Showing posts with label pedophilia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pedophilia. Show all posts

Wednesday 7 August 2019

Infiltration of the Catholic Church

This is the text from my YouTube clip "Catholic Infiltration"

I will tell you the complete story now. It was on a Saturday afternoon in 1989 (early October as I remember) when I went to Villawood, the post office (at the time it was located at Woodville Road) was a known meet up place for Satanists. As I arrived at the post office on Woodville Road, I encountered two Satanists I knew (Vijay and Jerrum) who were being spoken to by an older man. I just assumed that he was asking them for directions, or was trying to get change for the phone boxes or just knew them in general. Vijay and Jerrum were aged about 18 or 19 and the older man would have been about 60, the older man had the command of the conversation. Vijay nodded his head in my direction and the talking stopped. Jerrum looked over at me and then turned to the man and said "he is one of us". I was then motioned to move in closer and the conversation resumed with the man asking us if we looked at infiltrating the Catholic church orders or other churches through getting into their ministries, but the Catholic church was the prime target because if the Catholic church falls then so will Christianity. Although he spoke to us as a group he seemed to be speaking to each one of us individually, it was almost hypnotic. (He was asking us and yet at the same time telling us)

Jerrum, Vijay and I were not of the wannabe tough guys you generally find in groups of 'devil worshipers'. No, we were of the 'occult set' and had become somewhat separate from the others. I suppose you could say it was a type of elitism, not something we had aspired to but something we fell into by default because of our dedication and studying of the occult. It was the man who told us we should infiltrate the church and told us if we do then we were to pervert theology, rituals and prayers. 

How was this to be done? Answer - by having language reinterpreted like having words, sentences and phrases redefined. I will give you this example, if 'person A' went up to 'person B' and said "I came out today" what would be the first thing to go through 'person Bs' mind? Or anyones' mind for that matter? Even if the sentence was not completed the first thought would be this person was declaring themselves to be a homosexual. The constant redefining and corruption of words, sentences, and phrases in a church service context with the likes of prayers during Mass would render them void.

This would happen because each parishioner would be in a situation of not knowing what they were specifically saying. If they were saying one word and having a guess or just making up what it was supposed to mean it would seem 'uncertain and not definite'. To have strings of these words in the sentences of hymns and prayers would cause doubt. Doubt in what they were saying, doubt in what they were singing, doubt in what they were thinking while they were doing both, which leads to doubt why they are there. If the purpose of going to church is to praise and honour God then doubt within church services will lead to doubt over what they are praising and honouring and thus doubt in God. Doubt is a powerful weapon which leaves no fingerprints as to where it came from and who was behind it.

That was the first and most important priority if we were to infiltrate the church, but there was another 'lesser' priority. That was to alienate future generations of Christians; the target was the children and minors. We were to 'interfere' with them, within about 2 seconds I went from confusion to knowing what he meant by interfere. He didn't say to establish relationships with them which would further lead to sexual activity, neither did he say to rape them but we were to abuse them. It wouldn't be purely for our sexual enjoyment, it would be to make them resentful and drive them away from the church. They would blame God, Jesus, all the priests and nuns, the parishioners, church employees, and the church as a whole for allowing the abuse to happen.

In all honesty the idea of molesting children did not at all appeal to me, but this is a war, an insurgency. At the age of 20 I had a sexual desire for older women, not younger ones. I asked what age are we looking at here? I was thinking that these girls might be wards of the state under church care or orphans or something similar. My face felt like it had been painted with plaster and had dried, it felt like stone. 

The man said "15", I assumed he we gauging us for a reaction but I couldn't tell because he wore a large pair of dark glasses that were near black. He then went to "14", I stood there thinking maybe... I had heard of 14 year olds being sexually active but it did not appeal to me. Then "13", I thought 'maybe' if the girl is quite physically developed. Then "10", I thought 'maybe if I was 15 I would'. As he was saying the ages in a quick sequence I gave a sideways glance to see Jerrum and Vijay. Their faces looked like stone like those faces on Easter Island and I suppose mine did too, it certainly felt like it. The next age stunned me, "5". It didn't stun me as to leave me in shock or want to run off, it was more of a case of 'Really? Is this necessary? Are we required to do that?

