark indeed. God help us.

Post: #163

(04-08-2016 12:57 PM)Chaos Preacher Wrote:  I don't know how people are coming to the conclusion that pedophilia will be "normalized," when every single shred of evidence indicates that we're moving in the exact opposite direction, and fast.

Not really.

Post: #164

(10-25-2016 01:52 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Why should society bend for these offenders? Where is the social benefit in allowing this? Criminals are not trying to achieve "mastery, competence, and a sense of belonging" when they beat the snot out of you while burgling your house. By and large, criminals are doing it simply because they can, because they get a thrill out of it ... or because they are responding to their other addictions. The cost of rehabilitation in these instances -- leaving aside paedophilia -- is prohibitively high and questionably effective. Sex offenders of this particular kind deserve rehabilitation a lot less.

I like to believe in the possibility of redemption for anyone, but the unfortunate truth is that many violent criminals and predators are simply personality-disordered sociopaths. Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat in the best of circumstances, and the prison environment isn't by any reasonable definition the best of circumstances.

And if you want to crank out sociopaths who are broken from the factory, poverty-stricken single mom "families" are a great way to start.

Post: #165

We think of virtue signaling as just annoying, but this article shows that the people who virtue signal are out there, putting their goofy ideas into practice, affecting mental health services and even policy in the background.

They will do backflips never to admit that sometimes people know the difference between right and wrong and simply choose to do messed up shit.

No, they just don't have the skills. We need to teach them better coping strategies, life skills, give them sympathy, and then they will feel comfortable enough to reveal the heart of gold that we know they all have.

Teach men not to rape!

Teach pedos not to pedo!

These people are the living definition of the cognitive miser. They have found an easy answer to a difficult problem, it makes them look more loving, more caring than anyone else, and they will stick with it, even if it means letting criminals have their way with someone else's child.

I used to make fun of people who said that they were willing to make the hard decisions. I thought that was just a way of rationalizing their bastardry. Like, they would fire the CEO who was worried about polluting the ground water in a small town, and hire a guy who didn't give a shit, saying they needed a man for the job who was willing to make the hard decisions.

While there are plenty of people out there like that, there are people like this fool who have the opposite problem. They are so terrified of looking like a bad person or risking any sort of criticism, that they do all sorts of damage simply by choosing to make themselves look good at the expense of people who aren't afraid of plain talk, no matter how bad it makes a person look on the surface.

Cowards they are, one and all, and their moral posturing wreaking havoc.

Post: #166

Paedo-friendly film incoming: Una, starring Ben Mendelhson and Rooney Mara, is due out soon. It is an indie film, but since it's getting positive reviews from film critics you can bet it's been given the leftie seal of approval.

The basic premise of the film (based on the play Blackbird and adapted for the screen by the director) is that a sexual abuse victim (female) finds her abuser (male) about fifteen years after the abuse was over and done, and proceeds to confront him about what happened.

Rather than the more realistic and likely occurrence of the victim taking a gun and putting a bullet in her abuser's head, it then proceeds to suggest that "lol, things are more complex than they seem" and implies the girl (the character being aged 13 at the time) was mature and manipulative and the man was an unmasculine baby.

Don't jump to sympathy for that character or conclude I am wrong-footing this example. Those characterisations were selected specifically to make it easier for you, a Western male in an demasculated culture, to feel sympathy for the male in the film. It is bait for a slippery slope; if you are open to the idea that a 13 year old can realistically manipulate a fortysomething man, then you are already lost and have missed the very point - which is that we have a society in which a man can remain infantilised well into middle age.

Excusing paedophiles' conduct as "oversimplifying" the issue is as old as Nabokov. And one might note this: Nabokov still held that Humbert Humbert was a swine. He did not really suggest that Lolita was other than a child with a child's maturity.

Una goes the other way. They try to humanise the paedophile by (a) making him a childish man and (b) making an adult of the child he abused. This is a very, very dangerous thing to do, because like it or not, modern TV tells you what and how to want.

