1. I am now reading three very interesting books.
Fabian Biancardi’s “Democracy and the Global System a Contribution to the Critique of Liberal Internationalism” – an interesting look at post-modern democracy, globalism, and governance in our present era. I’ve not yet formed an opinion of this book so far.
You can get it at Amazon here:
Justine Davis Randers-Peherson’s “Barbarians and Romans: The Birth Struggle of Europe, A.D. 400-700” a very interesting look at the evolution of what would become the Germanic world of Western Europe we knew today, out of the sparsely populated, mostly arboreal, primitive tribal milieu of barbarian late antiquity.
There are numerous myths on Western civilization and culture which I find to be ahistorical, and without real basis. This book makes a serious examination of the processes by which the Celts and Germans became civilized in their interactions with the Roman State, the military and cultural dynamics, and how the formerly semi-nomadic Teutonic tribes became real nations and settled civilizations with the passing of Roman power. More importantly, it deals with the Asian steppes and suggests something I have long believed, that there was no clear demarcation between “Europe” and “Asia” when it came to the folk-wanderings of Indo-Aryan tribes even up to late antiquity. A fascinating and well researched book.
And you can get Randers-Peherson’s book at Amazon here:
Lastly James H. Billington’s “Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith”.
Billington is a highly placed authority, historian of the Library of Congress, and one of the most respected historians of the nation (bio at http://www.loc.gov/bicentennial/bios/preserve/billington.html) This book is a landmine of historical research, but its themes hold implications that a highly literate reader, with some background knowledge of revolutionary politics and history, can put together.
Billington delivers a highly readable, and authoritative, history of the revolutionary strands of thought that birthed America, Soviet Russia, post revolutionary France, and indeed the whole face of modern democratic Europe, and looks at the way in which social revolution, social justice, leveling, and other similar themes formed part of an enlightenment era creedal faith, a secular religion in other words, with its own rites, myths, and sacraments.
Billington shows that, for many people, it was truly a religious faith that drove them on, and he shows how this led to the libertarian, leftist, democratic, and republican traditions and threads that characterize modern political thought on both the right and the left. It is also the only sane and authoritative history on the real origins of the Bavarian Illuminati.
Billington also examines interesting overlaps between certain occult groups and the early socialist Left, though regrettably doesn’t spend much time on this fascinating, bizarre, and mostly forgotten side of Western political history. (It’s something only raving conspiracy theorists really deal with, although Rene Guenon touches on and alludes to certain matters in his history of Theosophy and Spiritualism. Also. Deveney’s history of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor can be read closely for names to follow-up on. Julius Evola, himself well steeped in European occultism, drops an interesting tangent or two throughout his oeuvre)
Billington’s fascinating and informative book can be found at Amazon here:
2. Thoughts on the show “To Catch a Predator” – I could ask, isn’t this legally entrapment? But on a more subtle level, does it not, in constantly displaying such matters, actually popularize pedophilia, making it seem normative and wide spread?
There are three main problems with To Catch a Predator, each I will deal with. It’s legally entrapping, biologically disingenuous – in confusing sexualized adolescents with non-sexualized children; and it actually makes the problem of pedophilia worse. Skeptics can now rip my head off. Bear with me, as I explore these ideas further, and you will find yourself seeing, at least, that I have a valid point and frankly could very well be correct.
The problem with this show starts with the simple fact that our Modern Western culture utterly lacks any concept of sexual honor or shame, and worse certain seemingly well meaning, but actually deeply idiot and possibly subversive, individuals in academia have subjected us to a 40 year propaganda campaign convincing us that sexual honor and shame, as well as that instinct that the Arabs call Gheera, (it’s not quite jealousy, though it is frequently mis-translated as such into English) are somehow pathological and wrong.
The subversive idiocy of certain voices in the psychiatric establishment is a theme for another day, needless to say there are sincere and genuine people who thought they were engaged in a liberational and progressive project of enlightenment, but because of their reacting to the, if you will, Victorian ancien regime of morals and psychological health, simply went to another extreme in reaction.
The sincerely mistaken, however deep the harms they have caused us, can be understood, but there is another smaller section of the intelligentsia who were outright, knowingly and with fell malefic intent and bad faith, out to subvert the dominant social order not in order to reform it, but in order to dissolve it.
This is my claim, and I won’t bother defending it because it would take too long, it is somewhat obvious to anyone who has done a good deal of reading, and would lead me on a tangent.