Jerrum then asked wouldn't fucking these kids cause obvious damage and leave marks? The man replied in a light handed manner; "No, no, no, you don't have to fuck them. You do things like make them suck your cock, you stick your fingers into them, you slap them in the face with your dick". He then went on to say that both boys and girls were to be targeted and then added "I like 7 year olds". Then there was a short pause and then he said in a jovial manner he was going home to do some housework, prepare ingredients for dinner and watch TV. He then walked off out of sight. Jerrum, Vijay and I still had stone faces; we didn't speak and walked off in separate directions. My stone face lasted till I got home; I can't accurately describe the feeling. It was like I was in the army as a corporal and had been spoken to by a general about a secret mission. But I was in an army and I was one of Satans' faithful soldiers and I had been told operational secrets by an elder.

The next day I returned to Villawood outside the post office at the same time, Vijay and Jerrum showed up as well within minutes of me arriving there. There was no "umm umm about yesterday ..umm what the..?" We knew what our obligations were because we are faithful servants of the Satan and his kingdom, we knew our aims and we knew we were to do everything to achieve them. This is a war and all tactics are fair, we have to win regardless of what we have to do because if we lose, we lose eternally. I imagine jihadi suicide bombers have the same mindset and I suppose Christian fanatics would be similar in that they know that on Judgment Day they will have to justify their life to God and explain what they did and didn't do and why. We were theistic Satanists not atheist goths in a role playing game.

There is a satanic etiquette in that you don't ask personal questions unless you have been invited to. 

The man who spoke to us yesterday never introduced himself to me at all, it was Jerrums' introducing me to him by saying "he is one of us" that was the 'all clear' to resume the conversation. No names were exchanged, while you might find this weird you have to look at it from a security point of view. 

If I were to be disgusted by what I had heard yesterday and decided to be 'a good moral upright citizen' and go to the police, well what could I tell them? No name, no address, no phone number and I couldn't give a proper description because he wore large dark glasses and a hat. You might say you could dob in Jerrum and Vijay. No, because I strongly doubt that Jerrum and Vijay were their actual names. In fact all those of the creed use nicknames that they either chose for themselves or were given to them by others. Real names are never used in case of someone finding Jesus and confessing all.

It was Jerrum who knew this man (extent unknown), and this man had been involved in Satanism for decades. I asked was he a priest, I was told he was involved in the church. No church was mentioned and neither was the position he held in the church and I didn't ask. I didn't ask any further questions regarding the man; if Jerrum knew him then all was alright as far as I'm concerned. There was a conversation regarding the pedophilia, Jerrum gave an overview of it in more detail. The pedophilia is part of a campaign to destroy the Catholic Church, it is part of a campaign that began in 1920 in Ireland. Ireland was in a near lawless state with the Irish Free State fighting the IRA and with skirmishes with the British by both. The Catholic Church was left alone by all sides and Satanists went into Ireland as priests or trainee priests because a priest from Ireland was usually welcomed by any country. The Irish Free State was a springboard to America and Northern Ireland was a springboard to England and throughout the British Empire; there does seem to be a level of organisation and co-ordination involved. It seemed to me that Jerrum was getting intimate knowledge of this from the man, but then again I don't know who else he had contact with and I didn't ask. 

But it went further, I was then told if you got into the priesthood you were not really expected to be in for more than 10 years as that was sufficient time to do damage and make an unblemished exit. A way to do this was to listen in on parishioner rumours about suspected perverts and encourage the perverts to work within the church community. But another way to find and use perverts was by the confessional, you would have pedophiles confessing their perversions and crimes. You would have them in a compromised position, and then you offer them a way to seek forgiveness by fighting their urges. You would have them working with children and the result would be obvious. The word gets around among the perverts and you have constant waves of molesters making their way to the church. Have we not had this revealed to us in recent times? You may have a rope and a pitchfork and want to rally up a mob to deal with satanic infiltrators in the Catholic Church and indeed all churches and all religions. But the sad fact is (well I suspect) that most, if not all of them have bailed out already. The perverts causing damage within the church community are most probably not Satanists, they are just perverts.

Friday 20 May 2016

The Sexual Revolution and Children

I post the following which I first saw on the David Icke site.
I make no claim whatsoever to this writing but I will say that you should read it and see that 'pedo rights' are nothing new. And once again it is atheist leftists and greens pushing this barrow who will be joined by child pornographers.
.... and they might win this time......
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=242887


The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far

Germany's left has its own tales of abuse. One of the goals of the German 1968 movement was the sexual liberation of children. For some, this meant overcoming all sexual inhibitions, creating a climate in which even pedophilia was considered progressive.

