sex with people who are neither physically nor mentally mature enough
to consent to it is rape. This is apparently an increasing
controversial hill on which to die, but so be it. If you read the
left-wing press, whenever they tackle the issue of pedophilia it is
unanimous that pedophiles are just misunderstood.
Ender Wiggin was banned from Twitter last December, it wasn’t
because he was a far-right troll or Nazi sympathizer. In fact,
Wiggin had an army of pizzagaters harassing him all hours of the
day, insisting he kill himself right up until the moment his
account was disabled on December 14.
because Ender—aka @enderphile—is the pseudonym of a
“non-offending” or “anti-contact” pedophile: someone who is
attracted to children but claims to be against adult-child sex and
child pornography. Inside that community, he’s known as the
unofficial leader, and claims he’s been using social media to
reduce the stigma associated with pedophilia, showing other
pedophiles they can live lives without offending. Jackson
Weaver, VICE Magazine
used to be awesome. Even after the McInnes era, some of their
reporting, articles and video journalism was top notch. Nowadays the
company is riddled with sleazeball liberals who can't treat women with
politeness and literal endorsements of pedophilia. Worse, it is not
just VICE Canada that is as insane as Justin Trudeau. Salon published
another self-described "Virtuous
Pedophile" in 2015, claiming that he was a poor
suffering lamb, who just wants to be loved.
to meet you. My name is Todd Nickerson, and I’m a pedophile.
Does that surprise you? Yeah, not many of us are willing to share
our story, for good reason. To confess a sexual attraction to
children is to lay claim to the most reviled status on the planet,
one that effectively ends any chance you have of living a normal
life. Yet, I’m not the monster you think me to be.
degenerates as Todd and those in the VICE article describe themselves
The natural question then is this- if you are a non-offending
pedophile, how would anyone know? The answer is that nobody would
know. You would tell nobody. So why are "non-offending
pedophiles" identifying themselves?
Weaver of VICE expends a lot of energy gathering quotes and making the
case that kicking wannabe child-molesters off social media platforms
is counterproductive, citing that peer support- i.e., other
pedophiles- is essential to stop non-offending pedophiles abusing
children. However, he also writes of one prominent online pedophile
been using social media to reduce the stigma associated with
unambiguity of his words should tell you all that you need, but let us
spell it out, clear as day. Pedophilia
must be stigmatized in society. It must never lose its stigma. The
very idea that a pedophile should feel without stain is a very
dangerous idea indeed. One may feel a certain level of sympathy for
the pedophile- I sincerely doubt that anyone would choose this life-
but to empathize with them is a path to ruin. No doubt Weaver
and others in the liberal press will deny it, but the agenda here is
clear. Leftist activists are using the liberal media to convince
people that pedophilia is not immoral.
had an interesting conversation on Twitter yesterday about the hijab.
The hijab, as you know, is not ubiquitous in Islam, nor is it solely
Muslims that wear a head covering for modesty. It is almost
exclusively Muslims that apply this modesty rule to children, however.
The conversation came about in a thread begun by regressive left
darling Mike Stuchbery, an unemployed failed
supply-teacher-turned-banal-Twitter-chimp who goes on lengthy rambles
about how history disproves conservatism, in search of Patreon
dollars. The tweet, -which Mike subsequently deleted- was his standard
fare of prostrating himself before Islam and coming out against a
school administrator who had suggested that girls
under the age of eight had no need to preserve their modesty from
sexually active men. The administrator, after talking to the
community, stepped down.
spoken to our school community we now have a deeper understanding of
the matter and have decided to reverse our position with immediate
supported the people sexualizing kids, in this instance. So did some
of his followers, who stated that no-one should force girls to wear
anything they didn't want to, but nor should they be forbidden from
wearing things that they did want to wear. I contend that as a
culturally mandated practice, the hijab is a forced item- and this
brought us to the topic of agency in children. We have rules about
what children can and cannot do because they do not possess the
experience or ability to comprehend consequences that adults are
supposed to exhibit. This is why we have an age of consent, an age at
which one can drive a car or fight in wars. You need to be able to
understand what you are getting yourself into.
is therefore curious to me that the case of the hijab is so
contentious in the West. It is a garment for a particular purpose- it
is not even a religious purpose per
se. According to the Quran, Muhammad, when encountered
with a woman wearing see-through clothing, averted his eyes and told
a young woman reaches the age of puberty, nothing should be seen of
her except this and this," motioning to his
face and hands. That has been interpreted in many ways.
