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

The Progressive Pedophile Party

In the 1980s, the Roman Catholic Church may have aided and abetted pedophiles in its clerical ranks by not acting against them. But bizarre as it sounds, the avowedly secular Green Party in West Germany actively promoted pedophiles and their interests [1], as Der Spiegel reports. Excerpts:

He is a boy, roughly 10 years old, with a pretty face, full lips, a straight nose and shoulder-length hair. The wings of an angel protrude from his narrow back, and a penis is drawn with thin lines on the front of his body.

The 1986 image was printed in the newsletter of the Green Party’s national working group on “Gays, Pederasts and Transsexuals,” abbreviated as “BAG SchwuP.” It wasn’t just sent to a few scattered party members, but was addressed to Green Party members of the German parliament, as well as the party’s headquarters in Bonn.

Documents like this have become a problem for the Greens [2] today. Some 33 years after the party was founded, it is now being haunted by a chapter in its history that many would have preferred to forget. No political group in Germany promoted the interests of men with pedophile tendencies as staunchly as the environmental party. For a period of time in the mid-1980s, it practically served as the parliamentary arm of the pedophile movement.

A look at its archives reveals numerous traces of the pedophiles’ flirtation with the Green Party. They appear in motions, party resolutions, memos and even reports by the party treasurer. That is because at times the party not only supported its now forgotten fellow campaigners politically, but also more tangibly, in the form of financial support.

When the Green Party was founded in 1980, pedophiles were part of the movement from the start — not at the center of its activities, but always hovering along the periphery. At the first party convention in the southwestern German city of Karlsruhe, pacifists, feminists and opponents of nuclear energy were joined by the so-called “Urban Indians,” who advocated the “legalization of all affectionate sexual relations between adults and children.” From then on, pedophiles, noisy and wearing colorful body paint, were often a visible part of Green Party gatherings.


In their initial approach to the issue, Green Party leaders have agreed that they are dealing with regrettable but isolated cases. “Protecting children from sexual abuse was and remains a central concern,” says party co-chairman Cem Özdemir. “It is unacceptable that some are now trying to reinterpret the positions of individual groups in the past as a supposedly lax position of the Greens toward the sexual abuse of children.”

But it isn’t that simple. The Greens are not being accused of having advocated sex with children. The real question is whether they contributed to an atmosphere in which people could feel emboldened to pursue tendencies that are illegal if acted upon, and for good reason.

“In terms of national politics [3], the Greens were the only hope for pedophiles,” says Kurt Hartmann, a member of BAG SchwuP in the 1980s who now heads an association that promotes pedophile literature. “They were the only party that put their necks on the line for sexual minorities in the long term.”

The “Schwuppies,” as pedophiles are known within the party, made no secret of their sexual preferences. BAG SchwuP memos were circulated within party committees that openly portrayed minors as objects of sexual desire. One typical image is a photo of a boy in skimpy gym shorts, bending forward slightly as he stands on a playground. The official letterhead of the chairman of BAG SchwuP, Dieter F. Ullmann, featured a drawing of an older man with his arm draped over a young boy’s shoulders.

Party leaders claim that SchwuP was an embarrassment to the national party from the beginning. A look at the files, on the other hand, shows that the pedophile organization received funding — amounting to several thousand deutsche marks over the years — from the Green Party itself and from its parliamentary group in the Bundestag.

 Read the whole thing.  [1]

[Via Lee Podles [4].]

31 Comments (Open | Close)

31 Comments To "The Progressive Pedophile Party"

#1 Comment By Charles Cosimano On May 17, 2013 @ 8:54 pm

I was talking to a German friend this afternoon about just this and she said that the Greens have gone back to being a party of nutcases and she referred to them as being “as bad as the French,” which from a young German is a pretty serious insult.