It is telling that abuse victims' groups haven't spoken out in protest or haven't been permitted to speak out about this sick fantasy. I mean, seriously. One of the central points of this show is the very possibility that the victim might have enjoyed the sex. Let's say instead that this film involved an adult rape victim confronting her rapist about 15 years down the line. The very suggestion that the rape victim enjoyed it would have been enough for mass picketing of theatres by bluehairs demanding the film not be shown.

The filmmakers advance the argument via a mix of postmodernism and gay-style "SOCIETY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND MEEEEEE, SOCIETY IS AT FAULT" advocacy. As an example, take a look at parts of one leftie's review of the play on which the movie was based:

http://soapbox-ems.weebly.com/blackbird-...-long.html

Quote:Ray’s ability to disqualify himself from the “pedophile label” gives him the means to salvage his self-image and ignore the damage he has done to Una. He feels a legitimate emotional connection to Una that the audience and society, in their eagerness to cast quick, easy judgments, refuse to account for. Consequently, he takes on the same approach himself. Ray is able to delude himself into thinking that his feelings for Una are love and not merely an unnatural manifestation of unrequited lust and loneliness. Similarly, hindered as they are with the caricature of a pedophile, Ray and Una’s neighbors are unable to see the warning signs in the two characters’ interactions. They cannot fathom that the seemingly harmless man who is in a relationship with an adult woman is in fact a pedophile.

When it does come out that Ray has been molesting Una, society’s response, the response that the audience condones, does as much if not more damage to the latter than any sexual act that transpired. When Ray and Una recall the time they had sex in a hotel room, they both remember it as a positive experience. This is not to say that their relationship was healthy; it is, after all, possible to enjoy something that is bad for you. However, the word “abuse,” which characters and society use to label the encounter and Una encourages Ray to adopt on page 40, is woefully inadequate to describe what has occurred. In fact, the treatment that Una receives at the hands of society in the aftermath of the experience is far more akin to abuse than the experience itself, at least from her perspective:

“They drugged me. Held me down and injected me. Opened my legs and took- took out your come. Evidence. They asked me what you’d done to me. Then told me what you’d done to me when I wouldn’t. You were only after one thing. That’s why you disappeared. You’d gotten what you’d wanted” (Harrower 59).

When Una refers to “they,” she is talking about the doctors in particular and society in general, the so-called civilized, upstanding people that do not have sex with children. On the contrary, the treatment Una describes at the hands of society is monstrous and harmful on many levels. Physically, she is subjected to a horrifying ordeal. She is “injected” like an animal and her legs are forced open in a search for “evidence.” Una’s treatment at the hands of society sounds much more like abuse, in its forceful violation of her body and her dignity, than does her consensual and pleasurable sexual encounter with Ray, however sick and misguided it was.

If there's anything that's sick and misguided, it's this fucking analysis of child sexual abuse. Don't teal deer this, go back through those three paragraphs and have a think about the sort of person who would think that this is either a legitimate point of view or that this treatment of paedophilia is acceptable or helpful.

This approach is designed to discourage girls or boys from reporting their sexual abuse - suggesting that the process of investigating is actually worse than the abuse itself. This is a ludicrous proposition that NAMBLA would be applauding from their basements. And it is a proposition that is coming to a theatre near you ... perhaps unsurprisingly in the UK first, where hundreds of girls have been culturally enriched by "complicated" foreign paedophiles.

Again, it is narcissism. It excuses the paedophile (I'm not a bad person, I just do bad things now and then). It screams that the problem is society, not you. This sort of shit is standard for "edgy", "provocative" theatre, and after pissing on the very idea that paedophilia is bad for you, they try to hide behind the idea "Oh, I'm just asking you to think deeper about this". Continuing our reviwer's lunacy for a moment:

Quote: Towards the end of the play, Una speaks for the audience: “I don’t know what to believe… there’s so much to choose from” (Harrower 69). Una’s statement highlights the overall point of “Blackbird,” which is to force the audience to question assumptions they have about pedophiles and the detrimental effect these assumptions have on victims of pedophilia, and even the perpetrators themselves. The audience members stand in for society as a whole in that they bring certain misconceptions and oversimplifications into the theater that causes them to judge the characters in a certain way. Harrower uses the dramatic interplay between Ray and Una to encourage the audience to think more deeply about an issue that usually provokes knee-jerk reactions. He does not intend to change audience members’ minds about pedophilia, but rather he seeks to open them up to considering the emotional complexities, contradictions and power dynamics that underlie a sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

"I don't want to change your mind about paedophilia, I just want you to think with more complexity about it." Might as well say "I just want to see how just the tip feels." This continuing bullshit that simplicity is wrongthought is a perverted outgrowth of postmodernism. It's a leftie attempt at out-grouping: "Oh, you think paedophilia is a black-and-white thing? Well you're just not smart enough to think about it deeply!"

This sort of shit will continue. This is obviously the new approach: sexualise the child and infantilise the perpetrator. And cloak it under postmodernism and denial of morality. Exhibit one is the actress selection. This is how they make a 13 year old look in a fucking story about paedophiles:



This image is not accidental, it's not a trick of the light, they want children to look like this to anyone watching the film.

And the adult victim is no alcoholic or drug-addicted wreck, as is often the case, either:



Doesn't look like she suffered a life-altering event in her early teens at all, does she? Guess she came out of that without a single physical drawback at all!

I know this is a rant, but nothing fires me up quite like this issue. If 4/pol had any organisation they would be phoning bomb threats on UK theatres that wanted to show this film, this shit is a root cause for a massive proportion of the misery of drug addictions and crime in the West. This film should have a backlash like Cassie Jaye unjustly got for The Red Pill.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #167

^You have to understand that the only individuals who will be fucking under 13-year-olds are not going to be the Average Joe (or even the Alpha-Chad teens), but individuals in high positions such as faggots/trannies/feminazis and government officials.

This is why the feminazi teacher who flaunts her body parts in class can indoctrinate 13-year-old schoolgirls to be suspicious, paranoid & hateful on their male peers in the school, yet those same schoolgirls will offer to sell their bodies for wealthy George Soros/Ben Levin/Rockefeller type of men for pennies on the dollar.

And when certain men criticize that theory via Pizza-gate evidence, they end up like Seth Rich for trying to expose the elitist ring…Thank God Joe Biggs is still alive even though he shouldn’t have been let go from Alex Jones Infowar.

Post: #168

Nabokov was an open conservative, wasn't he? And the irony is that most Lolita fans I've run into are liberals who feel sorry for Humbert Humbert.

Post: #169

(06-23-2017 02:26 AM)stugatz Wrote:  Nabokov was an open conservative, wasn't he? And the irony is that most Lolita fans I've run into are liberals who feel sorry for Humbert Humbert.

This would be the same brand of irony that it was lefties who went out and made Orwell's 1984 a bestseller again.

As it is, Nabokov wrote in his afterword that there apparently is no moral to the story. That is a signal to distrust the book, it's the same horseshit "just the tip" rationale for child pornography that Una tries to hide under. But at least Lolita hides behind an unreliable narrator, which tells the reader Humbert is lying to us, which tells us he's an arsehole rationalising child abuse to himself. Una does not do that.

Nabokov in America backed Nixon. He was against communism, fascism, and the Tsars while he was in Russia, and his father was one of the most prominent Jewish activists in Russia. His politics don't excuse him: he wrote the prototype text for the humanisation of paedophilia, and it tells you how far as a society we have fallen in seventy years that what once basically rebounded off society is now penetrating deep into it.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #170

Disgusting.

Post: #171

that's only part of the story....Hear real YouTube cringe when a Toronto feminist tells a Toronto Pastor that:

i) A woman who is completely naked is no different than a woman is dressed.
ii)Canadians should accept women to be naked in public (but men should not objectify women).
iii) That it's "OK" for a tranny, faggot or lesbian to show their nakedness to a 3-year-old boy...
iv) As long as the 3-year-old can have a say in their experience of seeing a naked faggot.





