The Pakistani-on-'white' gang-rape culture further revealed in Rotherham – already officially well known back in 2002 and the subject of two reports – is a window on the core reality of forced sex (that is, rape as popularly well understood, and not the usually cross-signals or retrospective withdrawal of consent that is most 'acquaintance rape'): it occurs across a major in-group/ out-group divide. 'Normal' males do not appear to force sex on females within what they perceive to be their own community. Yes, in certain scenarios, such as a war theatre, given certain conditions men may force sex when the target would be clearly belonging to a very distinct out-group (not the sort of arbitrary 'minimal' group created in social psychology experiments). 'White' girls were not part of the community of these Pakistani men, as they perceived things; and evidently were regarded as 'fair game' -- like ISIS warriors view non-Wahhabi females.
What a wonderful product of the imposition of non-needed and non-desired immigration of people of at least in some senses an alien culture, 'socially engineered' by politicians motivated by hatred for the masses in their 'identity politics' (/'PC').
As highlighted in the report, and as everyone knows would always have been the case, the 'race card' was shown to anyone so much as hinting they might make a fuss about people who, though of the politically hated class 'men', happened to be of an ethnic minority. The critical factor in why the problem persisted unaddressed for so long is the 'identity politics' (/'PC') imperative not to raise an issue in respect of a 'group' identified as 'disadvantaged' and 'oppressed'.
Yet … and yet, there is another major factor at play here. The hysteria over supposed child sex abuse in the wake of the appalling travesties of justice that is Yewtree – and not excluding Savile himself – almost certainly will have hugely inflated the figures given as to the scale of what has gone on in Rotherham.
Then there is the wanton abuse of the term 'paedophile', when this rests on the politically-driven redefinition of 'child' to include females several years over the age of puberty and therefore by meaningful definition not children at all; and on the persistent wilful failure to understand that the term refers to an exclusive sexual preference.
It will in time come to be a staple of comic turns that 'identity politics' /'PC' works in its 'intersectionality' [sic] to heap malicious farce upon malicious farce, such that the absurd politics turns on its own faux 'groups' just as in its creation it turned on 'the workers', formerly lauded but then shunned and abused for not swallowing the political baloney. Not, though, I would suppose, until after the whole thing has blown up in the faces of the bigoted elitist-separatist political-Left fools who built the obscene politics that has led to such 'community' disaster, that any other sort of fool could see coming decades ago.
'Identity politics' (sometimes dubbed 'political correctness') is the result of a political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people (in Europe and 'the West'), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake of the persistent failure of Marxist theory to be realised in European 'revolution' or any real change through democracy. In shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and the gullibility of those adhering to it, and on to those the theory prescribed and predicted would have been the beneficiaries, if only they had responded accordingly ('the workers'); then the cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by this crisis to an extent could be salved.
The intellectual rationalisation of this was first by invoking Freud's discredited notion of 'repression' to attempt to explain a supposed impact on 'the workers' of 'capitalism' acting within the context of the family. With most workers being male, and the principal 'agents of social change' in a 'revolution' being envisaged as likewise, then the theoreticians had in mind the male as 'head' of the family. It was a simple extension in political-Left imagination for 'the worker' to change from being the putative conduit of the impact of 'capitalism' to its embodiment, leaving women to become the replacement supposed 'oppressed' and 'disadvantaged'. This implausible and unfalsifiable non-scientific nonsense mainly festered within academia until the co-option after 1968 by the political-Left of the seeming revolutionary US 'civil rights' movement. This added to the 'new oppressed' the category 'non-white', which like that of women could be envisaged as an inversion of a retrospective stereotype of 'the worker'. In the wake of the similarly seeming revolutionary Stonewall riots of 1969, the 'gay rights' lobby was also co-opted to further add to the abstract demonised aspects of 'the worker', now retrospectively stereotyped as male plus 'white' plus heterosexual.