In the spring of 1970, Ursula Besser found an unfamiliar briefcase in front of her apartment door. It wasn't that unusual, in those days, for people to leave things at her door or drop smaller items into her letter slot. She was, after all, a member of the Berlin state parliament for the conservative Christian Democrats. Sometimes Besser called the police to examine a suspicious package; she was careful to always apologize to the neighbors for the commotion.

ANZEIGE

The students had proclaimed a revolution, and Besser, the widow of an officer, belonged to those forces in the city that were sharply opposed to the radical changes of the day. Three years earlier, when she was a newly elected member of the Berlin state parliament, the CDU had appointed Besser, a Ph.D. in philology, to the education committee. She quickly acquired a reputation for being both direct and combative.
The briefcase contained a stack of paper -- the typewritten daily reports on educational work at an after-school center in Berlin's Kreuzberg neighborhood, where up to 15 children aged 8 to 14 were taken care of during the afternoon. The first report was dated Aug. 13, 1969, and the last one was written on Jan. 14, 1970.

Even a cursory review of the material revealed that the educational work at the Rote Freiheit ("Red Freedom") after-school center was unorthodox. The goal of the center was to shape the students into "socialist personalities," and its educational mission went well beyond supervised play. The center's agenda included "agitprop" on the situation in Vietnam and "street fighting," in which the children were divided into "students" and "cops."

Pantomiming Intercourse

The educators' notes indicate that they placed a very strong emphasis on sex education.
Almost every day, the students played games that involved taking off their clothes, reading porno magazines together and pantomiming intercourse.

According to the records, a "sex exercise" was conducted on Dec. 11 and a "fucking hour" on Jan. 14. An entry made on Nov. 26 reads: "In general, by lying there we repeatedly provoked, openly or in a hidden way, sexual innuendoes, which were then expressed in pantomimes, which Kurt and Rita performed together on the low table (as a stage) in front of us."

The material introduced the broader public to a byproduct of the student movement for the first time: the sexual liberation of children. Besser passed on the reports to an editor at the West Berlin newspaper Der Abend, who published excerpts of the material. On April 7, 1970, the Berlin state parliament discussed the Rote Freiheit after-school center. As it turned out, the Psychology Institute at the Free University of Berlin was behind the center. In fact, the institute had established the facility and provided the educators who worked there. Besser now believes that it was a concerned employee who dropped off the reports at her door.

A few days later, Besser paid a visit to the Psychology Institute in Berlin's Dahlem neighborhood, "to take a look at the place," as she says. In the basement, Besser found two rooms that were separated by a large, one-way mirror. There was a mattress in one of the rooms, as well as a sink on the wall and a row of colorful washcloths hanging next to it.

When asked, an institute employee told Besser that the basement was used as an "observation station" to study sexual behavior in children.
It has since faded into obscurity, but the members of the 1968 movement and their successors were caught up in a strange obsession about childhood sexuality. It is a chapter of the movement's history which is never mentioned in the more glowing accounts of the era.

On this issue, the veterans of the late '60s student movement seem to have succumbed to acute amnesia; an analysis of this aspect of the student revolution would certainly be worthwhile.

The Possibility of Sex with Children

In the debate on sexual abuse, one of the elements is confusion as to where the line should be drawn in interactions with children. It is a confusion not limited to the Catholic Church. Indeed, it was precisely in so-called progressive circles that an eroticization of childhood and a gradual lowering of taboos began. It was a shift that even allowed for the possibility of sex with children.

The incidents at the Odenwald School in the western state of Hesse -- a boarding school with no religious affiliation -- showed that there was a connection between calls for reform and the removal of inhibition. The case of Klaus Rainer Röhl, the former publisher of the leftist magazine Konkret, also makes little sense without its historical context.

The articles in Konkret that openly advocated sex with minors are at least as disturbing as the accusations of Röhl's daughters Anja and Bettina that he molested them, which Röhl denies.

