- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

How ‘Kinds’ Will Groom Society

Screenshot from DesmondIsAmazing.com [1], a website of a pre-adolescent drag queen

I want to share with you the most disturbing thing I have read in a very long time. You need to know about it.

I learned about it via the Twitter feed of a UK radical feminist. In Britain, radical feminists, including TERFs (Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminists) are taking an insane amount of abuse from transgenders and their allies. But on that issue, they’re right. This particular feminist has uncovered something shocking — beyond shocking — about how pedophiles intend to use the same strategy that worked, and is working, for LGBTs, for the sake of legitimizing pederasty. Look:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [3]

You can read the entire so-called “Pedophile Manifesto” at this link. There are no images, but I would be careful about this at work. I am going to quote from it liberally below. The writer calls pedophiles “kinds” (from the German word for “child,” as in “kindergarten”). It’s actually a reasonable strategy document — “reasonable” in the narrow and amoral sense of it makes sense as a strategy to get society to accept something totally evil. We know that this can work because it has worked with other sexual minorities.

Here are some excerpts, starting with the introduction:

After The Fall: A Beginner’s Guide to Destroying Pedophobia in the 21st Century



Wherever you are reading this, I suggest you save, copy, or make backups because this paper might not be there for long. This work is protected by the First Amendment, and that’s a blessing. Our long tradition of free speech allows us to present some of the most unfathomable and disagreeable ideas to the public without fear. How else would society move forward if highly unpopular ideas weren’t available for open debate? I fully expect this essay to be vilified. It will be treated the same way abolitionist literature was treated in the 18th century, calls for women’s’ suffrage in the 19th and gay literature in the early 20th. It will be labelled obscene, outrageous, beyond-the-pale. But I ask all those reading to keep an open mind, even if it is currently filled with murderous rampage. This essay is not meant for every audience. It is specifically tailored as a bill of assistance to America’s most hated sexual minority- teens and adults attracted to children. We present this manuscript as a complete plan for total legal, social, and political equity within a short time frame. Because reality has a progressive bias, your triumph is inevitable. Victory is assured.


Recent victories for gay rights have left many celebrating and some shocked. How did the movement advance so far in such a short period of time? The truth is, it wasn’t magic. People didn’t just “naturally” change their minds on the issue. It took years of effort by activists, peer pressure and effective social advertising techniques. All of these were laid out in a game plan co-written by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen entitled “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer It’s Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90’s.

At the time this book was written, gays had won a few victories yet weren’t gaining much ground.
Well-reasoned arguments and friendly chats with neighbors weren’t cutting it. The social stigma against homosexuality was almost as strong as the one against pedosexuality today. Since then, LGBT activists and organizations have been following this playbook to the letter, rapidly gained increasing acceptance and recently won a Supreme Court victory ensuring their right to love. As stated, the purpose of this article is to adapt those same winning strategies. Keyword here: Adapt. Your situation and theirs, despite surface similarities is not exactly the same. Some strategies they used will not work for you, and not everything they did was smart. Learn from their mistakes and achieve equality even faster.
Take it from a former pedophobe who saw the light- this is war. There are those who will gladly do much worse than kill you for what you believe in. Before I actually researched the issue, I felt the same way. Now I only feel sympathy and want to help. If you don’t treat this as an all-out fight for survival, for acceptance, for the right to be love and be loved- then you are doomed to failure. If you are not willing to face struggle and rejection, screaming and even pure silence from family, you need to stop reading and close the tab immediately.

You already know what you desire isn’t harmful or unnatural, only a more perfect and virtuous union. You understand that legality has never dictated morality. When slavery was legal it was still immoral and while marijuana is illegal it shouldn’t be. This is not about the morality of the issue. It isn’t just about you or what you believe. It’s about the millions of men, women and children constantly living in fear because they know that if they were discovered they would be lose their jobs, be beaten, jailed or worse. You will face hardship. You will have to step on a few toes. But some guy named Benjamin Franklin once said

-“Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”.
We know what has to be done. Now it’s only a matter of doing it.

Toxic ideas and bigotry permeate our society, turning right into wrong and poisoning childrens’ minds with hate. Still, there are those who selfishly place their own wants over the needs of others. Stability should never come before equality.

How to achieve this goal? Use emotivism and the media:

In truth, access to the media is what you need most. Without the help of liberal and progressive Hollywood, there will be no campaign. It’s a chicken and egg problem. While they may deny it, most are just waiting for the social climate to improve before taking the “risk” of giving you positive representation. At the same time, more representation necessarily improves the social climate for LGBTPs. The proliferation of kind relationships on television, corporate sponsorships, sympathetic ad- campaigns and social media marches are the secret weapon that will truly turn the tide. We propose the beginning of a targeted media – information campaign to educate the public and transform their social mores. Culture must be modernized and brought out of the dark ages to make room for love. We will reverse-engineer the weapons of hate they deploy against you to turn their bigotry into admiration before your very eyes.

We will not hide the fact that this is a feels-based advertising campaign. You cannot use logic to reason someone out of an emotional belief, only more emotion. Prejudice is not rational- it’s a “gut feeling”. Poignant pleas for understanding will fall on deaf ears. Some of the most hateful among us will never change and must instead be isolated from polite society. Arguments from emotion cannot be falsified in the same way rational arguments can, and although we have both emotional arguments are more effective.

Things are different than they were in 1980. We are the media. Using the internet, we have access to millions of minds in the making. In the beginning it will fall on you to create the positive portrayals and PSAs you seek, then release them on sites like Youtube. Nobody will do it for you. We need to cultivate an army of keyboard warriors who will go into battle on the comments sections of news articles and other spaces where kind issues are being discussed. Their mission is to discredit pedophobia and the war on child sexuality.