The strands of the 'new oppressed' combined in a new (neo-Marxist) conceptualisation to account for these political shifts after the fact, and came to be termed 'identity politics' (or more pejoratively but accurately, 'cultural Marxism', and latterly dubbed 'modernising' [sic] in political parties). The deemed 'groups' replacing 'the workers' – subsequently expanded to embrace the disabled, the elderly, trans-sexuals and the obese – are abstractions rather than groups per se, and in any case far too heterogeneous to be in reality 'oppressed' or 'disadvantaged'; providing a window on the sophistry and origin of this politics as other than it purports.
The pretence to egalitarianism is perfect cover for what 'identity politics' actually is: the very perennial and ubiquitous elitist-separatism the political-Left ethos attacks and denies; rendered a quasi-religion, being an ideology in the wake of the Christian notion of 'the promised land' in the utopia/dystopia of equality-of-outcome. This represents a continuation of the process of a shift in religiosity from envisaging a 'god' as being in man's image, through the humanist deification of mankind, to worship of a supposed dynamic of teleological social change (originally understood in Marxism as a form of explicit cognition known as 'the dialectic'). 'Identity politics', in being both not what it pretends to be and now so widespread and entrenched across the whole and every facet of the establishment in Anglophone nations and 'the West' generally, can properly be regarded as the greatest political fraud in history.
The witch-hunt in the name of misandry – hated towards men – that is Yewtree just got still crazier, if that's possible. The BBC is again in cahoots with the police to manufacture bogus allegations; this time against Cliff Richard. The denial from South Yorkshire Police is hilarious: directly or indirectly, the leak to media can only have come from them. That's why they've got their oar in quick with a complaint to the DG of the Boob.
The Boob were there ahead of the arrival of the police to film and broadcast what amounts to a high-profile appeal for any fantasist, disgruntled one-time wannabe girlfriend, deluded fan with an embellished memory, etc, to come forward with some flimsy allegation; so that a set of entirely non-evidenced accusations can be passed to the witch-finder general heading the CPS, Alison Saunders, for her to practise her sex-hatred and get the CPS brownie-points for being such good PC-fascists.
Do any of these malicious idiots in the media and police think to imagine how they are going to look in a few years time when Yewtree comes to be seen as a rekindling of the ridiculous satanic ritual child sex abuse delusions of twenty years ago?
In the glare of the celebrity spotlight for seven decades, if there was anything at all in the rumours that Cliff doesn't prefer tennis to sex, then we'd have long since heard of it, and big time. There has never been anything in the longstanding inference that he must be 'gay', let alone that he's a 'gay' 'paedophile' – the Chinese-whisper that he was a regular at Elms House protected by a nickname is just that … standard Chinese whisper. It could not be clearer that Cliff has no interest in sex. Nobody in all those decades has ever come forward with the slightest evidence that other than his long-confessed virginity-losing one-off encounter with a girl who later became the wife of one of his band, that Cliff just doesn't do sex. He's too picky, too wary of the loss of freedom, and brim-full with religious morality. He got to be a huge star, and his constant drive to get there and stay up there has taken over his life to put himself pretty much out of everyone's league. It's not at all that he's anti-social: he hates being alone; which is why he had a live-in pal – who was there with his wife. But being different is no crime. Actually, it's great he's different.
Meanwhile, Rolf is rightly appealing his ridiculous conviction, which even with our laughable judicial system is set to be overturned given the complete absence of evidence against him re the set of mere allegations he faced.
I joked before as to what unlikely target they'll choose next. Well, I guessed Cliff and they took me at my word. I also guessed Sooty and Lenny the Lion. What's the odds on Alison Saunders not giving some numptie cops the go-ahead to take to trial puppeteers for supposedly putting their hand up more than their puppet?
We live in interesting times set to change and consign this sort of ignorant malicious horseshit to the dustbin of history, but in the meantime we live in times so daft as to utterly beggar belief.