Roosh complained that Toronto female specimens are anti-sex and anti-fun, but at the same TTC token, they support feminazis, faggots & lesbians to display their nakedness in front of little children.

This supports my theory that the feminist infestation of LGBTQPEDOPHILEFEMINAZI sexualizes little children!

Post: #172

Any sane individual would consider the LGBTQPEDOPHILEFEMINAZI SJWs as suspect for engaging in sexualizing little children.

However, those LGBTQFEMINAZI fuckers are the first to lobby for laws which criminalize Daygame or to criminalize Romeo & Juliet teen relationships, to the extent that if 15-year-old Jessica takes a photo of her titties on a non-internet connected camera, and sends it via encryption or secured print, to 17-year-old football player, he & she will end up in court for “child pornography" & the boy cann end up forced to register as a permanent Level 1 or 2 Sex Offender.

However, a fucking LGBTQPEDOPHILEFEMINAZI faggot is protected when they stick their fucking genitals in front of a 4-year-old child’s face at Pride. In Canada, criticizing faggots can cause one to have their children taken away by the Children’s Agency for “Abuse” (Bill C89).

Post: #173

(07-04-2017 01:05 AM)RBerkley Wrote:  Any sane individual would consider the LGBTQPEDOPHILEFEMINAZI SJWs as suspect for engaging in sexualizing little children.

However, those LGBTQFEMINAZI fuckers are the first to lobby for laws which criminalize Daygame or to criminalize Romeo & Juliet teen relationships, to the extent that if 15-year-old Jessica takes a photo of her titties on a non-internet connected camera, and sends it via encryption or secured print, to 17-year-old football player, he & she will end up in court for “child pornography" & the boy cann end up forced to register as a permanent Level 1 or 2 Sex Offender.

However, a fucking LGBTQPEDOPHILEFEMINAZI faggot is protected when they stick their fucking genitals in front of a 4-year-old child’s face at Pride. In Canada, criticizing faggots can cause one to have their children taken away by the Children’s Agency for “Abuse” (Bill C89).

Exactly; give them no quarter. Don't let them win at anything, they're losers after all. Don't strike until you see the white of their eyes and they see yours and are afraid to have ever dared to fuck with us!

Post: #174

Under the Western police state that many live in, an LGBTQPEDOPHILEFEMINAZI will hire their police mercenaries to persecute any man who dares criticize the LGBTQPEDOPHILEFEMINAZI mafia.

Dimitri the Lover from Toronto, Canada only penned a theoretical piece in his Summer 2017 your Ward news editorial on how he prevented a theoretical murder on one of his critics by withholding information about his ordeal with a false complaint of "child abuse" from one of his critics, because one of his fans may end up murdering that critic if they found out that too soon.....He was later charged with "uttering threats" in Toronto, court date is sometime next week at Old City Hall, Toronto.

You can read his newspaper on http://www.yourwardnews.ca.

Dimitri the Lover is also against organized pedophilia from the LGBTQPEDOPHILEFEMINAZI mafia in Canada, but those fuckers are determined to force their nakedness on very young children.

One of Dimitri the Lover's critics, Ben Levin....He was convicted of counseling child molestation at an incest forum & possession of child porn0graphy. Worse part is that the is a former Deputy Minister of Education in Ontario, alongside that he was a co-author of the updated Ontario Sex-ed curriculum....That alone raises red flags on his intentions to hire his close friend, who is now a Premier of Ontario, and also a Lesbian, Kathleen Wynne, to force down Ben Levin's Sex-ed despite objections from parents that it was age-inappropriate.

Ben Levin counseled someone online that introducing nudity and sexual topics to young children makes them sexually available, and Voila! Levin's Sex-ed curriculum mandated that Grade 1 students know about Gay Pride and nudity concepts such as genitalia....Grade 1 students, six-year-old students knowing about Gay Pride!

Post: #175

"Barely legal" porn is partially to blame too, when porn producers deliberately make the adult girl look as young as possible.

For an extreme non-porn example, take this tweet.

It is the same girl, she's 20 in the denim dress and backpack, and 12 in the swimwear.