The basis of the campaign is to advance what the writer calls “sex-positivity.” It starts with the destigmatization of shame. And then it moves towards more advance forms of desensitization:

We mustn’t shock and repel the public with the mental imagery of kind sex in the beginning of our campaign. Instead, wherever possible pedosexuality must be reduced to an abstract question and vague feelings of “love” “kindness” and “nurturing”. In the beginning, we can’t expect americans to think of being kind as a good thing, much less for them to understand, affirm or appreciate it. Indifference is still a step up from intolerance. Our objectives are threefold:

> Desensitization: Dull the public’s sense of panic and fear whenever the subject of children and sexuality comes up. The principle behind this is clear: Any behavior becomes more acceptable the more people talk about it or see their friends talking about it. This is accomplished by a large groundswell of open and furtive talk about pedosexuality in a neutral or positive way. Discussing the subject and rejecting the false consensus (all sex is rape) makes it appear that a large portion of society is willing to debate or even has these feelings themselves. A chain reaction occurs where more and more people come out. Bring up your sexual orientation as much as possible in a humorous manner to break the ice. A popular joke could be “I’m offensive and I find this pedosexual.”


Discussion moves an idea from “unthinkable” to “controversial” in the Overton Window, and that’s one step towards “normal”.

Where you talk is important. Internet comments sections are helpful, but they aren’t places to have a true debate. Those are places to spread information, gather screenshots and make fun of the opposition. Better places to speak include local newspapers, magazines and television. While you won’t be able to openly support pedosexuality at first, you can support sex-positive and pro-nudity initiatives in your area. Or just go straight for the big guns and come out if you’re ballsy.

The main point is to talk about kindness until the issue becomes thoroughly exhausting. People should come to view being kind the same way they do liking a certain flavor of ice cream. The process of desensitization can be sped up by making comments which allude to the matter being settled when someone very emotive appears.

“Dude, why do you care so much? It’s just sex”.

(In response to “children can’t consent”) “I’m so tired of this stupid myth still being spread around (link to a better source or explanation).”

“You’re behind the times. Nobody cares anymore.”

Never go alone during desensitization efforts. Always bring backup. There’s nothing worse than being the only person in a comments section battling against hordes of bigots. If you see someone trying to fight ignorance online, don’t just stand there, help them out!

Desensitization is important in real life too. You have to come out and be completely normal. If you live among straights in peace, while they may find you annoying they will eventually get used to you. Flooding culture in a wave of kind-positive advertising and media inevitably leads to changes in social values. This advertising has to be presented in the least offensive way possible (no jokes about sex!)

The writer then advises “Jamming” — coming at pedophobes relentlessly with strategies to isolate them and stigmatize them.

> Jamming: We want to shut down the thought process which leads to pedophobic remarks in the first place. Most of us know that people make those tough guy statements for a quick shot of self-righteousness or social approval. “Jamming” implies the addition of a second, mutually exclusive emotion: Guilt. Most people feel shame when they make a lame joke or say something deemed socially unacceptable. With enough jamming, the pedophobe’s mental state can be worn down to meager acceptance.

Here is an outline of his strategies to make pedophilia socially acceptable:

The main difference between us and gays is that gay behavior was mostly legal when they started. There’s no point in trying to change the law when society hasn’t changed with you. We must first change society, then we will be able to change the law. In that regard, our fight is much more like the fight for marijuana legalization than gay marriage.
There are five sub-strategies which can be used when it comes to social acceptance.

> Portray “kinds” as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
>Give potential protectors (“allies”) a just cause.
>Make “kinds” look good.
>Make dissenters look bad.

The document discusses each of these in greater detail. For example:

>Portray kinds as victims:

Kinds must be portrayed as victims of nature, not people who willingly choose their attraction. Who would actually choose to be part of the world’s most hated group anyway? As far as you know, you were born kind and cannot change it. Efforts at “therapy” must be considered harmful and damaging to your identity. Frequently compare it to bleaching blacks or reformation camps. Currently the social orthodoxy is “get them the help they need before they hurt anyone”. You must change this to “thinking they need help is offensive because they aren’t hurting anyone.” By appearing as victims, the majority is instinctively inclined to protect and defend.

> Give allies just cause.

Recognize that you aren’t getting anywhere without allies. Parents, Straight Adults and even children themselves need to speak out in support before more people decide to join the fight. You need a “just cause”, and in your case plain legal equality leaves too much to be desired since children can never have all the legal rights of an adult. A just cause answers the question “I’m not one of you, so why should I care?”

Our causes are sex positivity, anti-ageism, bodily autonomy and the right to privacy. The government shouldn’t have the authority to tell people what they can and can’t do inside the bedroom or dictate how parents must raise their children. If no physical or emotional harm is being done, there is no excuse to ban an activity.

You also have an excellent just cause in religious liberty; childhood innocence and the harmfulness of sex are religious beliefs you shouldn’t be forced to believe. Morality should never be backed by legislation.

Does this sound familiar? It should:

> Make pedophobes look bad.

At a later stage of the media campaign for kind rights-long after other ads have become commonplace-it’ll be time to get tough with remaining pedo-bashers. To be blunt, they must be vilified and publicly shamed. (This is important because at that point, the opposition will have massively ramped up it’s disinformation campaign.) Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its pedophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-sex bigots look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.
The public should be shown images of ranting pedophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that kinds be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the “pedos” they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where kinds were tortured and gassed.
A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching.