So, as to the show itself; what I find problematic, beyond the fact that it constitutes almost as legal entrapment, is that the “girls”, used to lure the would-be sex offenders in question, may happen to be under age, but they are neither biologically or even legally children.
This is a subtle point to consider, think the following over.
One – these girls are minors, but they are not, and cannot be defined as, children. Many could legally get married in a number of states with their parents permission, and some are even over the lowest ages of consent in some US states and Western countries.
Children cannot legally engage in sexual congress. Ergo if by law a person who is pubescent or post-pubescent can marry, even if only with their parents permission, in some localities then by definition they are not children.
This is not difficult to understand. Secondly biologically, at the point of puberty being reached a child becomes a sexual being, and hence capable of siring or bearing children which is, after all, the teleological point of sex. Of course there are some people who haven’t figured this out, but we can leave them to the side for now.
Now, whether or not it’s a good idea for 14 or 15 or 16 year olds to marry in our culture today is an entirely different question. Only the weak minded and confused conflate such issues without thinking them clearly. the fact remains that some of the minor characters used on the show to lure the guys in are old enough to marry, and biologically capable of, and ready for, coition, go into heat during ovulation like adult females, and in our culture today already run around like alley cats anyway.
So who is kidding whom?
What concerns me is the constant theme in the media of referring to pubescent youths as children – this is a memetic landmine. It will end up destroying the childhoods of many children, for a very crucial reason.
Normal Adult heterosexual males, have a baseline normative level of sexual response to pubescent females. It’s neurobiology, and in itself is an instinct and human appetite and hence is not naturally perverted. Females displaying pubescent traits evoke a normal sexual response for biological reasons in adult healthy males, the strength or weakness of that response depends on how physically developed the female is, and how sexualized she displays herself.
On the other hand, normal and healthy adult heterosexual males do not have a sexual response to pre-pubescent female children. Period. There is some slipping, of course, with a small, very small, base level of arousal occurring in a very small percentage of sexually normal adult males, to female children who are near puberty and adolescence. Thus some small percentage of biologically and psychologically healthy men may display a small degree of arousal near 10,11, or 12 year old girls when the female features which typically evoke sexual arousal in men are accentuated or displayed. More often than not normal men will simply exhibit a disgust and aversion, however experiments have shown some small degree of arousal.
This is why it’s a bloody stupid idea to dress 12 year olds in sexualized clothing, and it’s a stupid and obscene idea to let them sit on Santa’s lap in the mall. It’s a threshold that you do not want to cross.
Such small levels of arousal, when they occur, do so on a very, very, small, barely measurable level. And it’s a small, unconscious, biological threshold of arousal that typically [in a healthy society] will never be acted on by, or even noticed in, the subject.
Summing it up – normal adult males do not, do not, and I repeat do not, get noticeably aroused – that is to say horny – around children. Though a small minority of non-pedophile, otherwise normal, adult males may experience a very small level of arousal around older children, of the opposite sex, who are close to puberty.
Again this is why it’s not a bright idea – and in fact it is a criminally stupid idea – to put 10 year old girls in bikinis at co-ed summer camp or the beech, or to buy for them tight pants and booty shorts with “cute” sayings written on the bottom. And this why it is obscenely stupid to sell Pole Dancing kits, marketed to pre-pubescent girls, unless we want a generation of 11 year old strippers growing up.
They say you can’t take the trash out of a trashy person, but I prefer to think that no one is this depraved and trashy.
Parents with any degree of intelligence and good breeding realize such things, parents who do not might want to consider weeding themselves out of the gene pool. These matters are implicit and our culture at one time displayed very sensible social restrictions and regulations around the close contact of adults with older children of the opposite sex, so as to prevent the possibility of even the hint of certain improprieties being suggested.
And so as to preserve the honor of the families, and children. This was America even three generations ago.
Our culture now lacks even the very concept of honor and, of course, propriety. Such was forgotten a couple of generations ago. This said my grandmothers still freak out whenever they see girls walking around in halter tops or in bikinis at the beach, or sitting on adult non-parental males laps. Even my mother finds this completely distasteful and vile, a sign of trashy parents of the lowest breeding and rearing.
I agree. This might piss off readers in the habit of parading their 11 year old girls dressed like street walkers. I think they should reconsider their priorities however.