The left has its own history of abuse, and it is more complicated than it would seem at first glance. When leaders of the student movement of the late 1960s are asked about it, they offer hesitant or evasive answers. "At the core of the movement of 1968, there was in fact a lack of respect for the necessary boundaries between children and adults. The extent to which this endangerment led to abuse cases is unclear," Wolfgang Kraushaar, a political scientist and chronicler of the movement, writes in retrospect.

A lack of respect for boundaries is putting it mildly. One could also say that the boundaries were violently torn open.

Sexual liberation was at the top of the agenda of the young revolutionaries who, in 1967, began turning society upside down. The control of sexual desire was seen as an instrument of domination, which bourgeois society used to uphold its power. Everything that the innovators perceived as wrong and harmful has its origins in this concept: man's aggression, greed and desire to own things, as well as his willingness to submit to authority. The student radicals believed that only those who liberated themselves from sexual repression could be truly free.

'Hostile Treatment of Sexual Pleasure'

To them, it seemed obvious that liberation should begin at an early age. Once sexual inhibitions had taken root, they reasoned, everything that followed was merely the treatment of symptoms. They were convinced that it was much better to prevent those inhibitions from developing in the first place. Hardly any leftist texts of the day did not address the subject of sexuality.

For instance, "Revolution der Erziehung" ("The Revolution in Education"), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: "The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation -- as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system."

Issue 17 of the cultural magazine Kursbuch, published in June 1969, described the revolutionaries' position in practical terms. Published by German author Hans Magnus Enzensberger, the issue contained a report by the members of Commune 2 in Berlin, titled "Educating Children in the Commune." In the summer of 1967, three women and four men moved into an apartment in an old building on Giesebrechtstrasse, together with two small children, a three-year-old girl, Grischa, and a four-year-old boy, Nessim. For the residents, the cohabitation experiment was an attempt to overcome all bourgeois constraints, which included everything from separate bank accounts and closed bathroom doors to fidelity within couples and the development of feelings of shame. The two children were raised by the group, which often meant that no one paid much attention to them.

Because the adults had made it their goal to not just "tolerate but in fact affirm child sexuality," they were not satisfied to simply act as passive observers.

The members of this commune also felt compelled to write down their experiences, which explains why some of the incidents that occurred were reliably documented. On April 4, 1968, Eberhard Schultz describes how he is lying in bed with little Grischa, and how she begins to stroke him, first in the face, then on the stomach and buttocks, and finally on his penis, until he becomes "very excited" and his "cock gets hard." The little girl pulls down her tights and asks Schultz to "stick it in," to which he responds that his penis is "probably too big." Then he strokes the girl's vagina.

Part 2: 'Look, My Vagina'

Kursbuch 17 contained a series of poster-sized photos. Under the headline "Love Play in the Children's Room," it depicted Nessim and Grischa, both naked. The oversized images are of the sort that one would expect to see in a magazine for pedophiles today -- certainly not in an influential publication of the leftist intelligentsia. The caption reads: "Grischa walks over to the mirror, looks at her body, bends forward several times, encircling her buttocks with her hands, and says: 'Look, my vagina.'"

Ulrich Enzensberger, a former member of the commune, later said that Nessim, at any rate, looked back "in horror" at his commune days. Nessim is now a political scientist in Bremen, while Grischa lives in Berlin and works for a publishing company. Nessim and Grischa have lived very private lives ever since they were able to make their own decisions. When asked, Nessim says politely that he only discusses his childhood "and, therefore, intimate subjects, with trusted individuals." Grischa, now 46, is similarly private about her past.

It is tempting to dismiss the "love play" in the commune as an exception, as a radical excess of a revolutionary project, if so many leftist parents hadn't modeled their own lives on the educational experiments on Giesebrechtstrasse. For these contemporaries, Commune 2 was a pilot project in anti-authoritarian education that was quickly followed by private kindergartens in which parents applied the new ideas to raising their children, first in Frankfurt, Berlin, Hamburg and Stuttgart, and eventually in smaller cities like Giessen and Nuremberg.

Initially, the parents addressed practical issues, such as whether to take their children with them to protest marches. But the agenda eventually turned to sex education. In these anti-authoritarian kindergartens and daycare centers, known as Kinderladen, no other subject was discussed at such length as sex, says Alexander Schuller, one of the pioneers of the movement.