Of course politics is as complicated in Germany as it is here, sometimes moreso, and the Greens may simply ride this out because the other parties are more pragmatically distasteful to the voters, who are willing, like voters everywhere, to hold their noses and vote their pocketbooks. Case in point, the Greens support pedophiles. Ok, not good, very not good. But to the Lutheran in Lubeck (another friend) Catholics are evil, not the Catholic Church, Catholics, and they are all pedophiles, at least to her. So for my friend in Lubeck, this is a case of both sides, left and right, being equally bad. So she is not going to vote, in the end, on the basis of this because for her, and those like her, it’s a wash. Between the Greens and the Christian Democrats (ok, I know it’s an oxymoron here) she sees no real choice on that.

Or to put it more close to home, when was the last time a Democrat lost an election for sexual misconduct? No, it does not happen. Their party is immune, their voters don’t care. The Greens may be similarly immunized. This news may be shocking here, but in Germany? The voters who back the Greens have known about this forever and probably don’t give a damn.

#2 Comment By Fran Macadam On May 17, 2013 @ 8:59 pm

A lot of organizations started out with, or have had at some point in their history, some proportion of disreputable ideas and members. Southern Baptists were created to justify slavery theologically, Mormons practiced polygamy. Whether or not this makes them forever stained is probably going to be determined about how one feels about their present stances.

There is no cause so just, that it has not had some unjust members.

#3 Comment By Hector On May 17, 2013 @ 10:07 pm

Fran Macadam,

Mormons supported polygamy 100 years ago, not 30 years ago.

#4 Comment By MattSwartz On May 17, 2013 @ 10:26 pm

America’s Libertarian Party has a similar history, although the association has never been as pronounced, and the majority of libertarians have pushed back aggressively against those within their ranks who want to decriminalize sex between adults and children. But it does surface on occasion.

#5 Comment By MattSwartz On May 17, 2013 @ 10:37 pm

Fran Macadam,

Unless you have an in on the secret purposes of the Almighty, you might want to hold off on saying that Southern Baptists were “created to justify slavery theologically.”

But seriously; Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists also differed pretty sharply about the issue (along roughly regional lines), if I recall. It was quite a divisive issue.

#6 Comment By Thomas Andrews On May 18, 2013 @ 12:09 am

I suggest you rethink your comment to Frau Macadam regarding the Southern Baptists.
It is anything but difficult to show that she is precisely, exactly right in her analysis of the the Southern Baptists.

Goodness! I have often wondered just how such an alliance as the LDS, the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists could come about. Clearly, those supporting this alliance are either very ignorant of history or completely convinced that their side of the culture war justifies any alliance, with anyone, at all.

#7 Comment By WorkingClass On May 18, 2013 @ 12:45 am

@Charles Cosimano

Or to put it more close to home, when was the last time a Democrat lost an election for sexual misconduct?

John Edwards? Mark Sanford? David Vitter? Eliot Spitzer?

#8 Comment By EngineerScotty On May 18, 2013 @ 1:09 am

The Democrats were once the party of slavery and segregation, but that’s long been forgiven–“what have you done for me lately” is an important maxim in politics.

I’ve never heard of the Greens supporting pedophiles (I don’t follow German politik much), but they’ve long been one of those “we-don’t-compromise-with-anybody” parties that has a small core of supporters and occasionally gets a share of protest votes, but is in danger of ever being in a position to form a government.

#9 Comment By EngineerScotty On May 18, 2013 @ 1:10 am

Should say, is not in danger of ever being in a position to form a government.

#10 Comment By William Dalton On May 18, 2013 @ 1:45 am

According to Wikipedia, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845 because Northern Baptists did not want to allow slave holding congregations to send missionaries to the mission field. I don’t know about other denominations, but I know the Presbyterian Church U.S., the old Southern Presbyterian Church was formed, not because of slavery, but because northern Presbyterians caused a resolution to be passed at the General Assembly of 1861 declaring secession to be an act of treason – basically declaring southern Presbyterians persona non grata in their own church. As long as church bodies are formed along national lines, it is inevitable that they will divide when nations divide. It is true that Southern Presbyterians became far more pronounced in their defense of slavery as a God ordained institution after the split, whereas Old School Presbyterians, north and south, prior to the war simply defended slave holding as being compatible with the Christian faith, applying the teachings of St. Paul to the subject.