Now, measurable arousal and attraction to children – pre-pubescent youths of the same or opposite sex – is biologically deviant. Attempting sexual contact with such children is deviant, pathological – let’s just say sick – and depraved. It is a social taboo, though there are people who do have an agenda to make this less so. These people are dangerous and subversive.
Conflating pedophilia, which is the disgusting and sickening sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, with sexual responses to pubescent females – however sexually inappropriate and forbidden sexual activity is between adults and pubescent individuals under the legal age of consent – is a dangerous confusing of categories which will actually backfire and lead to a normalization of deviant sexual responses to outright children.
For female adult school teachers to have a sexual response to, and engage in sexual intimacy with, teenage males is socially and morally inappropriate, however biologically it is not deviant, since teenage males are pubescent and have adult sexual development, such as the capacity for erection and engaging in coition, ejaculation after orgasm, and the capacity to impregnate said cougar teachers.
Indeed our pop culture is hypocritically full of innuendo and veiled acceptance of this anyway, every teenage boy has wanted to have his way with his 10th grade English teacher, and Van Halen’s “Hot for Teacher” suggests some things. Socially and morally, however, it’s unacceptable, and makes an argument for the appropriateness of even allowing mating age older adult females in close, potentially intimate, contact with mating age younger adolescent boys.
I could make jokes about purdah and eastern style seclusion solving such problems, since I do not want to make the comments section a tedious battleground I will refrain from such jokes, out of concern for awakening certain krakens of the deep… but society should think very carefully about the appropriateness of opposite sex teachers in near intimate mingling with adolescent students.
In any case, on the other hand for female adult school teachers to have sexual responses to, and engage in sexual intimacy with, pre-adolescent boys, is socially depraved, morally depraved, and biologically deviant. There is no possible excuse other than pathology – a sickness.
Adolescents biologically are sexual beings, ergo they naturally have sexual desires and responses – adult sexuality is a continuum and range, and it includes innate responses to sexed adolescents.
However our culture’s hyper sexed media accentuates this to an unhealthy balance, and sexualizes even the most innocent of things on a subtle, subversive, level – not in a loving, life enhancing, and community/family building way, but in a sterile and compulsive way.
I’m not moralizing, I’m pointing at existential matters. It’s a bad thing in general to over-sexualize adolescents for the purposes of increasing their commercial consumption of goods, to the profit of those entities pumping sexualized media out.
My problem is not with sex, rather with the crass commercialization of sexuality, and corrupting normal instincts in normal people for ulterior purposes.
Our modern Western culture lacks healthy ways in which adolescent and young adult sexuality can be expressed in a family friendly, community friendly, life enhancing manner. People used to get married at 15 and adopt adult life roles, what we have today isn’t much better than what we used to have then, and I’m not romanticizing a damn thing. The present order is only better from a materialistic, crass, consumer oriented standpoint.
Instead today, teenagers are fed Lady Gaga and Internet gonzo porn, and led to believe donkey punching is normative sexual behavior. It is not of course. And I suspect all of this is a wee bit psychologically damaging to growing young minds.
In other words, shows like Catch a Predator – by confusing a biologically normative, though socially taboo, sexual response to adolescent females with a biologically deviant and pathological, and still taboo, sexual response to children – will result in erasing a certain mental and emotional wall, portraying pedophilia as widespread and normative, heighten public fears, while at the same time ultimately leading to the lowering of these taboos on a wider scale.
There are already activist groups trying to push for the acceptance of “trans-generational sex” in the Western world.
People I see as perverts trying to normalize in the public mind, and eventually legally, the idea that adults can fuck little children – not adolescents, not pubertal individuals, but outright children. These groups are deviant, perverted, and have an agenda that seems enlightened and progressive in their eyes, but is in reality harmful and will lead to unspeakable horrors.
I used to know a girl who was a rather precocious girl, who started running around when she was like 13 or so. Of course she looked 18 or 19, and was known to frequently pass for 21 at bars, though no one in her social group knew she was so young until much later (one can only remain 21 years old for 6 years before people start to get suspicious). In any case, I heard from a friend that the poor girl wound up a bad case of HPV warts while still at a tender age. This emotionally wounded the poor girl deeply. And this is, I believe, a deep tragedy.
A similar example of a tragedy is a young girl who catches Chlamydia at the age of 12, realizes it not, and discovers that she is infertile at the age of 22 and unable to ever conceive due to the massive scars on her fallopian tubes.