Divided Over the Issue

In 1969 Schuller, a sociologist, was one of the founders of a Kinderladen in Berlin's Wilmersdorf neighborhood. Like Schuller, the other parents were academics, journalists or university employees -- a decidedly upper middle-class lot. Schuller's two sons, four and five years old at the time, grew up without the customary rules and punishments of a government-run daycare facility.

But the adults were soon divided over the issue of sex. Some were determined to encourage their children to show and touch their genitalia, while the others were horrified by the idea.

"It was never addressed quite that directly, but it was clear that in the end, sex with the two female teachers was considered," says Schuller. "I found it incredibly difficult to take a stance. I felt that what we were trying to do was fundamentally correct, but when it came to this issue, I thought: This is crazy, it just isn't right. But then I felt ashamed of thinking that way. I think many were in the same position."

After a year of grueling discussion, the more prudish group prevailed, and the parents decided that there would be no sex in the Kinderladen.
Nowadays, the stimulation of a child's sex organs by an adult is clearly seen as criminal sexual assault. But for the revolutionaries of 1968, it was an educational tool that helped "create a new person," according to the "Handbook of Positive Child Indoctrination," published in 1971. "Children can learn to appreciate eroticism and sexual intercourse long before they are capable of understanding how a child is conceived. It is valuable for children to cuddle with adults. It is no less valuable for sexual intercourse to occur during cuddling."

Constant Enlightenment

The self-deception of these supposedly enlightened parents began when they tried to force an uninhibited relationship with sex on the children. In theory, their goal was to enable the children to act on their sexual needs. But because children are not spontaneously inclined to become sexually active in front of adults, they had to be stimulated to do so.

The parents were constantly telling sex jokes and using words like "cock," "butt" and "vagina." "Actually, my sons really liked going to the Kinderladen," says Schuller, "but they thought the constant chatter about sex was horrible."

In her novel "Das bleiche Herz der Revolution" ("The Pale Heart of the Revolution"), Sophie Dannenberg strikingly described how agonizing it can be for children when their boundaries of privacy are violated. Dannenberg, whose parents, motivated by their affiliation with the German Communist Party, sent her to a Kinderladen in the western city of Giessen in the 1970s, used the stories told by her mother and other contemporary witnesses to write her account of an atmosphere of constant enlightenment.

The material she used includes an account of a parents' evening where one of the mothers said that she stripped naked in front of her son so that he could "inspect" her. In the process, the woman spread her legs to expose her private parts for his inspection. The game ended when the boy stuck a pencil into his mother's vagina. The parents also spent a long time discussing whether it was a good idea to have sex with their own children, so as to demonstrate the "naturalness" of sexual intercourse.

Although the people Dannenberg interviewed did not recall any instances of physical advances, they did describe "softer forms of sexual assault," such as pushy demands on children to show their naked bodies. In the novel, which is based on Dannenberg's research, the eight-year-old character Simone is told to strip in front of several adults and other children. "Why do you want to hide yourself," the mother says, to the amusement of the people standing around, when the child instinctively holds a pillow in front of her genitalia. "It's a beautiful thing you have there! Show it to us!"

Escapades

No other scene in the book has provoked such angry reactions as this one. Dannenberg
reports that she was literally shouted down during events to discuss the book whenever the scene was mentioned. "Lies, lies," audience members shouted once when she was in a panel discussion with Ulrich Enzensberger and reminded him of the sexual escapades of the day.

It probably wasn't always easy for the adults, either, to be so free. Not everyone knew what to do when the children went from playing with themselves to fondling the adults.

In his 1975 autobiographical book "Der grosse Basar" ("The Great Bazaar"), Green Party politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit describes his experiences as a teacher in a Frankfurt Kinderladen. When the children entrusted to his care opened his fly and began stroking his penis, he writes, "I was usually quite taken aback. My reactions varied, depending on the circumstances."

Part 3: 'That Hurts'

Others found it noticeably more difficult to deal with the situation. The records of a

Stuttgart Kinderladen from December 1969 include an account by a mother who suddenly found several children reaching under her skirt. When one of the boys began pulling her pubic hair, the woman wasn't sure how to react. On the one hand, she didn't want to seem inhibited, but on the other hand, the situation was unpleasant for her. "That hurts," she finally said, "I don't like that."

An account by the sociologist Monika Seifert, who described her experiences in the "Parents' Collective of the Frankfurt Children's School" in the magazine Vorgänge (excerpts of which later appeared in SPIEGEL in the fall of 1970), reveals how difficult it was for the Kinderladen parents to eventually decide between their own ideological expectations and their sense of right and wrong.

