A month ago I posted a commentary
in support for the decision of the city of Moscow to ban so-called "gay pride" parades. Just as I expected, the post resulted in somewhat of a firestorm of outraged reactions from those who believe that homosexuality is, to quote Wikipedia, a "normal and positive variation" of human sexuality. They were particularly outraged at the fact that I stated that homosexuality was just one form among many other of what is known is paraphilia
which also includes such "orientations" as pedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania, etc. (source
). In fact, there is even an increasing body of scientific evidence
that pedophilia is not a choice, but a condition, that pedophiles where "born that way" to use one of the favorite slogans of the homo-lobby. But unlike homosexuals, pedophiles are still offered cognitive, behavioral and pharmacological therapies no, not to cure them - they are considered "incurable" - but to help them with their "symptoms"...
|"Gay" pride in action|
When I pointed out that while homosexuals were asking to be treated like a persecuted minority deserving of some special protections, pedophiles were severely persecuted and prosecuted (just think of the public "sexual predators" databases
which list the home address, photo and contact information of any person condemned for, among other crimes, possessing photos of nude children or having sex with an under-age partner) the defenders of homosexuality pointed out that homosexuality is different from pedophilia because it involves two consenting adults whereas sex with underage children implies violence, whether direct or statutory.
What the homo-fanboys missed is that they were comparing apples and oranges.
From a legal point of view homosexuality and pedophilia are, indeed, totally different for the above mentioned reasons. However, from a psychological point of view, they are not. Let me clarify: nobody will ever send a person to jail for having pedophile inclinations, only for acting on them. Somebody who is sexually attracted to children is considered as having a sexual disorder (i.e. sick) and only considered a criminal if he/she acts on this psychopathology. But if we take this legal/psychopathological distinction to the issue of homosexuality we can just as easily accept the possibility that homosexuality is a psychopathology, a sexual disorder just like pedophilia, and that the only difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that the latter is considered criminal by society if acted upon.
But are there any experts making the case that pedophilia is, to use this wonderful expression of Wikipedia, just a "normal and positive variation" of human sexuality? Turns out that yes, there are.
I just came across this rather amazing article, which I want to share with you. I have bolded out the parts which appear most interesting to me.
Pedophilia a ‘sexual orientation’ experts tell Parliament (Canada)
OTTAWA, Ontario, February 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent parliamentary session on a bill relating to sexual offenses against children, psychology experts claimed that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality, a definition that was questioned by one Member of Parliament who was present.
Bill C-54, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code, seeks to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties or punishment on sexual offenders of children for particular crimes.
Parliamentary discussion on February 14 centered on the mandatory minimum imprisonment and how offenders respond to treatment. Dr. Vernon Quinsey and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, experts on the issue, were called to witness.
“When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory,” said Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal.
“Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality,” emphasized Van Gijseghem.
“True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” He added, however: “He may however remain abstinent.”
MP Serge Ménard later praised the witnesses. “Mr. Van Gijseghem and Mr. Quinsey,” said Ménard, “corrected some of our impressions.”
However, MP Marc Lemay of the Bloc Quebecois challenged Van Gijseghem’s definition. “I have to admit that I was not expecting, on this Valentine’s Day, to be talking about this inappropriate type of love. It is not really love. It has more to do with violence and control. I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem … because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.”
“That is what I said,” continued Van Gijseghem.
Lemay pursued the point, asking if it therefore should “be compared to homosexuality.”
“Yes, or heterosexuality,” responded Van Gijseghem. “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
During his witness, Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University, said that pedophiles’ “sexual interests” “prefer prepubescent children.” “There is no evidence,” he said, “that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
“You can manage the risk that sex offenders present - even pedophiles,” added Quinsey, “It’s not necessarily that they need to change their sexual orientation; they need to learn to control themselves, with our help.” “In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation,” said Lemay, “I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it … I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011. You are telling me that even if we were to impose a five-year minimum on people it would not solve the problem. Once they get out of jail, they reoffend. That is worrisome.”
One columnist in the Toronto Sun, Brian Lilley, expressed shock at Van Gijseghem’s testimony: “what really shocked me was the Universite de Montreal professor, Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, who showed up to tell MPs pedophilia was a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality.” He argued that “it’s time to take our country back by ignoring the ‘experts.’”
