659. The cauldron (XII)
If you listen to old-timers, difficult to do by definition, you will sometimes hear them say, “We didn’t have all these paedophiles in our day.” Perhaps old-timers of that sort have almost all died out, yet a few remain—and the typical response from a young person is pity; they think how naïve the oldsters are, since they never talked about sex as openly as we do they never knew—they never knew about this vast undiscovered continent that conceals so much abuse, another novel concept (and perhaps you should consider therapy to resolve your issues from said abuse).
However, what the oldsters really mean is that they had “pederasts”, not “paedophiles”—and here we come to the point, a point commonly made by libertarians, so much so they are mocked for it, that “paedophilia” does not exist. “U wot? R u a nonce then?” Gently, gently the libertarian rubs the flats of his hands on his corduroyed trousers—little girl, little girl, come and look at uncle’s sweeties…What might be genuinely called “child abuse” or, more accurately, rape does exist—paedophilia does not. Paedophilia was invented by the experts to conceal the fact that, per capita, homosexual men—pederasts—are over-represented in child sex cases; these are now subsumed under “paedophile” so people can no longer track the prevalence in this now-exalted sub-group.
As our libertarian “uncle” will quickly point out, the age-of-consent laws were the same for about 900 years in Britain—at twelve. Then, in the late 1890s, feminists demanded they be changed—and since then the laws have changed multiple times. The result has been an inversion, the invention of the false category “paedophile” that serves to protect homosexual perversion and to criminalise normal sex—so that it becomes a serious sex crime for a twenty-five-year-old to sleep with a fifteen-year-old; so that heterosexual sex becomes effectively criminalised when people are at their most fertile—just like those sterile hysterical Victorian nags always wanted, bitter old crones. Simultaneously, the trans movement—with its pushes for younger and younger transitions—opens the door for consensual pre-pubescent sex, for if you can transition at seven can you not consent?
We will end up, if this continues, with a situation where the state will arrest a twenty-year-old for sending n00ds to a fourteen-year-old and put him on a sex offenders register as a “paedophile”, whereas a trans who had “consensual” sex with a ten-year-old will be fully protected and probably celebrated on national talk shows—it will all be very consensual.
The populist right, the Tommy Robinson types, are beyond misled in this regard. They are the types to organise “paedo hunts” against relationships that would be normal for all of man’s history—the real crime is that the girls are not controlled by their fathers, not the age gap. The same people complain that “Mohammad was a paedo” because Aisha was nine when he married her, an asinine Zionist talking point—no, it was not sexual and it was normal in Arabia at the time. In modernity, most fathers would not endorse such an early marriage—and that is the point, the relationship should be about the father’s prerogative not some feminist idea about “when the girl can consent”. The same hardcases who try to “catch a predator” would, if confronted with a homosexual relationship, back off and say “I respect your choice, mate” because they are brainwashed by the system—the “paedophile” angle is one aspect of the move that makes homosexuality high status.
Prince Andrew is not “a paedo”: what he did was normal—has been done by males, particularly royals, for centuries. What is suspect about Andrew is that he was hooked into a contact network and hooker ring that was controlled by a foreign intelligence agency—Mossad probably, given the Maxwell family’s history. That is the real story there, and the people behind the network are doubtless delighted that everyone chases the “paedophile” cape and not the intelligence agency bull.