Cultural Marxism and the (Very Real) Movement to Normalize Pedophilia

Posted on Comments

“Childlike innocence is an invention of the bourgeoisie of early capitalism.”
— Olaf Stüben, German pedophile activist, 1981

Anyone who has followed the arguments surrounding the case of Florida sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt knows how her supporters in the so-called “Free Kate” movement have justified Hunt’s crimes against a 14-year-old girl. You are a bigoted hater, say the Free Kate crowd, if you think the parents of a 14-year-old have a right to prevent their daughter’s corruption by a tattoo-covered dildo-wielding she-hooligan.

“But it was consensual! They were in love!
It’s normal! It’s harmless! Everybody does it!”

Every parent — no, every decent human being — who heard those rationalizations must have strained to resist the urge to grab a shotgun and hunt down the twisted freaks who make such excuses.

Why do you think they call it “jailbait”?

It’s very simple: Age-of-consent laws empower parents to protect their own children, and the fact that some parents don’t give a damn whether their kids are screwing around (hello, Kelley Hunt Smith) cannot be used to argue for a “right” to have sex with minors.

Must the citizens of Indian River County  let a pack of wretched white trash like the Hunt family set the moral standards of their community? Is Florida soon to be infamous as the Teen Sex State, where every child becomes “fair game” as soon as they start high school?

Happy 14th Birthday! (Batteries not included.)

Disagree with these sex-crazed perverts and you will be accused of “vengeance, spite, fear, denial, sadness, insanity, whatever.”

These bizarre accusations should not only offend us because they are false, but intelligent citizens should be alarmed at the cultural shift that makes these creeps unashamed to defend perversion by such twisted logic, presuming to lecture decent law-abiding people this way.

However, nothing should outrage and offend you more than the knowledge that there has been (and still is) a relentless political movement to normalize sex with minors, a fact that left-wing activists in Germany are just now being forced to admit:

[I]n the 1970s and 80s, numerous gay-oriented magazines brazenly promoted sex with children, even running pictures of naked boys. The magazine “Don” presented five sympathetic reports on the experiences of pedophilic men. The headline read, “We’re not child rapists!”
In recent months, many in Germany have been discussing the extent to which the Green Party in the 1980s allowed itself to be manipulated by pedophiles. The party came under such intense pressure that it hired political scientist Franz Walter to look into its own history relating to the issue.
Yet it’s now clear that the gay movement in Germany must also come to terms with this chapter of its history. Anyone who searches through archives can find ample evidence of the alliance between gay rights organizations and pedophile activists. If pedophiles got into trouble with the law, they could rely on legal advice from a group called “Gay Lawyers.” Many politicians in the Green Party also made sure that calls for legalizing sex with children had an audience. . . .
[M]any gays didn’t want to be the ones to judge others for their deviant sexual inclinations. In a climate of general tolerance, the movement lost its moral compass. The gay movement did not distance itself from men who acted on their desire for children; rather, it took them under its wing.
Then there was the remarkable idea that underage boys should not be denied the chance to have sexual experiences with grown men. Even today, the Association of Lesbians and Gays in Germany (LSVD) claims on its website that in the 1980s, the only men who spoke up were those who had enjoyed sex with adults in their youth.
For the pedophiles, the alliance with the gay movement was nothing but beneficial. They had a platform from which they could formulate objectives.
The gay movement helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways. In the pamphlet “Justly gay. Legal advice for gays,” there is a one-and-a-half page “argumentation aid.” It’s an instruction on how men who are charged with child sexual abuse can best escape punishment.

To emphasize, in case you missed the key passages:

“The gay movement did not distance itself
from men who acted on their desire for children;
rather, it took them under its wing. . . . The gay movement
helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways.”

You can read the whole thing, which reveals a sordid history that the gay rights movement — and the Left, in general, both in Europe and America — have attempted to suppress by angrily denouncing as “bigots” and “witch hunters” anyone who dares to mention it.

It is not bigotry, it is not hysteria or witch-hunting or homophobia, to state the plain facts, nor should we be afraid to point out that there are still many people — including university professors and authors published by prestigious journals — who are attempting to undermine resistance to their agenda of having sex with minors.

Furthermore, we need not be silent about which side of the political spectrum tolerates and defends these intellectual perverts, chiefly by their silence about the existence of the academic pedophile movement, but also by stigmatizing those who warn against it.

In January, when Rush Limbaugh described the “movement to normalize pedophilia,” he was mocked by liberals for saying so, but we are now being overwhelmed with a tsunami of new evidence of the shameless persistence of this shameful deviant movement:

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 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. . . .
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. . . .
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. . . .
“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.”