And don’t forget this proven tactic:

>>Strategies For Acceptance: Education

“Teaching Tolerance” and getting in schools is absolutely essential to deprogramming the next generation. Obviously this can’t happen until late in the game, but a good way to get a foot in the door is creating support groups for minor-attracted teens and their allies. We can make resources available to educators and parents who want to raise children in a less hateful manner. An effective tactic may be convincing children themselves to bring up the topic at home and in classroom discussions.

Direct marketing to teachers and principals means distributing resources which explain child sexuality, implore them to act responsibly, “fight discrimination” and self-evaluate. Education means using all our media channels to debunk myths about kind people and defend them. GLSEN has numerous resources you can check out for inspiration.

This one is critically important:

>>Strategies For Acceptance: Linguistic

He who controls language controls the debate. Why do you think transpeople insist you use their preferred pronouns? It’s not just semantics, the words you use are *vitally* important and the pedophobe knows this, which is why she often screams about “rape”, “predators” “abuse”, “molestation” and “exploitation” in situations which obviously don’t warrant such terms. Even sneakier is the use of the words “victim” and “survivor”, which imply that most children die from sex.

Call out these verbally violent attacks and shut them down before they get off the ground. They are entirely baseless and offensive- plus they cross the line into hate speech done with intent to defame and attack a minority. Especially when the term “predator” is used, you can joke that kinds want to eat children for dinner and gobble them up. Getting everyone laughing at how ridiculous these people sound will help immeasurably. The only way to do that is through satirical video.

Luckily, we have some “power words” we can use for ourselves.

“Kind” is the most important one, because it has positive connotations while “pedoph***” does not. This is the main reason why gays pushed so hard for people to start using “gay” instead of homosexual, and we need to push even harder. P*do or any of it’s variations must be treated as a slur.

“Pedosexual” is the second most important powerword. Once people get over it’s initial novelty it will cement the fact that pedosexuality is an inborn orientation and cannot change.

“Childhood sexual freedom” is an alternative way of framing the debate, and one that will lead to more success. Instead of looking it at from the perspective of the adult, view things from a child’s perspective. You can then attack pedophobic logic as “ageist” and make fun of bigots for claiming children are too stupid to understand their own bodies. The genius of this approach is that it turns pedophobia into an attack on children’s intelligence, not kinds- which is closer to the word’s original meaning anyway. “Scared of what children are capable of, are you?” “You aren’t the one who gets to make that choice. It’s not your body..”

Here’s how they intend to go after LGBTs and radical feminists who oppose them:

The two groups we need to worry most about are the LGBT community and the religious right. The strategy to deal with each is the same: Internal co-option and blurring the lines.

The first may sound strange, but don’t expect much initial sympathy from LGBTs and SJWs. If you were put in their shoes and constantly had to defend against being “pedo-sympathisers” you would understand. As a self-defense mechanism, most gay people have a kneejerk negative reaction against being compared to or lumped in with kinds. While we understand their misgivings, they’re still no excuse for bigotry. Here’s how we change this:

Constantly remind them that, until the early 1980s the pedo acceptance and LGBT movements were one and the same. Pedo supporters were only thrown under the bus because of politics, not morals. The early LGBTs believed they had a better chance at social acceptance if they renounced pedophilia, and only a few years ago they were debating dropping the “T” from the lgbt acronym (doing the same thing they did with children’s rights advocates to transsexuals). Until Kaitlyn Jenner came along, that is. Isolate Kind-hating gays by portraying them as wealthy, white hypocritical bigots who only care about equality for themselves and nobody else.

Bring up the fact that some of their most revered gay heroes, (such as Alfred Kinsey) also did lesser-known studies on adult-child sexual relationships and found them not to be harmful in most cases. Far more studies are available to support our position.

Accuse them of being “fair-weather allies”. They aren’t willing to fight for what’s right until it’s popular. Suggest that they only started supporting gay marriage after Obama gave it the a-ok, while many others have been fighting since being gay was actually a crime.

Insist that you can’t call yourself a progressive without supporting a family’s right to choose. It’s just good politics. The idea that sex is inherently sinful and harmful, and thus something children need to be “protected” from is a purely Judeo-Christian concept. Not all people and cultures agree with it. In a diverse, multicultural society where people of many faiths and ethnicities congregate, we shouldn’t make laws that hurt minorities based purely on religious thinking. If protecting children is the goal then punishing any potential harm that results is the ideal. If they disagree with this, ask why they don’t support banning cars since cars kill people too.

Internal comparisons. Compare those who don’t support Kind Acceptance to TERFs- Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, a highly disliked (in social justice circles) group of women who don’t believe transpeople are the sex they claim to be.

Burn them on the hypocrisy of supporting a position initially promoted by the now-discredited National Association for Reparative Therapy of Homosexuals. Stress that while the 1980s were a step back for equality, the long arc of history bends towards more freedom and rights for children. If you must, use the oft-maligned “wrong side of history” card, suggesting these people will be looked at no better than segregationists today.

The author of the document says that there’s not a lot that can be done to win over religious conservatives, but he does suggest creating “pedo-friendly support groups” within churches. Ultimately, though, the Religious Right can’t be co-opted, “only steamrolled like they usually are on other social issues.”

Read the whole thing.  [4] It is beyond abhorrent, but all too plausible. Forewarned is forearmed. Remember, the people who dug this thing up were not right-wing Christians, but radical feminists. In Britain, they are fighting on the front lines of this battle.

I suppose it is possible that this entire document is some sort of propaganda. If so, I will let you all know. I am unwilling to do the kind of digging online in this darkness to nail down with certainty that this is an authentic document. I will only caution you that I have not seen it verified yet. Nevertheless, it is out there, and it most definitely has the air of plausibility.

