Europe suffers horrific turn in its cultural landscape.
A major pedophilia scandal is currently rocking British society, in which as many as 20 prominent politicians, judges and other members of the British establishment are suspected of having abused children in the 1980s and 1990s as part of a pedophile ring. The victims were among society’s most vulnerable, being mostly boys from state children’s homes. And such abuse, it is suspected, may have been going on for decades.
“We are looking at the Lords, the Commons, the judiciary- all institutions where there will be a small percentage of pedophiles, and a slightly larger percentage of people who have known about it,” former child protection manager Peter McKelvie told the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), calling the predators “an extremely powerful elite” who have been abusing children “for as long as I have been alive.”
This latest episode involving sexual exploitation of children comes on the heels of other, jarring, pedophilia scandals to stun Britain this year. One involved the BBC itself.
BBC star entertainer Jimmy Savile, now deceased, was one of several BBC employees suspected of having molested literally hundreds of children and teenagers, some on BBC premises. Perhaps most shockingly, 28 British hospitals reported Savile may have molested patients on their wards, to which he was allowed access, sometimes even possessing hospital keys.
Another scandal saw artist and “iconic” children’s entertainer Rolf Harris, who once painted Queen Elizabeth’s portrait, found guilty this month of 12 counts of indecent assault on children and teenagers. Harris was described as a “part of millions of British childhoods” and was viewed as “a national treasure.”
One can correctly say pedophilia was not invented in Western countries in our times. But what differentiates the current climate concerning this once very taboo practice from earlier decades is the equally reprehensible movement underway in the West involving some academics, among others, to minimize its devastating effects on children, garner sympathy for the perpetrators and make the practice acceptable to the public. All of which is allowing pedophilia to creep into the cultural debate.
Journalist Andrew Gilligan recently pointed out in England’s Daily Telegraph an example of this gradual, ongoing promotion of pedophilia in mainstream society. Gilligan writes that only last year in July at a conference at the University of Cambridge, one of Britain’s most famous institutions of higher learning, pro-pedophilia positions were put forward. The conference was about classifying sexuality in “a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts” that is produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
One attendee was Ken Plummer, an emeritus professor of sociology at Britain’s Essex University. Plummer had previously stated he was once a member of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a British pro-pedophilia group, which advocated lowering the age of consent to ten. But Plummer said he had joined the now defunct PIE only for research purposes.
The results of Plummer’s "research," however, was to produce such disturbing statements as: “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many pedophiles are not intrinsic to the phenomenon but are derived from the extreme social pressure placed on minorities.” And another gem: “Many adult pedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners …'childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.”
Former PIE chief Tom O’Carroll was also in attendance at the Cambridge conference. O’Carroll was once convicted for distributing 50,000 images of child abuse. BBC news stated: “Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured.”
But the most "interesting" academic at the Cambridge conference was Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Japan’s Doshisha University. In his presentation, Trofomich stated:
“Pedophilic interest is natural and normal for males. At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children…Normal males are aroused by children.”
It is not surprising that, according to Gilligan, Tromovitch and O’Carroll went together for drinks afterwards.
But what is surprising, though, is that persons of O’Carroll’s and Tromovitch’s ilk are even present at such a prestigious international conference alongside such reputable organizations as the APA, discussing important topics like psychiatric classifications -- and at Cambridge University at that. The fact alone that Tromovitch and Plummer have positions at universities is viewed by many as a sign of serious civilizational decline.
There were other, similar enlightening presentations at the Cambridge function, such as “Liberating the pedophile: a discursive analysis” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”
The APA representatives at the conference tried to have hebephilia (attraction to early pubertal children) listed as a disorder in the manual’s new edition but failed. Gilligan wrote that one American academic attending the conference believed such a listing would be abused in the United States, as convicted sex offenders would not be released after completing their sentences and be detained as “mentally ill” under “US sexually violent predator laws.”
The possibility of these offenders, once released, harming more children appears not to have merited the slightest consideration.
One APA attendee stated, however, that a way had to be found to include hebephilia as a disorder in the manual or that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal.” Which is probably what some at the conference want and why the APA proposal was voted down.