In the account, Seifert critically asks herself why, in her project, "no cases of attempted, direct, purposeful sexual activity between a child and an adult were observed."

It should be noted that she sees this as a shortcoming, not a success. As a mother, Seifert concludes that the "inhibitions and insecurities of the adults" were probably to blame for their passivity, and that the children were likely "suppressing their sexual curiosity in this regard because of the subconscious reactions of the adults."

'An Incredibly Erotic Game'

Does what happened in a number of the Kinderladen qualify as abuse? According to the criteria to which Catholic priests have been subjected, it clearly does, says Alexander Schuller, the sociologist. "Objectively speaking, it was abuse, but subjectively it wasn't," says author Dannenberg. As outlandish as it seems in retrospect, the parents apparently had the welfare of the children in mind, not their own. For the adherents to the new movement, the child did not serve as a sex object to provide the adults with a means of satisfying their sexual urges. This differentiates politically motivated abuse from pedophilia.

Here, too, the distinctions become blurred. How should we react when Cohn-Bendit writes, in his memoirs, about "little, five-year-old girls who had already learned to proposition me?"

It wasn't the only time the Green politician raved about his experiences with children. In a largely unnoticed appearance on French television on April 23, 1982, Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament today, said the following:

"At nine in the morning, I join my eight little toddlers between the ages of 16 months and 2 years. I wash their butts, I tickle them, they tickle me and we cuddle. … You know, a child's sexuality is a fantastic thing. You have to be honest and sincere. With the very young kids, it isn't the same as it is with the four-to-six-year-olds. When a little, five-year-old girl starts undressing, it's great, because it's a game. It's an incredibly erotic game."

Cohn-Bendit later claimed that his portrayals in the book were meant as a provocation. Whether or not one believes his assertions, the development of the Greens in the 1980s shows that their nonchalant talk about sex with young children eventually attracted real pedophiles.

No Age Restrictions

In the wake of the emerging gay movement, so-called Pedo groups soon appeared. Taking their cue from homosexuals, they also claimed that, as a minority, they were entitled to certain rights. The best known of these groups was the "Indian Commune" in Nuremberg, an "alternative living project" of adults of children. The "Indians," brightly painted and vocal, appeared at the first Green Party convention, in the southwestern German city of Karlsruhe in 1980, to drum up support for their cause, which they called "free sex for children and adults."

The Greens were not long immune to the argument that the government should not limit the sexuality of children. At its convention in Lüdenscheid in 1985, the Greens' state organization in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia argued that "nonviolent sexuality" between children and adults should generally be allowed, without any age restrictions. "Consensual sexual relations between adults and children must be decriminalized," the "Children and Youth" task force of the Green Party in the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg wrote in a position paper at about the same time. Public protests forced the party to remove the statement from the document.

During this time, no other newspaper offered pedophiles quite as much a forum as the

alternative, left-leaning Tageszeitung, which shows how socially acceptable this violation

of taboos had become in the leftist community. In several series, including one titled "I Love Boys," and in lengthy interviews, men were given the opportunity to describe how beautiful and liberating sex with preadolescent boys supposedly was. "There was a great deal of uncertainty as to how far people could go," says Gitti Hentschel, the co-founder and, from 1979 to 1985, editor of Tageszeitung. Those who, like Hentschel, were openly opposed to promoting pedophilia were described as "prudish" -- as opposed to freedom of expression. "There is no such thing as censorship in the Tageszeitung," was the response.

Carte Blanche

One of the few leaders of the left who staunchly opposed the pedophile movement early on was social scientist Günter Amendt. "There is no equitable sexuality between children and adults," Amendt said, expressing his outrage over the movement. Alice Schwarzer, the founder of the political women's magazine Emma, also spoke out against the downplaying of sex with children and defined it as what it really was: outright abuse.

Amendt recalls how he was disparaged as a reactionary in flyers and articles. "There was an outright campaign against Alice and me at the time," he says. It wasn't until the mid-1990s that this horrific episode came to an end. In 1994, the Pedos appeared in Tageszeitung for the last time, and even that publication recognized that intercourse with little boys was no different than with little girls, who, thanks to the women's movement, have long been deemed worthy of protection.