Do you remember the post I put up recently about this child drag queen called Desmond [5], and how his sexualization is being celebrated by the mainstream media? This is an example of the strategy in action. It’s not some conspiracist’s fantasy; it’s actually happening. And look at this story from VICE Canada [6], from back in February, about how pedophile advocates are campaigning on social media to normalize themselves — and how social media censors don’t know how to deal with it.

Question to the room: whether or not the Manifesto was actually written by a pedophile activist, or was written by a right-wing troll for whatever reason, how, exactly, do you think society will defend itself against this kind of thing, given that the strategy worked brilliantly for other gays, lesbians, and transgenders? Why will the line be drawn here? Serious question — one I’d especially like to hear LGBTs and their allies address. Because according to the Manifesto, you too will be targeted if you say no to their demands.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that homosexuality and/or transgenderism necessarily implies approval of pederasty! I don’t believe they do. The point of this post is to ask how society will defend itself against a strategy like this? Ultimately, that question doesn’t depend on the authenticity of this document. Even if it is an elaborate practical joke, what if pederasty advocates took it seriously, and acted on it?

UPDATE: A couple of you have written to say that this document sounds like a right-wing fake. It might well be. But for the sake of argument, how would we respond if some pro-pederasty groups and individuals adopted this proposed strategy? You can’t say, “It will never happen here.” It absolutely could. The sexualization of children and the removal of sexual inhibitions via popular culture is happening. A British feminist activist (not the one who found this document) wrote me to say:

I’ve had my own fears about this. There is most certainly a new acceptable face of paedophilia emerging. Pink news ran a gay siblings can practice incest story recently too. [7] Teen vogue covered a story on how to have anal sex [8], the cross section (think biology text book) of bodies omitted the clitoris on the female. I am curious as to why any teenagers need to know about any of this in a cool how to guide. Drag queen story time in public libraries. I recently watched two mainstream dramas on uk tv where paedophiles were portrayed as reasonable humans, the poor helpless man who can’t stop wishing to rape kids must be shown compassion.

There are some hashtags on twitter about it too, I’ll seek some out. There really does seem a concerted effort to gently make access to kids a human rights issue.

If the “Manifesto” is one long elaborate troll — and it very well might be — then it still serves the very useful purpose of showing how the same arguments and strategies that have led our society to liberalize on sex and sexuality can be appropriated by pedophiles. We had better have a defense against them stronger than mere taboo.

UPDATE: Re-reading it, I doubt it’s authenticity. For me, the “tell” is how the author writes about the media. Still, the fact that even some liberal readers here are not sure that it’s real or fake tells us something about the current cultural moment, and what has become plausible.

Reader Devinicus, who is a university professor, writes:

A right-wing fake? The product of reactionary trolls? Who knows, but the reason the “Pedophile Manifesto” can pass as authentic is that the document echoes what the cultural left has been saying for years and years.

Those who haven’t read “After the Ball” should really do so. You cannot simply cry “troll!” after reading it.

Academics are already debating whether or not pedophilia is a “sexual orientation”.

The “disability rights” argument for not only legalized prostitution and state-provided prostitutes can be found in mainstream magazines such as The Atlantic. If disabled people have a “right to sex”, why not those of a pedophile orientation?

I don’t believe mainstreaming pedophilia (or more likely pederasty) will go far. Then again, I continue to be regularly amazed at how completely transgenderism has rolled feminists. Who among us would have said 10 years ago that “transgender women are women” would be the rallying cry of American elites?

Back in 2009 Mary Eberstadt wrote an article in First Things titled “How pedophilia lost its cool“. She claims that the taboo against pederasty was eroding markedly in the 1990s, and argues that historical chance — the breaking of the Catholic clergy abuse scandal in 2002 — reinvigorated the taboo.

I light of the powerful cultural currents of the early 21st century, why not believe we will need a similar stroke of luck to turn it back again?

His comment inside the comments thread contains links to the articles he cites.

By the way, if you haven’t read Ross Douthat’s piece on “The Redistribution of Sex,” [9] you should. It starts like this:

One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion.

This is part of why there’s been so much recent agitation over universities and op-ed pages and other forums for debate. There’s a general understanding that the ideological mainstream isn’t adequate to the moment, but nobody can decide whether that means we need purges or pluralism, a spirit of curiosity and conversation or a furious war against whichever side you think is evil.

For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

Which brings me to the sex robots.

You know you have to read the whole thing now. [9] It’s a really interesting, and troubling, meditation on the incel phenomenon in light of what we have come as a culture to believe about sex. Douthat cites two recent pieces from the libertarian and socialist extremes that caused controversy when they were published, but that shed light — unwanted light in some cases — on the way we have come to regard sexuality and personhood.

I believe the Pedophile Manifesto, even if fake (as seems likely), does the same.

138 Comments (Open | Close)

138 Comments To "How ‘Kinds’ Will Groom Society"

#1 Comment By Ben H On May 2, 2018 @ 11:07 pm

“Turn the tables, and imagine a forged document that linked small-o orthodox Christianity to The Westboro Baptist Church and the White Supremacy movement. ”

That document would be the newspaper.

#2 Comment By Seven sleepers On May 2, 2018 @ 11:25 pm

Def a fake. Right from start. “Victory is assured!” Jeez. Sounds like Stewie.

Now is a good time to spread it far and wide: consent is completely irrelevant to matters of morality.

Repeat it far and wide.

If I consent to you murdering me, it is still murder.

If two people consent to harm a third. It’s stil harm.

If two hundred people believe they are not doing anything wrong by cheating Medicaid, it’s still fraud.

