Pedophile party wants age of consent cut

Posted by Guessedworker on May 30, 2006, 11:07 AM | #

It’s liberalism, Steve.  Both Mark and I have made the point here that there is no “halt” in liberalism, no point at which non-judgementalism turns or indulgence of the self is universally sated.

In the past I have tried to argue that liberalism’s liberty does not, indeed, cannot exist.  Freedom is an interior state dependent on the frequent presence of will and self-consciousness.  It has nothing to do with “oppression” or “choice” or “self-authorship”, all of which are silly notions for babies, albeit adult babies.

But if liberalism’s freedom does not exist it must, it seems, be searched for in ever greater worship of the self.  So we get the bishop who claims that scripture supports homosexuality, the “star” who copulates for real in a mainstream film, and these men-made-monsters who are permitted in Holland to agitate for the legalisation of their sickness.

Many years ago on one of the UK channels a large, rather boring man of no distinction presented the arguments for liberalisation of peadophilia.  He was the public face of PIE - the Peadophile Information Exchange - not then a proscribed body.

The interviewer - a female, I think - asked him about the age limit for children in his area of special interest.  He said a baby would be out of the question.  With two year olds he was, though, stumped for an answer, since his only criteria was whether the child could communicate - and, presumably, be made to consent.

There are no limits in this liberal game.

Posted by Andrew on May 30, 2006, 11:18 AM | #

Don’t worry G W, we have just had the “Idiot brigade” teaching;” Diversity” about Gay and Lesbians in our “PRESCHOOLS”. You read correctally.
The way the Umbilical chord works, you have about three weeks in the UK, when you have this news broken to you.

Posted by rustymason on May 30, 2006, 11:54 AM | #

Let them form a party.  Let them have meetings.  Let them take names of the members and supporters and make those names public.  Then round them all up and shoot them.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 30, 2006, 01:29 PM | #

If there is no halt to liberalism, then why offer tolerance for discretion to homosexuals (a disproportionately large number of whom are paedophiles)?

Auster writes:

“Once you withdraw disapproval of homosexuality, disapproval is replaced by indifference, which is then replaced by tolerance, which is then followed by acceptance, then recognition, then validation, then affirmation, then celebration.”

And finally intolerance, when those critical of deviant behaviour face prosecution for hate crimes.

Homosexuality is innate, but these deviants are pathological? The queer gets a pass when he is willing to do his duty for the white world, even though it means a gross perversion of traditional western values [monogamous marriage replaced by State sponsored insemination and rearing centres]?

Better to let the race die than enter this deal with the devil.

Posted by Stanley Womack on May 30, 2006, 02:01 PM | #

No Limits In This Liberal Game

Guessedworker is correct in saying, “There are no limits in this liberal game.” The operation of liberalism (or pluralism) is the unending and unfolding deconstruction of the most settled questions. It has no other logic than the extension of its ideological tentacles into the most sacred precincts of life. Ultimately of course, liberalism (or pluralism) will consume itself as it writhes in a muddy pool of blood and flesh.

The Graetz Legacy

Our organization approaches this problem by looking at the boldest speaker we know who announced the policy of deconstruction, Heinrich Graetz. We discuss his legacy in the context of defamation, but it applies equally well to the unending deconstruction of values, morals, and mores. You can see our discussion here:

www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g29.htm

Graetz launched a propaganda campaign of “scourging” and “flogging” the majority ethnicity in his home country (Germany) in A.D.1868, as well as a parallel propaganda campaign “to shatter Christianity.” Graetz would be known now as a left-wing racialist and an anti-Christian bigot. He would fit in with the Charity, Freedom and Diversity party which operates on two levels: a propaganda drive to overturn long-held values, and a true political organizing effort.

Next will come a new hate term, possibly “sex restrictionist” or “anti-generationalist” or “pedophobe” or some such. Persons who oppose cross-generational sex will find themselves pathologized, demonized, and denounced.

There is something repellent about older men and women manipulating very young boys and girls into sexual vehicles so some kind of line might be drawn. However, on this point in the U.S. in connection with the priest sex scandal, we saw the so-called conservative forces engage in a spirited explanation of priestly attraction to teenage boys versus another person’s “uglier” attraction to young children. It was the National Review types who explained that the former was different in kind from the latter which was true pedophilia. So there is no telling how much of a tail this comet might expose in its orbit.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 30, 2006, 03:04 PM | #

Desmond,

Tolerance of homosexuals in return for their discretion is not the same as tolerance of homosexualism, which knows no discretion and which is designed for the purpose of the destruction of our cultural norms.

There must be some agreed basis for accomodating homosexuals in society.  They exist.  They are fathers, brothers, sons.  What do you suggest, if not tolerance/discretion?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 30, 2006, 03:41 PM | #

Christ, that quote reads like an Onion story.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 30, 2006, 03:48 PM | #

Better to let the race die than enter this deal with the devil.

I’m having a tough time abstracting a scenario that would make that true, other than as a useful-but-silly sentiment (i.e., a rhetorical device).

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 30, 2006, 03:49 PM | #

Not that I know what you mean when you write “the race,” mind you.

Posted by Steve Edwards on May 30, 2006, 03:52 PM | #

Desmond is making mischief again, and trying to derail the thread. Homosexuals should simply be de-normalised and basically tolerated. Of course, the homosexualists do not actually want “tolerance” - they want “acceptance” and “endorsement”.

What needs to be pointed out time and time again is that it is logically impossible for every single person to be accorded “acceptance” so long as people have a tendency to be diverse. You cannot simultaneously “accept” everything by logic (unless everyone was uniform) - but you can probably “tolerate” a lot of things.