#11 Comment By Richard Johnson On May 18, 2013 @ 2:00 am

“Unless you have an in on the secret purposes of the Almighty, you might want to hold off on saying that Southern Baptists were “created to justify slavery theologically.””

She doesn’t need God to tell her to make this claim. She needs to simply look at history.



And at the words of the Southern Baptist Convention itself.


#12 Comment By Richard Johnson On May 18, 2013 @ 2:08 am

“Clearly, those supporting this alliance are either very ignorant of history or completely convinced that their side of the culture war justifies any alliance, with anyone, at all.”

Simply put they have whored out Jesus to the GOP. And they now sit and wonder why Christianity seems to be having so little impact on our culture. The answer is right there in the Bible.

Revelation 2:1-7

2:1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus, 1 write the following: “This is the solemn pronouncement of the one who has a firm grasp on the seven stars in his right hand – the one who walks among the seven golden lampstands: ‘I know your works as well as your labor and steadfast endurance, and that you cannot tolerate evil. You have even put to the test those who refer to themselves as apostles (but are not), and have discovered that they are false. I am also aware that you have persisted steadfastly, endured much for the sake of my name, and have not grown weary. But I have this against you: You have departed from your first love! Therefore, remember from what high state you have fallen and repent! Do the deeds you did at the first; if not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place – that is, if you do not repent. But you do have this going for you: You hate what the Nicolaitans practice – practices I also hate. The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers, I will permit him to eat from the tree of life that is in the paradise of God.’

It’s really hard to make it any clearer. But, when you have decided that politics trumps all, it’s easy to ignore those texts that you don’t agree with.

#13 Comment By William Dalton On May 18, 2013 @ 2:25 am

Rod, I believe the discussion initiated in your blog post about BDSM performance art in San Francisco, whether the dividing line between licit and illicit sex, moral or immoral, legal or illegal, should be drawn on the presence of valid consent, applies directly to the formation of sexual ethics in the liberal culture of the West from the 1960’s to today.

In the Christian worldview, consent to sexual relations did not have much to do with the question. If a man took another man’s wife, it was a crime whether she consented or not. Taking her by force, rape, only made the offense more grievous. Eventually, the concept of “statutory rape”, carnal knowledge of someone too young or without the capacity to give valid consent, was invented so that these offenses would be treated as seriously as those where the woman actively opposed the act. But it was not uncommon, and certainly not disapproved by the Church, for grown men to take girls as wives as soon as they were physically capable of bearing children. What was important was that the consent of the parents of a minor daughter be procured for her to be married, and the consent had to be for a marriage – not an illicit carnal relationship.

Was the consent of the girl/young woman to a marriage also important? Well, yes, but in the same sense that a girl’s consent to be sent to school or to wear certain clothing or to do certain work was important in a culture where girls (and boys) were taught it was their duty to obey their parents’ commands with respect to such things and therefore give their consent. I really don’t believe it was a culture very different from that prevailing in countries in the Middle East and South Asia, Christian and Hindu, as well as Muslim, now coming to clash with the very different cultural assumptions in the West. A girl who was married at a young age was simply transferred from her parents’ tutelage to that of her husband, but the husband was then obliged to care for and support her, as her parents had. The Church was there, particularly in its teachings against divorce, to assure that young brides could not simply be used and thrown away by their “husbands”.