Consent and consenting parties are oh necessary in every crime. Just consenting to an act lends zero redemption to the act.

People continue to repeat that consenting adults are somehow rewriting good and bad because they consent to some act. Totally illogical.

Consent, especially in the case of a minor involved in a sexual act will NEVER BE OK. AND IS VILE.

#3 Comment By Ben H On May 2, 2018 @ 11:26 pm

I think the skeptics are right on this one.

After all, an anonymous action plan is no use at all to anyone, except as someone’s opinion which is worthless. The purpose of an action plan is to provide an framework for people to follow to reach a goal. No one is going to spontaneously follow a plan put forward by an anonymous person on the internet, they will follow a plan with some authority (ie money or a job) behind it and which they can expect that other people will follow too.

#4 Comment By Thomas Aquinas On May 2, 2018 @ 11:50 pm

Not sure why everyone assumes that legitimate sex requires consent. They used to say the same thing about “opposite sex,” non-interracial sex,” and “sex only in marriage.”

After all, the government can conscript people into the military without their consent, and this may result in their death! If the state can require the whole body to serve its country, why not a portion of it in service of a lonely person? How selfish can you be?

Can’t you see that you’re on the wrong side of history.

#5 Comment By Robert E. On May 3, 2018 @ 12:03 am

Raoul writes:

“My God, Mr. Dreher. This post is a mess of misinformation. You shame your publication by leaving it up and just appending various “updates.” Your premise is false, and the post is damaging. Stop it.”

Eh, look, I dislike Rod’s transgender panicking just as much as anyone, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with him amending his post with updates when he discovers new information or reevaluates his position on something. It is entirely within his ethos to not try to rewrite his past when he makes a mistake, and I think he should be praised whenever he acts in a consistent manner.

And, yeah, the post is obviously fake, but he was using it as a jumping off point for discussion anyways. I don’t think it is right to rake him over the coals for this.

#6 Comment By Robert E. On May 3, 2018 @ 12:09 am

Also Rod, did you ever read this Atlantic article? You might find it interesting as it is a bit on the same subject. I’m not really trying to encourage your moral panic here, but I also think it would be dishonest to not put forward evidence against my position that it could never happen:


An excerpt:

“Why has the French legal system seemed reluctant to set a specific age of consent?

One prominent explanation stems from the attitudes that followed May 1968, when student protests against capitalism, consumerism, and other values and institutions considered elitist and unjust, led to massive demonstrations, strikes, and civil unrest. The protests represented a cultural revolution that would leave a lasting imprint on France’s very identity. Salmona said that after 1968, attitudes began to shift: Children were viewed as having the right to be considered sexual beings—in Salmona’s words: “pedophilia was considered a sexual orientation … It was all part of a vision of freedom.””

#7 Comment By grin without a cat On May 3, 2018 @ 12:57 am

Pedophilia is not a crime, which is why you never hear of a DA prosecuting somebody for pedophilia. The associated crime is usually called “sexual abuse of a child” or something like that, depending on the state.

Pedophilia is a term that came out of the mental health profession and it denotes a mental disorder characterized by a adult (almost always male) whose principal sexual attraction is to prepubescent children. A pedophile will have no sexual interest in a 15-year-old adolescent.

A pedophile might have urges but not act on them, in which case he will not be a child sexual abuser nor will he be a predator. A sexual child abuser could be a pedophile, or he could have other motivations.

A pederast is an older man who has sexual relations with an adolescent boy. Apparently, this was considered quite normal in ancient Athens. It was considered a positive thing for both parties.

Recently, commentator Milo Yiannopoulos caught some heat for saying some such thing about how that was a good thing for a young boy to have a coming-of-age experience with an older man. Harvey Milk, if what people said about him was correct, wasn’t a pedophile but a pederast.

Maybe some of you folks don’t think these distinctions are important, but I think they are.

#8 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On May 3, 2018 @ 1:02 am

In a free society Tge pedophile is of course free to make whatever argument he or she wants to make, but the fact remains that one’s right stops at the point it harms someone else.

I’d rather prefer a society that burns them swiftly at the stake.

#9 Comment By charles cosimano On May 3, 2018 @ 1:34 am

“Feminists may disagree on transgender issues and many other things, but there is no way that they are going to allow the age of consent to be lowered in the foreseeable future.”

No man with an ounce of guts cares what feminists think they can allow or not allow. But few men are going to support pedophiles so feminists may be safe on this one. We may ridicule them to death on everything else but this one they may be safe.

#10 Comment By Richard Parker On May 3, 2018 @ 3:47 am

Records soon to be burned:

“Good Morning Little School Girl,
Can I go home with you….”

#11 Comment By JonF On May 3, 2018 @ 6:25 am

Re: It’s a really interesting, and troubling, meditation on the incel phenomenon in light of what we have come as a culture to believe about sex.

Douthat is all wet on this, The “Incels” are not just lonely guys who can’t get a date. And they don’t just want sex. which they could have for the price of a hooker. Nor are they looking for relationships. What they want are women they can flaunt as status symbols in the face of other men. They have less regard for women as persons than most people do for their pets. They are, quite simply, sociopaths (to use a polite word). They would be single and dateless in any culture where forced and arranged marriage is not the norm. This is one area where the Left and the SoCon Right should be able to agree.