The only people who do not see this as a tragedy are the eugenically minded.
Since I am not a eugenicist (though there are some ideas in eugenics worth considering and contemplating, I admit. No body of thought is completely full of bad ideas) I see this as a tragedy.
Even if I were a eugenicist, I would want people to have the conscious choice of making informed decisions that could result in their genetic lineages cut off for the rest of time. Of course that video of the 2 year old girl smoking a reefer, filmed by her mom, does cause me to re-consider, at least, the question of eugenics.. but this is a tangent.
I think it’s obvious that a young mind is not emotionally equipped to handle certain things related to sexuality in the present cultural environment, though this may have been much different 200 years ago.
Now if a pubescent mind is fragile and delicate and unable to handle certain matters, such as pregnancy, abortion, and permanent venereal diseases, imagine the horrors when inter-generational sex becomes normalized to the point that 11 year olds are winding up with genital warts in their throats, sterilized due to Chlamydia infections at 12 and 13, emotionally unable to pair bond as an adult because of a string of heart breaks, breakups, sexual trauma, before the age of 17 even? Does anyone want to consider the emotional damages of 12 year old boys being normalized into pedophile sex with older men, and suffering from anal incontinence by their early adulthood?
Come on people, let us consider this deeply.
Look up anal incontinence folks, there is a reason that anal sex has been considered deviant throughout most of human history. Even Greeks “androphiles” frowned upon outright buggery in the early classical era.
I do not want to contemplate our culture becoming so damned depraved to the point that not only 11 year olds turning tricks for corner store money (which is already starting to happen in some communities, a friend of mine is a youth program counselor attached to a local university, a few times this year they’ve caught 11-13 year old girls gleefully servicing freshmen and sophomore guys) but worse I do not want to contemplate a culture in which 11 – 13 year old girls, and boys, wind up with Venereal infections in their throats and anuses, wind up anally incontinent, and are completely emotionally unable to form any sort of pair bond in an adult relationship lasting longer than 6 months.
Am I exaggerating matters? Not really if you look at the logical terminus of things.
Shows like Catch a Predator are inadvertently – possibly – contributing to the phenomenon they claim to oppose. And in my non-informed opinion and speculation, such shows may actually form part of a Fifth Column of memetc engineering serving to normalize am acceptance of child/adult sexuality, by conflating it with adolescent / adult sexuality, which anyway was once the human norm in the bounds of matrimony and family making.
Historically adolescents, individuals after puberty, would not be having sex unless in a committed partnership equivalent to a marriage in the respective culture. Historically children, pre puberty, would not be having sex unless the culture itself was depraved and near a moral terminus and collapse.
Normalized pedophilia, through repeated exposure in the media, will – mark my words – 15-20 years from now become a norm.
Scoff and deny it now, if you will, but mark my words, this shall occur, along with – eventually – a near normalization of bestiality. This is done through jokes, innuendos, comic relief in the media, talk shows, expose shows like “Catch a Predator” and other such matters. Essentially cultural engineering covertly done on a population of mind softened schmucks.
Idiotcracy folks, but no long winded hereditarian HBD explanations are needed, the TV you watch, the linguistic decay you abet, and the shite food you eat suffices.
To Catch a Predator protects no one, serves as legal enticing and entrapment of guys who very well may have only kept their fantasies of boffing the prom queen to themselves had it not been for the entrapment, and serves as a socially and culturally corrosive force.
Everyone knows that teenagers put-out, for reasons relating to biological imperatives, and accentuated by cultural programming through the media. Teenagers have natural sexual urges, and when bombarded with Chris Brown and Lady Gaga, and a dose of Internet porn thrown in, well you have horny teenagers. It’s biologically normal, though socially unacceptable, for teenage females to have sexual responses to older men, and vice versa.
However it is completely deviant, and pathological, for an adult to have a significant sexual response to an actual child, and vice versa, and even more damning and ethically, morally, wrong to perform a sexual act on a child.
To Catch a Predator conflates and mixes up adolescents with children, and lowers the audience threshold of acceptability by giving them cathartic melodrama to act out and get their moral finger waving out. Once catharsis is reached, you have the fact that this is made to appear, through the TV show, as an extremely prevalent phenomenon.
To Catch a Predator is creating the problem it is exposing, on a very subtle and subversive level.
Few are capable of understanding this, but the nimble and subtle of mind, and most of my readers are.
However you have been warned, and my debate on this matter is closed.