Courtesy of AVoiceforMen
Johnny Berba approaches two lovely Polish girls...suddenly the mother arrives...and so he starts flirting with her. But then Dad arrives...and Johnny asks out the mother regardless...
And here's Russian prankster Vitaly revealing the superficiality of women...again.
From earlier this month - Spiked Online writers Frank Furedi, Barbara Hewson and Luke Gittos on Paedophile Panics : Our Unheathy Obsession
And a good comment underneath from Ian B asking why it is (outside our corner of the web) those who recognise paedohysteria still refuse to blame feminists for it (and his reply to the aspie (real) paedophile 'Papercut' and his feminist apologia :
Ian B : All that talk, and not one mention of who are the core drivers of the hysteria; which is the Feminist Movement and its ideological conspiracy theory that men (as a class) are an abuse conspiracy against women and children (as a class). Not one. Why are the speakers all so reluctant to point the finger in the direction of the Feminist Movement?
Papercut : Whilst it appears that feminism shares some blame for the current hysteria I'm not so convinced that we can really lay the blame at the movements feet. I suspect that their current stance is still a 'symptom' of something deeper, rather than a 'cause'.
After all in its previous incarnation feminists were seen as favourable towards child sexuality - we still see that in thinkers such as Germaine Greer. She may be a 'throw back' but it shows that feminism isn't inherently against child-sexual rights.
What is this 'something deeper'? I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with the changes in the social and economic dynamics of society, the move from an industrial mode of production to a 'service' mode, to changes in the way we interact with the world (i.e. the advent and popularisation of technologies which isolate us from the community), to the dominance of the motor car shutting children out of public spaces and the diminishing role of the community in the rearing of children.
Ian B : Everything has a prior cause. We could use the same argument to say that Nazism wasn't to blame for the Holocaust because it was a symptom of something else deeper in society, and so ad infinitum.
Feminism has had two main waves- the first up to the Suffragettes, the second from the sixties onwards. In the intervening period, the term became diffused to just about anybody writing about womens' issues, from a womens' perspective or just generally sympathetically towards women. In the liberal period between Feminisms, it was thus the case that various liberal attitudes and persons were somewhat associated with the movement, and a wide diversity of people generally. Erica Jong wrote naughty books, Doris Lessing wrote, er, naughty books. And so on.
The revival of core feminism put a stop to that, and by the Early 70s the real, "core" Feminists were back on the prowl reviving their core dogma of men as immoral, predatory beasts, seeking causes that would be used to prove that characterisation- domestic violence, rape hysteria, and child abuse. And has been pushing them ever since.
First wave feminism- that which culminated in the Suffragettes- was the militant wing of the Social Purity Movement. The second wave is the same. And they are the core drivers of the paedohysteria. Whether Feminists are symptomatic of something deeper we could speculate about forever, but sometimes it's best just to identify the particular human formation responsible and stick with that, for clarity, and because it's all that really matters.
Perhaps it is time to assess whether anonymity should be an option rather than the default position. While it has always been argued that commenters build an identity around their pseudonym, those who express opinions under their own name carry more authority and are obviously more careful about what they say.
Jemima Kiss, head of technology, said: "It's well established that the quality and constructiveness of comments increases immediately with a real-name log in. In a small minority of situations, anonymity allows commenters to protect their identities where they need to refer to their employers, or a revealing personal experience for example. But it feels like the daily default of anonymity is now out of date, sabotaging otherwise interesting stories that deserve input, and creating an intimidating environment for readers that are deterred from making a valuable contribution. I think annotated comment – where the comment can be left alongside a specific point in the text – will help to structure comment threads more efficiently. But I would also like to see anonymity a rare and valued tool that would be opted into, and the norm more like the open discussion of Facebook and Twitter, where sharing and commenting on a story with a link under your own name is a statement of values and interests."