The attempt to normalise adult-child sex is not only limited to certain academics and paedophile groups in the West but has had its political supporters as well.
Germany’s Green Party more than outdid the Cambridge conference last year in notoriety for having once pushed for pedophilia’s acceptance. In 2013, shortly before Germany’s federal election, it was revealed the party had, at least in one German state, officially adopted in 1985 a position calling for the abolishment of the German law that criminalised adult-child sex. The party’s tolerance for pedophilia was such that it had a “Queer and Pederast” working group inside the party, promoting this position.
Even the Green candidate for chancellor in last year’s German federal election, Juergen Trittin, a city politician for the Greens in Goettingen in the 1980s, had signed a party platform statement calling for the decriminalization of child-adult sex acts “that occur without the use or threat of force.”
“This formulation makes a mistake. It is simply false. There are no consenting forms of sexual relationships between adults and children,” said Trittin, when forced to address the issue during the election campaign.
Trittin also regretted that it took his party so long to disown its pedophile past. But if it had not been for the revelations, one wonders whether the Greens would ever have recanted their previous child-adult sex position.
Nevertheless, the Green Party, despite the revelations’ shock to the German public, still received eight percent of the national vote. In the past, despite its small size, it has played an important part in German politics, having been the junior partner in a federal coalition government with Gerhard Schroeder’s Socialist Party between 1998 and 2005 as well as serving as a coalition partner in several state governments.
And some Greens not only supported their party’s outrageous position, but acted on it. An openly pedophile member of the Green Party’s executive committee for Germany’s most populous state, North Rhineland-Westphalia, formed a commune in the 1980s, visited by prominent Greens, where he and others molested minors living or visiting there. He justified his abuse of the children by saying the Greek philosophers also had their “lust-boys” and sexual contact with their pupils.
“These were sentences that, for me, were quite unusual, facts, as it were, since no one contradicted them,” remembered one former abuse victim last year in a newspaper interview. Now an adult, he was 12 when living at the commune and said he never realized the abuse, which occurred daily, was wrong.
Other Greens attended party conferences where members of invited anarchist communes, called “City Indians,” were openly affectionate with their boy lovers.
“There were also 30-year-olds there; they played with the children,” remembered one Green Party member in an interview with Die Welt last year. “Sometimes I felt rotten there.”
Interestingly, none of these “progressive” politicians at these Green party conferences, whose stated mission is to save the world from capitalist oppression, especially American, ever thought to call the police or a children’s protection service. Ironically, it was also the Greens who, years later, were to scream the loudest and the longest in Germany against the Catholic Church’s child sex scandals. Like many leftists, the Greens are used to pointing out, in paroxysms of outrage, the moral failings of others while ignoring their own. One can only be thankful the Greens never controlled any schools back then.
The unstated end game of those involved in making pedophilia acceptable for public consumption is to eventually have this immoral practice legalized, as in pagan Rome and Greece of antiquity (pedophile groups’ favourite reference point). But rather than from the past, it is from the present, in the form of sympathetic academics and modern “Greens,” that the pedophile movement currently gets its intellectual support, its ideological armor and tools to promote and justify its anti-child cruelty.
It has been pointed out, by Gilligan among others, that professors who sympathise with this deviant behaviour pose more of a threat than pedophile groups themselves, since academics are on the forefront of making child-adult sex at least presentable, if not acceptable to the public, and, perhaps, even eventually fit for polite society. And it is this eroding of moral barriers that could ultimately lead to pedophilia’s legalization.
But what stands out the most in the statements and research of academic sympathisers of pedophilia, like those at the Cambridge conference, is not just the immorality of their positions but also the inhuman lightheartedness with which they trample on children’s souls. There is no realization of the damage their pedophilia madness will do to “these frail beings,” as Victor Hugo once so compassionately called children.
Even in Juergen Trittin’s statement, like those of other Greens, there was never any admission of immorality on his part or on the party’s. They had simply taken a false position. All of which shows, without a doubt, that the emerging pagan heart of Europe is definitely a heartless one.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.