Speaking of pedophilia and its acceptance, did you know that Frédéric Mitterrand, former French Minister of Culture and Communication and nephew of the late President of France François Mitterrand, wrote a book called "The Bad Life" in which he openly admitted using boys in Thai brothels? Here is the relevant Wikipedia section
on this book:
Mitterrand's autobiographical novel The Bad Life (French: La mauvaise vie) was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting the male brothels of Bangkok, and writes, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide." At the time of its release Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty, but he has had to defend his writings after he publicly defended Roman Polanski when Polanski was detained in Switzerland on an American request for extradition for having sex with a thirteen year old girl. On 5 October 2009, Marine Le Pen of the French National Front Party quoted sections of the book on French television, accusing him of having sex with underage boys and engaging in "sex tourism", demanding that Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. Amongst others he was also criticised by the Socialist Party spokesman Benoît Hamon, who stated: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.” On the other hand, some conservatives supported Mitterrand, and a close aide to Nicolas Sarkozy said the French President backed his Culture Minister, describing the controversy around him as "pathetic." Mitterrand also insists the book isn't an autobiography, the publisher describes it as a "novel inspired by autobiography" and the BBC refers to it as "autobiographical novel". In his own defence Mitterrand stated, "Each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger – there wasn't the slightest ambiguity – and who were consenting," and that he uses the term "boys" loosely, both in his life and in the book. He also declared, "I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn paedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in."
|Mitterrand - Homo/Hebe/Pedo?|
Now, notice something very interesting here. France has had many homosexual politicians and members of government, but Mitterrand was the first one to openly display his homosexuality. And what happens to him? Soon his "homo only" image gets marred by allegations of pedophilia, and then made even worse by Mitterrand's defense of another pervert, rapist cum pedophile Roman Polanski. Needless to say, nobody took Mitterrand's denials seriously, even if only a few dared to openly challenge it openly.
For decades now, homosexuals have vehemently denied any link between homosexuality and pedophilia/hebephilia, and yet before the homo-lobby got its way and found an army of experts to agree with such nonsense, a short look into the concept of pederasty
clearly showed that there is a strong link between the two. Heck, there is even an organization openly advocating
, quote, "for the end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships
". How do they propose to do that? By
- building understanding and support for such relationships;
- educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
- cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
- supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
Also, make sure to check out their latest bulletin
: not only will it tell you everything you need to know about this "persecuted sexual minority", but it will even show you how they too compare their "persecutors" with Nazis. Priceless...
I am quite sure that Frederic Mitterand would feel right at home in this crowd...
I could go on for hours and hours giving examples not only illustrating the fact that there is no real inherent difference between the homosexual and pedophile psychopathologies, but also showing that these two are closely linked by the "pederasty" category.
And yet, Western society actively promotes one form of paraphilia (homosexuality) and harshly persecutes another one (pedophilia). This makes absolutely no logical sense at all, and just goes to show how confused and, frankly, degenerate this society has become. It reminds me of the Biblical city of Nineve, "in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand" (Jonas 4:11). It is ironic that this society seem to suffer from what I would call a spiritual form of AIDS, an acquired deficiency of its "spiritual immune system" to differentiate between right and wrong, healthy and sick, fertile and sterile. This is a phase which many degenerating societies seemed to have reached before their inevitable collapse.
This is all rather pathetic, in particular coming of a society which fancies itself as some kind of leader of the rest of humanity and which has the arrogance of delivering yearly "human right" reports to the rest of the planet while killings its unborn children by the millions or giving up its kids to "same sex couples"
Although all that is only a logical outcome of declaring any form of psychopathology a "normal and positive variation", is it not? And here, the blame cannot be put solely upon those who suffer from these pathologies. The main culprits of this pathetic state of affairs are all those who fully know, feel and understand that homosexuality is no more "positive" or "normal" than any other form of paraphilia but who lack the basic courage and decency to speak up. Why are they afraid? Because the homo-lobby is very aggressive, very well organized and even violent. This lobby has learned all the tricks of the Zionist lobby, but it is using them in a much more brazen and arrogant manner.