It’s another read-the-whole-incredible-thing article. We shake our heads in disbelief that someone like James Kincaid even exists, much less that this unapologetic academic advocate for perversity should be employed by the University of Southern California:

Professor Kincaid researches critical theory, American Studies and Queer studies. Before coming to USC in 1987, he taught at Ohio State, Berkeley, and Colorado. 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. He regularly teaches classes in criminality/lunacy/perversion, in age studies, in censorship, and in other areas of literary, political, and cultural studies.

Oh, “critical theory,” also known as cultural Marxism. But if you call it by its right name, you’ll be called a paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorist. And in this world turned upside down, where facts are “hate” and truth is “extremist,” how much further down the the slippery slope will we slide before it’s illegal even to criticize it?

We’ve already slouched past Gomorrah and are halfway to Sodom. We are so close to the gates of Hell you can feel the heat, smell the sulfurous stench of burning brimstone, and hear the Devil call your name.

Satan roams the Earth, the Evil Rights Movement gains new supporters daily, and it may already be a crime to call evil by its right name.

“I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money . . .”
— Brett Kimberlin to Patrick Frey, Oct. 11. 2011

You’re not praying hard enough.

 

BomberSuesBloggers.com

 




 

151 comments

  1. What an absolutely absurd argument and then using the Hunt case to bolster your claims is even more ridiculous. A little context please. The Hunt case was about an 18 year old high school student and another girl who was also a high school student but happened to be underage and not the story of a 35 year old seeking sexual relations with a 9 year old. Most rational people(not social conservatives)see the Hunt case as unfortunate and didn’t go around screaming “pervert” and “pedophile” and possibly wanted to make an exemption for cases of that kind and that kind only. But to play connect the dots between that, some obscure academic, and some monolothic left dedicated to legalizing child rape is pure tin foil hattery and just a way to demonize the political opposition. Maybe you want to bring up NAMBLA again who if you weren’t aware were the targets of law enforcement and have been pushed into non-existence.

  2. And then in your reference material it says the New York Times, a supposed HQ for this monolithic left, condemns this man. Ok then.

  4. People “possibly wanted to make an exemption for cases of that kind and that kind only.” There already exists an exemption for it. Kate Hunt fell outside that age limit, and she knew it, as memorialized in her statement to the police. What they want is ANOTHER exemption. And then there will be another, and another ….

  7. No, there’s no exemption for 18 and 14. And of course, I get the usual conservative “slippery slope” argument. It’s like Bender in the Breakfast Club: “Why does Brian get to get up? If he get’s up, soon we’ll all get up and it’ll be anarchy!”

  8. I just did. The rest is just the usual “the sky is falling, liberals are trying to destroy modern society” bullshit I see on every right wing blog.

  9. Well, it didn’t take long for you to get a reaction. Well researched and well executed as usual sir! The Hunt case has brought this to the nation’s attention. And now, they cannot stop it.

  10. Puzzling. The delightful Kate Hunt only made up a small portion of your article yet troll fixates on it. There is no need to analyze that behavior, because I believe you’ve dealt with it on more than one occasion.

    Anyway, why is Kate so important to the context of this article? Because far from being a pursuit of radical law reform it jumps right onto the boundary condition where people suffering from moral ambiguity disorder have the most trouble separating right from wrong. Even for a liberal, it is far easier to rationalize an 18yo having some sordid toilet sex and dildo thrusts with 14yo, than if the age difference were greater.

    As for the slippery slope. The reason most libs can’t see it, is that we’re already on it.

  11. Had trouble reading through this! Parents and Every child Advocate should be in D.C. shouting in the Politicians faces! “Homophobic” now is defined as Conservative, Heterosexual, Family Oriented, Moral-minded persons.GOD help our Country and its Ultra-Progressive Liberal leaders!

  12. Hmph. Pedarastry really doesn’t strike me as a good idea. What’s next, birds wintering in Cleveland?

  13. People continually scream that the “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy. There’s merit to that only if the opponent has established a line which will remain inviolate. What’s fascinated me with the #Free Kate mob, portions of which stumble in here, is that I cannot recall one who has said, the line should be [fill in blank with whatever] and then provides a consistent philosophical basis for the lines new location. Quite telling, that. Sort of like, “We have to eliminate the current lines to find out where the new ones will be drawn.”

    No thanks.

  14. Right. There is an exemption for 18 and 15. That’s my point. Kate Hunt could not wait four more months to finger a minor in a public restroom. Then she would have fallen under the exemption. People like you want to reward her lack of self control.

  16. I predict we’ll be seeing a great deal of St Kate and her army of deviants in the coming year, courtesy of the poltroons and bounders at the Florida State’s Attorney’s Office who’ve shown this undeserving wretch nothing but inexplicable leniency from the start…

Comments are closed.