#12 Comment By Rob G On May 3, 2018 @ 7:01 am

~~~you’re optimistic if you think opposition to inequality prevents child abuse. “Society” is unwilling to contradict a pre-pubescent boy who claims to be a girl, or stymie his demand for puberty blockers. Why would “Society” contradict and stymie that same boy when he demands freedom of consensual sexual relations with an adult?~~~

Exactly. The liberal notion of consent is full of holes the nature of which simply hasn’t yet been explored yet, as circumstances necessary to prompt it have not yet arisen. But they inevitably will arise given the nature of the Sexual Revolution and society’s wholehearted acceptance of radical individual autonomy.

Think about sex between minors for instance. That’s something that’s winked at, if not actively encouraged, by liberals. Yet, how does sexual consent work between, say, a 14 y.o. and a 16 y.o.? If they’re not old enough to consent to sex with an adult (i.e., someone 18 or over) how are they free to consent to sex with each other? Or does the number “18” (or 16 or whatever) magically change things?

I agree that feminists and the lesbian feminist subgroup will strongly oppose such moves. You will not get the same opposition from men, however, as both the Catholic Church scandal and the media scandal in the UK (Jimmy Savile, etc.) would indicate, as does the fact that almost all child porn, both real and simulated, homo and straight, is consumed by men.

#13 Comment By kevin on the left On May 3, 2018 @ 7:52 am

“The only ‘liberalizing’ that’s been done is some ‘Romeo & Juliet’ laws that have been passed so a 19 year old senior in high school who get a topless pic from their 17 year old girlfriend isn’t thrown on the same list as somebody who molests actual babies.

Aside from that, even in SJW central here in Seattle, the greatest crime, especially in the #metoo era, is there to be proof of somebody ‘creeping’ on an underage boy or girl. Which again, is a positive thing.”

Well, what you say works in practice, but how does it work in theory?

#14 Comment By kevin on the left On May 3, 2018 @ 7:59 am

“The “sexual tech is all about men” narrative makes for a nice straw man for evo-psych types and social conservatives, but it’s a fiction divorced from who is actually buying/using sexual tec”

It’s almost as thought the traditionalists, the alt-righters, the MRAs, the neo-reactionaries and the rest of the redpill crowd all agree that women are not fully human, and only disagree on whether their proper function is to serve as incubator or sex dispenser.

#15 Comment By kevin on the left On May 3, 2018 @ 8:05 am

“[NFR: That Desmond kid was recently in New York magazine and elsewhere being celebrated for being fabulous. — RD]

Which, of course, totally justifies sticking his image as an illustration on a Protocols level hoax you briefly fell for, and now acknowledge as fake without removing the image (or, you know, apologizing).

#16 Comment By kevin on the left On May 3, 2018 @ 8:08 am

“A historical point: something like “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might not be literally true, but don’t they describe exactly how the Jews operate?” was a perfecty respectable position around the Western world, c. 1920.

So what? (With regard to the matter under discussion here, not with regard to the legal and social position of Jews in any given nation.)”

So, “fake but accurate” basically gives you a license to imagine whatever slanders you want about a given group, with easy-to-foresee consequences if the slander catches fire (as a Communist of sorts, you are probably aware of the many documents circulating in the 1950s and 1960s purporting to describe Communist conspiracies..)

#17 Comment By Brendan On May 3, 2018 @ 8:49 am

On the Douthat article, that stuff is frankly insane.

I have no patience for these pathetic “incels”. If you’re not attractive enough sexually to participate in the global fornication party, then either become attractive enough to do so, or find something else to do. End of. You’re not entitled to anything in life, at the end of the day, and the quicker these pathetic fools understand that, the quicker they can move on with their lives and away from being bitter about things that they are not entitled to in the first place.

If you want to have sex with very attractive people, become very attractive yourself. Otherwise shut up. It isn’t rocket science.

#18 Comment By Surly On May 3, 2018 @ 9:58 am

Oh jeez, Brendan at 8:49 am just made me spit coffee through my nose. Well played, sir. Can you tell me how to get these pesky kids off my lawn?

#19 Comment By Anne On May 3, 2018 @ 10:00 am

With his “sexual redistribution” theory, Ross Douthat has taken analogy where only one other “noted brilliant weirdo” (libertarian economist Robin Hanson) has gone before, weirdos and other extremists being the only folks you can count on to do this, i.e., go straight to the heart of a matter. He says. I’m still trying to figure how “extremists and radicals and weirdos” were the only ones who truly understood the Iraq war. Douthat apparently didn’t get it because he wasn’t far out enough back then, but I think I understood the wisdom in — among others’ — Pope John Paul II’s opposition to US war policy before the invasion, and I don’t consider him (or me) either extremist or radical…or weird. But let’s let that go, as well as the euro references and get directly to how incels and the potential right to sex Robin Hanson proposes for them constitutes weirdos getting to the heart of the new sexual order progressives (e.g., Democrats) have given us with its supposedly inevitable drive to redistribute sex so that everybody gets some, so to speak, in the same way they seek to redistribute wealth now that neoliberal (e.g., Republican) de-regulatory practices have led to income inequality on a massive scale.

Got all that? If, like me, you say no, Douthat will say that’s only because we’re not among those clever extremists, radicals or weirdos. Like him. I think this is where a postmodernist would smile and tell him, “you do you.”

#20 Comment By Rob G On May 3, 2018 @ 10:11 am

~~So, “fake but accurate” basically gives you a license to imagine whatever slanders you want about a given group~~

Yeah, God forbid we mistakenly pigeonhole or o/w slander pedophiles!

Really, do you not see the glaring difference between this and the Protocols?

#21 Comment By A Katcher On May 3, 2018 @ 10:45 am

The grooming scandals in England, child marriages throughout the world, the example of the Prophet and his child bride, all point to a greater acceptance of sex with children as an accommodation to Islam. I would suggest that the greatest advocates of pedophilia will be Muslims and their supporters among the clerics and academics of the left. To have a discussion of sex with children and leave out the influence of Muslim immigrants is to ignore a very large elephant in the room.