For example, in France the French comic humorist Dieudonne has declared that poking fun at homosexuals might be even a bigger "crime" than making fun of Jewish organizations. In Russia the famous Russian sexologist Dilia Enikeeva became the object of a massive campaign of death threats against her and her family after she wrote her book "Gays and Lesbians" which enraged the "gay community". Again, the examples are all out there, but the corporate media is simply ignoring all the evidence proving that the so called "gays" are, in reality, a nasty and powerful lobby who will not hesitate to hunt down anybody who dares to object to its propaganda and myths.
One last example? Sure. Recently, a Russian "feminist puck group" delicately called "Pussy Riot" has organized a "punk-prayers" asking the Virgin Mary to get rid of Putin. So far so go, except for these ladies organized their "punk-prayer" in front of the altar doors of the biggest Orthodox Church in Moscow, the Cathedral of the Christ Savior. Here is a video of the "performance" of these ladies:
Predictably, they were eventually kicked out of the church building and eventually had to leave. What is more interesting, however, is that the authorities decided to prosecute them for "Hooliganism committed for motives of politics, ideology, race, national or religious hatred or religious hatred or hostility towards anybody for motives of hatred or hostility for any social group". It seems that the Russian authorities did detect a hate motive in this action and decided to treat this as a hate crime. Well, guess what? Amnesty International decided to declare that Pussy Riot were, I am not kidding you, "prisoners of conscience". They particularly objected to the fact that these ladies were held in preventive custody and that they risked a jail term. It seems that the "artists" of Pussy Riot did not anticipate that the Russian state would actually dare to defend the rights and freedoms of the simple Orthodox people whose beliefs and holy shrines they wanted to mock with impunity. They clearly miscalculated.
How is all this linked to the topic of homosexuality? Simple: not only are Pussy Riot at the forefront of the "struggle for gay rights" in Russia, but the homo-lobby has immediately used all its power in Russia and abroad to lionize "Pussy Riot" as the most heroic defender of sexual rights and persecuted "prisoners of conscience". Something tells me that if some Neo-Nazi punk rock group (of which there are, alas, plenty in Russia) will organized a spontaneous "prayer-concert" in, say, the Grand Choral Synagogue
, which is the largest synagogue in Russia, Amnesty International and its homo-lobby allies will not protest nearly as loudly, but that kind of double-standards and hypocrisy is not anything new, not for Amnesty International nor for the homo-lobby.
Nikolai Alekseev, the main organizer of the Russian "gray-pride" parade has recently declared on a Russian TV talkshow "I don't give a shit about the opinion of 99% of Moscovites". Pussy Riot and the rest of these "gay rights" "activists" are simply putting in action this wholly intolerant and overly aggressive mindset: better support us or else....
So let's sum it up. "Gay rights" are neither about gaiety, nor about rights. This is the organized political expression of a group of psychologically sick people who are seeking to impose their sexual dysfunctions and pathology as a norm on the rest of society and which do so with the utmost regression and intolerance. History shows than these groups only prevailed in degenerating societies and that when they did achieve their objectives, the society which they submitted to their agenda rapidly collapsed.
A personal note in conclusion: this blog is mostly about ethics, politics and the quest for truth in all matters. I have no personal axe to grind with those whom I call the "sads". I am blissfully married for 18 years now, have three kids, and I am not really interested in dwelling in topics of sexual psychopathology. But I am observing how the issue of "gay rights" is becoming instrumentalized by the West in its current campaign to destabilize or, at least, discredit Russia and, I would add here, Iran. By turning "gays" some kind of kind of persecuted prisoners of conscience, the West is simply using another tool amongst many others to try to eliminate any regime which would dare to oppose its rule over the rest of the planet. The fact that they will fail, both Russia and Iran have a strong social consensus on this topic, is no reason not to denounce the substance and form of this type of campaigns. This is why I will conclude by repeating what I said in my first piece:
"Let the Western homosexuals do whatever the hell they want in their own countries - that is the West's problem - but don't let them engage in cultural imperialism and demand that the rest of the planet submit to their completely subjective and illogical system of double-standards."