modesty of grown women is preserved in most Islamic cultures by some
form of veil- burqa, niqab, or hijab, depending on just how barbaric
the men of that culture may be. In the more advanced places like
Iran, you may only be beaten severely by religious police for
not wearing your hijab. In Taliban controlled Afghanistan, to go
without your niqab means summary gang-rape and murder by stoning or
immolation. If you aren't murdered by your rapist, you may not survive
being murdered by your own family in
an honor killing.
is the woman's fault in both cases of course because the woman is
immodest- a man cannot help but rape everything that he is aroused by,
so it is essential that a piece of fabric is used to reinforce the
generally accepted global social norm that no
raping people in public is allowed.Some particularly advanced
societies have even extended this emancipatory ideal to include not
raping people in private, too. In all but the most fundamentalist and
stone-age interpretations of this cultural practice, the veil is the
reserve of adult women- at least by the standards of Islam, which
is 9-years-old for some. Sadly, the
fundamentalist and stone age ideals are in
I oppose the sexualization of children and therefore reject the idea
that an eight-year-old-girl (or younger) should be forced by her
parents to wear a modesty-protector. She is a child. She is not
sexually active, and therefore outside the remit of modesty- unless
we are to accept the pedophiles delusion- that children are sexy. The
intrinsic concept of modesty is to avoid encouraging sexual attraction
in others. Modesty only exists when the person being modest
understands that they are sexually attractive- the Islamic
understanding is that this is a female power over
men, and therfore the female's responsibility.
am unsure why I am a better feminist in this regard than most
feminists, but the world is a crazy place of late. To cut a long story
short- the responsibility for being sexually attracted to children
does not lie with the immodest child.
Childhood is a sacrosanct garden of learning -at least Western
civilization has tried to make it so- and must be innocent. This means
that parents make responsible choices for the child's actions. This
means no hijabs, as it infers that adult men cannot prevent themselves
from rape without it being worn by all females of all ages. In
essence, the hijab forces children into a sexualized state of being.
so, we are brought back to the topic of the pedophile acceptance
movement. These child molestation acceptance activists will demand
that children be given the right to decide for themselves whether they
can have sex with adults. This is the agenda which lies underneath the non-offending pedophile
movement. If they can normalize attraction to children, goes the
rationale, then what next? It is the very spirit of regression to wish
Western culture back into the dark ages of marrying old men to
prepubescent girls. At least in antiquity, the basis of such unions
was for politics or economics, rather than to sate the lusts of
mentally ill degenerates.
you were a secret pedophile who never offended, why would you tell
anyone? Perhaps there is the Catholic confessional route to salvation
at play but surely there are few other benefits to proclaiming
yourself as a theoretical child molester. The only logical -if logic
can hold under such circumstances- is that you realize that the route
to satisfying your sex drive and not being murdered or arrested is
through public acceptance and ultimately legalization of pedophilia.
So, you out yourself as a public pedophile with the relative safety of
an anonymous Twitter handle. Maybe you write for Salon or encourage
leftist media muppets to interview you about how misunderstood the
whole issue of having sex with children is.
very definition of pedophilia -or any sexual philia- is an abnormal
appetite or liking for.For example, you might be a pogonophile
and have an abnormal appetite or lust for beards. As a bearded man, I
am abnormally attractive to you- irresistibly so. While it's funny to
think about on the surface, it is actually utterly superficial. You do
not know me. You do not care about me- all you want is my beard. If I
were to shave it off your attraction would evaporate as rapidly as the
steam on my mirror. In a similarly disordered manner the pedophile is
not interested in children in the romantic way typical humans fall in
love or feel attraction. It is sexual desire of prepubescent children
in the same irrational and alien way that the pogonophile is drawn
towards beards. Incapable of love, the -philiac is attached only to
that which arouses them; when the object of desire changes -by shaving
a beard off, by a child entering puberty, or whatever other form the
abnormality takes- the philia goes unsated and the desire for what
once was irresistible is gone. The -philiac must find another locus of
do not love children.
One cannot love children and be a pedophile. The
pedophiles use children to satiate their base desires. This is why
pedophilia is an abnormality rather than a sexual orientation- A chronophilic disorder.