#22 Comment By KLN On May 3, 2018 @ 11:02 am

“Ironically, it is mostly in ultra-conservative religious circles (like the Church of LDS or some sects of Islam or even within the evangelical world) that people don’t really see a problem with an adult male taking a minor wife. ”

Hi, former member and certainly no fan of the LDS Church in general. Point of order: the current mainstream church absolutely does not practice this. The historical church did into the early twentieth century, and many break off sects currently do as well, but the centralized LDS church in modern times does not sign off on child brides, nor is it common for members to practice it.

19-year-old girls marrying 21-year-old guys you’d have a bit of a stronger argument for, but even those are getting vastly less common among mainstream Mormons these days.

There are so MANY accurate and important ways to criticize my childhood religion and familial culture that it pains me to see someone choose a straw man.

#23 Comment By ludo On May 3, 2018 @ 11:09 am

I think that if pedophilia is ever (heaven forbid!) generally tolerated by society it will have become so because it came masked in the Trojan horse of sadistic violence, since the latter is already widely tolerated, exhibited, indeed, relished by a sizable cohort within postmodern consumer (i.e. individualist, ostensibly free choice, even libertarian) societies throughout the world. From anime, video games, and the more legacy/traditional conduits of film and television, to museum or gallery curated art, examples of this tolerance (which is also a melding/blurring) of sadean violence against children or their effigies can be seen, indeed, quotidianly, even blithely, consumed: an example of this, the hyper-violence suffered and delivered by the flesh and blood yet otherwise anime-like
prepubescent heroine Hit-Girl in the 2010 movie ´Kick-Ass´ (the 13 year old actress was made to deliver lines such as “Okay, you c*nts, let’s see what you can do now”). Indeed, the sadistic sexualization of the Hit-Girl character was noticed and denounced by various critics at the time; Christopher Tookey, of the Daily Mail, for example, observed: ¨One of the film’s creepiest aspects is that she’s [Hit-Girl] made to look as seductive as possible.¨

A more recent example, it strikes me, is the sadean violence enacted against a ´Howdy Doody´ /anime-like effigy of a child by contemporary artist Jordan Wolfson, who expressly has said, in regards to his artistic motivations: ´he cites Georges Bataille’s 1928 novella, Story of the Eye, as inspiring his approach to art. That work, without any apparent moral, dramatised the sexual perversions of two teenage [i.e. mid-adolescence] lovers, and included an orgy, broken glass, blood, madness, suicide and necrophilia. “When I read it I wasn’t titillated. I was excited by its freedom,” he says.´

It strikes me that what Wolfson is endeavoring is to transform or alchemize his conscience of shame regarding his particular sadean-libertine obsessions into public artistic fame. He has been evidently successful in this regard and the result has been the lowering of the bar on shame, to the level of accepting sado-masochistic violence against the ¨artistic¨ representation or effigies of children.


#24 Comment By kevin on the left On May 3, 2018 @ 12:04 pm

“~~So, “fake but accurate” basically gives you a license to imagine whatever slanders you want about a given group~~

Yeah, God forbid we mistakenly pigeonhole or o/w slander pedophiles!

Really, do you not see the glaring difference between this and the Protocols?”

As noted above, it is crystal clear that this manifesto is meant to slander gay/transgendered activists, by associating them with pedophiles (a message that was well understood by most conservative commenters here, I might add..). So, yes, it uses the same tactics as the Protocols, but is a bit more clever, in that it provides with an avenue for plausible deniability for people who get caught taking it seriously.

#25 Comment By Rob G On May 3, 2018 @ 1:31 pm

“it is crystal clear that this manifesto is meant to slander gay/transgendered activists, by associating them with pedophiles”

I see….so the UK feminists who ‘discovered’ it missed the real point entirely.

#26 Comment By Todd Nickerson On May 3, 2018 @ 2:05 pm

Todd Nickerson here. You may remember me as the author of the controversial Salon articles about being a non-offending anti-contact pedophile. Anyway, I figured I’d add my two cents here.

First off, I do recall some discussion in the pedophile community years back about adopting the word ‘kind’ as a substitute for ‘pedophile’ in order to soften the concept. The idea was that kind–which means nice–would come to signify peds in the same manner that gay (originally meaning happy) has come to signify homosexual.

There are problems with that, of course. The word ‘gay’ was not coined by gays–it was initially a slur that they eventually co-opted. Secondly, the German word kind is pronounced entirely differently from the English word, and so the two meanings are thus obscured.

My understanding is that the concept was eventually scrapped. At any rate, the word ‘kind’ has never really been adopted by the online pedo community. In fact, this is the first I’ve heard about it since those original discussions. I’m sure the word has been floating around the interwebz, as these things do. Nothing ever completely disappears from the web, does it?

Which leads me to my point: having perused some of the document, it all feels way too on-the-nose to be legit. It reads exactly like something devised by the Far Right as a false flag to scare the bejebus out of people and not like something created to be workable. If I’ve learned anything about the Far Right over the last couple years, it is that if you want to know what they’re up to, just watch what they accuse their political enemies of. This reads precisely like the sort of black propaganda some far right-winger would devise to ramp up public fears.

If it is legit–and I won’t entirely write off the possibility–I think it can safely be ignored as an unworkable anomaly and not something that will be widely adopted by pedophiles, even the pro-contact bunch. I’m no fan of them, but on the whole they tend to be a wee bit smarter than this.

In short, probably a fake, but if not, don’t make mountains out of molehills. The public smart enough to see through this crap, don’t you think?

#27 Comment By kevin on the left On May 3, 2018 @ 3:05 pm