Our contemporary culture makes the argument that the one thing that sets child sex apart from gay sex or BDSM or any other sexual perversion is the absence of valid consent. Therefore we can declare it illicit and apply criminal penalties to it, whereas all else we must protect as a civil right. The problem with this reasoning is that there are many things we force children to do, even allow parents to force them to do, without their consent. We force them to eat their food, to go to bed, to do their schoolwork, to be at home by a certain hour. If they disobey we confine them to their room or exact other punishments. These are all things it would be criminal to impose on any adult, at least by force, at least without a court order. So why can not parents make the decision for their children, give valid consent on their behalf, to them having sex? As, a few generations ago, they clearly had that authority to give consent for their daughters to marry?

If it isn’t because sex itself has moral qualities, that make it licit or illicit, commendable or abhorrent, which do not depend upon the presence of consent, I don’t know on what ground these laws against pedophilia can be justified.

#14 Comment By Lord Karth On May 18, 2013 @ 3:23 am

Thomas Andrews writes: “ I have often wondered just how such an alliance as the LDS, the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists could come about. Clearly, those supporting this alliance are either very ignorant of history or completely convinced that their side of the culture war justifies any alliance, with anyone, at all.

I give you this very old, and very accurate proverb….

“Only a fool fights in a burning house.”

Your servant,

Lord Karth

#15 Comment By Thomas On May 18, 2013 @ 9:32 am

There’s a chapter in the wonderful book ‘Adam and Eve after the pill’ by Mary Eberstadt that talks about how pedophilia was on the verge of becoming mainstream at exactly this time (late 80s).


See also ‘Pedophilia Chic’ and ‘Pedophilia Chic revisted’ by the same author in the Weekly Standard.. This kind of thinking certainly wasn’t unique to the German green party, and Eberstadt argues that it was precisely the scandal in the Catholic Church that put an end to the mainstreaming of the movement.

#16 Comment By William Burns On May 18, 2013 @ 9:48 am

Charles Cosimano,

When was the last time a Democrat lost an election for sexual misconduct? Well, putting aside the cases of John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer, who were forced out of politics without “losing an election,” Al Gore arguably lost in 2000 because of Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct. The cases of Mark Sanford and David Vitter indicates that it’s voters in general who don’t care about sexual misconduct, not Democrats in particular.

But yeah, all of this is well short of pedophilia.

#17 Comment By William Dalton On May 18, 2013 @ 11:19 am

William Burns:

Al Gore lost in 2000 because he had defended Clinton after Clinton’s sexual misconduct drove him to break the law. Otherwise, Gore would have won as the incumbent President.

#18 Comment By Thomas Aquinas On May 18, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

Any post that starts with “According to Wikipedia….” tempts me to commit the genetic fallacy. In order to not lead your fellow readers into temptation, you may want to access legitimate historians and works on this matter.

#19 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On May 18, 2013 @ 2:41 pm

Thomas said:

There’s a chapter in the wonderful book ‘Adam and Eve after the pill’ by Mary Eberstadt that talks about how pedophilia was on the verge of becoming mainstream at exactly this time (late 80s).

I was an adult in the 80’s in the US and I don’t recall this being the case. It’s always been seen as off limits.

#20 Comment By William Burns On May 18, 2013 @ 3:00 pm

William Dalton,

I don’t think we’re really disagreeing here.

#21 Comment By MattSwartz On May 18, 2013 @ 6:51 pm

Thomas, I don’t think you understand. I was drawing a distinction (that I thought was hilarious) between what Southern Baptists were created for (the subject of the post I quoted) and what the Southern Baptist Convention was created for. It pays to read closely.

I’m well aware that the original Southern Baptists were pro-slavery. I don’t mainline hard enough on the genetic fallacy to find that fact especially relevant today, but apparently you do. More power to you, but you realize that in doing so you sound just as stupid as the people who go on about how MLK was a Republican. Cheers!

#22 Comment By Jeremy On May 18, 2013 @ 8:55 pm

Reminds me of what G.K. Chesterton said in The Ball and the Cross:

“In the long run, which is most mad — the Church or the world? Which is madder, the Spanish Priest who permitted tyranny, or the Prussian sophist who admired it?”