— Wagner Clemente Soto (@wcsoto) August 10, 2014
David Futrelle and his readers regularly make fun of the distinction, sometimes made in the manosphere, regarding paedophilia (the attraction to pre-pubescents) and 'ephebophilia' (the attraction to adolescent minors). It's all the same to them. Finding a 5 year old sexy is no more perverse than finding a 17 year old attractive. Hmmm. It's one thing a woman making such an obviously false claim, but when it comes from a 'man' like Futrelle, or one of his many male fake transexual fans..
Indeed, it appears that Futrelle's groupies believe finding any minor attractive is paedophilia, including thefore a 19 or 20 year old in those countries with an age of majority of 21. David Futrelle and his wig wearing fans therefore belong to the minority of people who still regard Alan Turing as a paedophile pervert (he was caught banging a 19 year old boy in the bum when the age of majority in the UK, for both males and females, was 21).
While I agree that the notion of ephebophilia is aspie junk science nonsense (all men, apart from real paedophiles and other perverts, are attracted to adolescents), the insistance that there is no important difference between the attraction to pre-pubescents and post-pubescents is extremely dangerous. Of course, what is 'natural' is not always right, but to criminlize something natural under the pretence that it is perverted, is clearly a recipe for injustice. Furthermore, if you maintain the lie that it is unnatural and perverted, even sick, to find post-pubescent females attractive, then you risk turning healthy men into perverts who have internalized that paedophile lie and then ran with it. Indeed, this appears to be what has happened with many of Futrelle's child torture porn apologist ring members. Whilst publicly shaming men as 'paeodphiles' for admitting that 17 year olds can be sexy, many openly sport avatars of pre-pubescent anime characters. Others freely declare their unabashed love for extreme manga torture porn...and at least one or two actually create it. All of them, however, appear to defend the renting out in an adult sex shop of a disgusting 'art' film depicting nothing but the torture and murder of (real) naked children.
When concern for child welfare is simply a means to demonize men, financially enrich yourself, and regulate the free sexual market in your favour, and consequently you lie to men that to find the most desirable females attractive is paedophilia, equally as bad as the abuse of toddlers, then you open the door to an increase in real paedophilia and perversion. It's hardly surprising, therefore, to find that so many of the mentally disturbed individuals and wig wearers amongst David Futrelle's readership appear to be defending and even cultivating sick torture fantasies regarding children whilst libelling as paedophiles those who argue that giving consenting 17 year olds orgasms is neither child abuse nor paedophilia.
Currently, David Futrelle's schizophrenic readers are simultaneously defending child torture porn as art to be sold in sex shops, on the grounds that the naked actors were sixteen, not six (the actors were actually as young as 14), and therefore 'not really underage', whilst mocking as paedophiles those of us who simply argue that teenage 'minors' are capable of consenting to sex.
Note that nobody, to my knowledge, has provided a link proving that 'it won a court challenge'. Presumably Scarlettpipstrelle is referring to the arrest on obscenity charges of the gay sex shop owners who were renting it out on their premises. O.K, we have to accept the disgusting fact that, because Pasolini (the director) was a leftie and an 'artist', his films that involve non-stop gratuitous torture of naked 14 year old boys get a free pass to be viewed on YouTube and Netflix. However, even granting the hypocrisy and fake child welfare concern of the left, any civilised society draws the line at images of naked 14 year olds being tortured being rented out in adult sex shops. That includes the USA. These same readers were denouncing the 'jailbait' subreddit for displaying pictures of fully clothed teenage girls as 'child porn', and not only the men who viewed it, but MRAs who defended it, as 'paedophiles'.
Maybe somebody should pop into that gay sex shop in Cincinnati and check whether they are still renting out a film containing naked children eating shit and being disembowelled, alongside all the other gay pornos, sex toys, and jack off material? I assume not, and only David Futrelle and his fellow child torture porn apologists are sick enough to ask 'why not'?