“I see….so the UK feminists who ‘discovered’ it missed the real point entirely.

Um, given that this group of UK radical feminists hates transgendered activists with the heat of 1,000 suns, and doesn’t particularly likes gay activists either, I’d say they captured the real point entirely indeed.

#28 Comment By jamie On May 3, 2018 @ 3:35 pm

I see….so the UK feminists who ‘discovered’ it missed the real point entirely.

It’s this constant judging information by the ideology of the people promoting it that should be a cause for concern.

Note that the modern myth of the “International Jewish Conspiracy” was actually invented by a disaffected Jew who converted to the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1860s, [12]. It would not be surprising (indeed I would expect it) if this were the work of a “converted” homosexual or a dissident TERF.

#29 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On May 3, 2018 @ 9:57 pm

So, “fake but accurate” basically gives you a license to imagine whatever slanders you want about a given group…

You’re jumping the gun here, or maybe even the shark. My point was, in what manner does a backhanded bow to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in ANY WAY illuminate this discussion? You should know by now I am a caustic critic of facile analogies masquerading as proof of just about anything.

I’d rather prefer a society that burns them swiftly at the stake.

And when you have knocked down every law in Italy to burn them at the stake, and the devil turns on you, where will you look for help?

#30 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On May 3, 2018 @ 11:51 pm

Interesting. I didn’t know about that Incel stuff. When I heard about the Toronto killing I just assumed it was the usual ISIS stuff and didn’t investigate further.
A few years ago I read a SF book from the ’70s in which a future society – very similar to our contemporary one – had people running amok as a common feature – something so common that didn’t even make the news anymore.

#31 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On May 3, 2018 @ 11:55 pm


And when you have knocked down every law in Italy to burn them at the stake, and the devil turns on you, where will you look for help?

True that, Sir Thomas. I was emoting.

#32 Comment By Rob G On May 4, 2018 @ 6:41 am

Got it — the feminists are in on it too.

“My point was, in what manner does a backhanded bow to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in ANY WAY illuminate this discussion?”

Bingo. All it does is cloud the issue (which perhaps was the intent).

#33 Comment By kevin on the left On May 4, 2018 @ 9:06 am

“Got it — the feminists are in on it too.

Not THE feminists. One particular group of radical feminists, known as TERFS (a term they themselves consider a slur), which despises transgenderism as much as any social conservative, and doesn’t like (male) gay activists either.

“My point was, in what manner does a backhanded bow to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in ANY WAY illuminate this discussion?”

Bingo. All it does is cloud the issue (which perhaps was the intent).”

Since the issue is an obvious hoax using methods pioneered by the Protocols, there is someone clouding the issue, but that’s not me.

#34 Comment By kgasmart On May 4, 2018 @ 9:24 am

Irrespective of the article Rod links, and despite the ongoing taboo against sex with children, haven’t we seen some indications that, in at least some quarters, sex with children is on the rise?

I’m talking about teachers having sex with students. Sure, it’s always happened, but [13], and there may be a specific increase among female teachers sleeping with male students.

If in fact that’s the case – what’s the cause?

Sure, these teachers, male or female are punished appropriately when caught. But particularly where it’s female teachers having sex with students as young as 8th grade, what’s the cause?

And no, we as a society aren’t legitimizing it but even with the persistent stigma it happens anyway and it may be happening more often; that is, more teachers may, in fact, be acting on their urges.

This is what I mean about thinking we can knock down some of the doors but leave certain ones standing. When the sexual revolution frees our sexual personas we’re going to want, per Woody Allen, what we want. Even if what we want is taboo; and maybe particularly when in the digital age everyone is more connected yet lonelier than ever before and we’re all seeking the dopamine hit of gratification, which can come from a student thinking you’re “hot” as easily as it comes from a Facebook “like.”

#35 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On May 4, 2018 @ 9:21 pm

True that, Sir Thomas. I was emoting.

Fair enough, Giuseppe, we all do that sometimes.

Since the issue is an obvious hoax using methods pioneered by the Protocols, there is someone clouding the issue, but that’s not me.

Kevin, you have to be capable of more incisive rational reasoning if you want to be “on the left.” Its a precondition to any revolutionary strategy that might actually have a chance of winning, much less making things better afterward than ante.

Your premise assumes facts not in evidence, and your conclusion requires considerable elucidation before it has sufficient substance to be subjected to rational criticism. Try again.

#36 Comment By Mia On May 5, 2018 @ 8:15 pm

How do you factor in someone like Walter Breen, husband of Marion Zimmer Bradley, and reactions to his pedophilia years ago?


This can crossover with your post on Bill Cosby, Rod.

#37 Comment By Meg On July 8, 2018 @ 3:21 am

“In the beginning, we can’t expect americans to think of being kind as a good thing….”

That’s why the proposal is so modest.

#38 Comment By Pedosstink On January 5, 2019 @ 12:12 pm

Social media such as twitter and WordPress has recently brought in rules that ban deadnaming of pedophiles if they claim they are trans women. This is immeasurably helping their opportunities of finding new victims who won’t be able to link them to their past selves. At the moment twitter is barring women who refer to Ian Huntley as Ian Huntley, this pedophile and murderer has changed his name to that of one of his victims mothers, and twitter is supporting him. They are also supporting a male bodied individual known as Jonathan Jessica Yaniv, who writes of his desire to insert tampons into 10 year old girls. This guy is posting pictures of himself in female
toilets in Canada, presumably waiting for potential victims. Yet twitter supports him. They also recently had to take down the page of serial pedo rapist because of a court order. They appear to be materially supporting pedos,