A person may well find a much older person attractive, but when they
only find the elderly attractive, this is beyond merely a sexual
preference- it is gerontophilia. The
attraction in this case is still a disorder but as it affects only
adults there is no need to legislate against it within our society.
Not so for the person who is inescapably attracted to children. It is
as far from being a sexual preference or orientation as it possible to
be; consider those poor souls who find themselves irrevokably
attracted to tractors or who marry
bridges. It is impossible to normalize even those people who
harm no-one with their behavior, let alone those who wish to normalize
attraction to children.
is why the gay movements around the world have struggled so hard to
distance themselves from pedophilia, with varying degrees of success.
Once more for those in the back- pedophilia is not normal. In a
nightmare future, the Western child is forced into the hijab and made
to answer questions about whether they are ready to have a sexual
relationship with an adult. How culturally enriched we will be.
O’Sullivan, chief executive of LEYF, said:
providing spaces in which children are able to see people who defy
rigid gender restrictions, it allows them to imagine the world in
which people can present [themselves] as they wish.”
is the motivation behind Drag Queen Story Time- The project also
seeks to tackle misogyny, homophobia, and racism, so it's just your
small-scale neo-Marxist indoctrination of 3 year-olds, who clearly are
already so bigoted against blacks and gays that they need to be taught
how to think by drag queens.
pedophilia is normalized also, then it will become acceptable for a
man who is sexually attracted to kids to run a similar project.
Conservative philosophy is concerned with the preservation of the
pillars of our civilization. The very concept of what makes up a
family has been under attack for more than a generation, producing the
tragedy today that in
America 40% of children are born to unwed mothers and
25% of all children under the age of 18 — a total of about 17.2
million — are being raised without a father. 35% of these broken
families are poor. The story gets even worse once we break that figure
down by racial demographics.
bedrock of our great Western Civilization is the family unit. In 1933
Christopher Dawson wrote “The Patriarchal Family in History,”
and drew parallels to the
decline of the Greek and Roman civilizations that
preceded our own.
in the decline of the ancient world, the family is steadily losing
its form and its social significance, and the state absorbs more and
more of the life of its members,” Dawson wrote. “The functions which
were formerly fulfilled by the head of the family are now being
taken over by the state, which educates the children and takes the
responsibility for their maintenance and health.”
any deny that 85 years on from Dawson we are even further along this
path to destruction? Instead of addressing this matter with concern
for the very fundamental building blocks of society itself, the
radical intersectionalists of the left have instead pared the pieces
apart with the hatchet of Social
Justice. The family is irrelevant when there
are transgender identities to care about. The environment that
children are raised in produces racists and homophobes, so therefore
society must take over the raising of children from the inadequate
parents. So often unwed and solitary, the single parents of this
generation and the last have gladly relinquished responsibility- and
who can blame them? As a culture we have produced untold millions of
people without an coherent identity of their own to pass on to the
claims that any attempt to make another account—under any name—was
initially blocked following his ban, but thought they had
reconsidered their stance after he was able to log back on.
Following his most recent ban, he's less optimistic. Until
Twitter directly addresses how they’re going to deal with users
like Ender, non-offending pedophiles exist in the same
state. It’s a kind of limbo, where they’re able to speak about
their attractions to children publicly, but without knowing for
how long." - Jackson Weaver, VICE Magazine
is a progressive magazine with a culture of sexual
harassment towards women. This magazine -with
a huge readership- is appealing to one of the biggest social media
networks on the planet to stop
banning pedophiles. More than this entire
article up until now, this should tell you everything you need to know
about the pedophile normalization movement. Non-offending
pedophiles want to become pedophiles who are
non-offending because the abnormal sex they desire has become socially
accepted. While the majority of people will be repulsed by the
behavior, once the normalization of degeneracy has become ratified it
is then bigotry to criticize it. It is now normal for an adult man
dressed as a woman to teach your three year old son how not to be a
homophobe. Don't tell me this is a leap of the imagination.
it is conservatives who are the problem, right? We are the ones
holding society back from true progress. Progress towards what
exactly? A society of fatherless sons with no role-models, no
aspirations and the exaltation of self-centered gratification of the
basest desires of the depraved. No thank you, not on my watch.
empathy for the devils.