#23 Comment By Jesse Ewiak On May 19, 2013 @ 2:06 am

Um, guys, Clinton walked out of office in 2000 with a 65% approval rating. The reason why Gore lost is because he listened to dumb political consultants who told him to keep Clinton at a hand’s length and choose somebody with “moral” chops like Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate.

#24 Comment By Thomas On May 19, 2013 @ 10:45 am

Poor phrasing on my behalf. Instead of ‘becoming mainstream’ I should have said ‘moving from a fringe position to a potentially viable concern amongst segments of the respectable cultural left’. See this for examples: [9]

#25 Comment By William Dalton On May 19, 2013 @ 3:18 pm

Jesse Ewiak,

Bill Clinton’s popularity at the time of the 2000 election doesn’t change the fact that had Al Gore remained neutral on Clinton’s impeachment it would have opened the door for conscientious Democrats, like Robert Byrd and Joe Lieberman, to support convicting him, which would have forced his resignation, and Gore would have entered the 2000 race as the incumbent, always an advantage. He had the votes of Clinton supporters in any event. He lost the votes of those, across the political spectrum, who believed Clinton despicable and those who excused him inexcusable. That’s includes Joe Lieberman.

#26 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On May 19, 2013 @ 6:40 pm

Unless you have an in on the secret purposes of the Almighty, you might want to hold off on saying that Southern Baptists were “created to justify slavery theologically.”

Matt Swartz: What do the secret purposes of the Almighty have to do with it?

It is a fact of record that the Southern Baptist Convention separated itself organizationally and theologically from the General Baptist Convention due to the active anti-slavery stance of the latter, while the SBC upheld slavery as sanctioned by God and Biblically approved. Convicted by their own words.

#27 Comment By JonF On May 19, 2013 @ 7:24 pm

I have to agree with MH. I lived through the 80s too, presumably in the same timeline as the rest of y’all, and I do not recall any sort of pro-pedophilia movement that was remotely mainstream. In fact, what I recall were some Salem-witchhunt style moral panics on the matter that destroyed some innocent peoples’ lives based on wildly improbable tales of children.
To be sure I can credit that in some distant fever swamp of leftwing looney-tunery some people tried to make the case– wasn’t NAMBLA formed around that time? But those sorts never got so much as a respectful hearing by anyone back on the mainland.

#28 Comment By MattSwartz On May 20, 2013 @ 12:57 am

I’m frustrated when inexact grammar becomes standard. People can’t distinguish between why the SBC was created (that’s an institution!) and why Southern Baptists (those are people!) were created. I guess people’s desire to score points trumps reading comprehension. It’s like my point went utterly ungrasped…

#29 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On May 20, 2013 @ 7:29 am

why Southern Baptists (those are people!) were created.

I’m not a biologist, but I think their parents would be the people with the best answer to that question.

#30 Comment By Bob Pf On May 20, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

I couldn’t help help thinking of the Franz Josef Strauss quote: Die Grünen sind wie Tomaten. Am anfang sind sie grün, aber spatter warden sie immer rot. (“The Greens are like tomatoes – they’re Green at first, but later they always turn Red.”), On the earlier discussion of sexual behavior and consent, I would think of consent as the first question to ask of a sexual act: if it’s not consensual it is automatically bad. Consent would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for sexual behavior to be acceptable. If consent is there, then we can look at (and debate) other criteria. My own instinct is that the law (as opposed to morality or social pressure), should stop at the consent test. But Dreher has every right (and was right) to condemn the goings-on in SF.

#31 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On May 20, 2013 @ 4:18 pm

MattSwartz, your idea did indeed go utterly ungrasped. Quite so. I would offer the observation that God did not create Southern Baptists, God created humans, and some of them chose to become Southern Baptists. Was that an original sin, or an act of piety and devotion to Our Lord? I believe the question was best answered by Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

But, now that you have explained the joke, the distinction does indeed contain some humor.