The revolutionaries of the late 1960s are still a long way from confronting this part of their history. When questions about the activities of members of the movement of 1968 were raised in connection with the abuse cases at the Odenwald School, the apologists for the movement were quick to give themselves a carte blanche.

"Such accusations are also part of an attempt to denounce social progress," sexologist and 1968 veteran Gunter Schmidt wrote in the Frankfurter Rundschau. "On the whole, the social changes that are associated with the number 1968 were more likely to have led to the prevention of abuse."

This is a very mild way of recalling the past. It is certainly not shared by everyone who was part of the leftist educational experiments of the day.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679-3.html


Quote:
Nowadays, the stimulation of a child's sex organs by an adult is clearly seen as criminal sexual assault. But for the revolutionaries of 1968, it was an educational tool that helped "create a new person," according to the "Handbook of Positive Child Indoctrination," published in 1971. "Children can learn to appreciate eroticism and sexual intercourse long before they are capable of understanding how a child is conceived. It is valuable for children to cuddle with adults. It is no less valuable for sexual intercourse to occur during cuddling."

Quote:
It is tempting to dismiss the "love play" in the commune as an exception, as a radical excess of a revolutionary project, if so many leftist parents hadn't modeled their own lives on the educational experiments on Giesebrechtstrasse. For these contemporaries, Commune 2 was a pilot project in anti-authoritarian education that was quickly followed by private kindergartens in which parents applied the new ideas to raising their children, first in Frankfurt, Berlin, Hamburg and Stuttgart, and eventually in smaller cities like Giessen and Nuremberg.

Strange how it used to be the way to go, but for some reason someone somewhere decided its not the way to go and stopped this practice. I see from the beginning of this thread, it was to possibly be brought back as shown from government publications disseminated with the parents approval and all others (93%).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679-3.html

Friday 25 March 2016

Sociopathocracy - we are being ruled by the soulless

Sociopathocracy - part1

It is said that 1% of any given population at any given time is psychopathic and that the same applies to sociopaths who are 4% of the population. So together they will comprise 5% of any given population at any given time.

Now lets look at other percentages; 5% of a population will be natural born atheists. They have not converted to atheism but rather are people who no relationship with God because they have never comprehended the concept of God in any external form and thus cannot relate to him. Next we have the issue of pedophilia; it is said that 5% of the population are either pedophiles, have an inclination to be pedophiles or else have no moral objections to it.

All of these categories of 'people' are abhorrent but what if I were to say that these
creatures are one and the same?

Lets look at similarities, sociopaths and psychopaths are drawn to positions of power so they can exert control over humans. But the same also applies to pedophiles who use positions of power to dominate children and coerce them into sexual activities. Atheists seek to gain positions within state services to enforce their beliefs through legal rulings and we see variations of this within the education system. They use 'social media' as well as left wing political movements to bring a 'community feel' to their antitheist jihad.

Although the categories of sociopath/psychopath, pedophile and atheist may not seem to be absolutely related to each other by their methods, they certainly are by their ends. The jihadis of these 'movements' share in common the following;

* An extreme form of narcissism

* A solipsist type mindset or else a belief that everyone else is just like them.
If they are solipsist then nothing else (or anyone elses life) is of any consequence, it is all imagination for they are the only real thing in their 'dream'.
And if they believe that everyone else is just like them then everything is justified in order to be a first among equals. Or if you want to put it this way.....
"Nothing is true, all is permitted" - Hasan of Alamut

* An absolute hatred of or absolute disbelief in God (which is the God of Abraham - praise be upon him) These narcissists cannot comprehend (or wish to acknowledge) a higher being/power than themselves. When Nietzche said "God is dead" he wasnt refering to God as an entity but rather the moral beliefs/rules that came from Holy books. As atheism progresses we see all manner of perversion and crime becoming acceptable and mainstream.

I also strongly suspect that these creatures are very strongly inclined to homosexuality (as well as pedophilia). Although queers claim to make up 10% of a population I do not believe this to be accurate as a natural form of sexual preference or practice. As psychopath/sociopaths make up 5% of a population then I think it is fair to say the same percentage applies to homosexuals. Do homosexuals make up 10% of a population? Yes I think this can be a fair assessment because homosexuals (and indeed pedophiles and other sexual perverts) seek to convert people into their lifestyle. More accurately they seek to make certain people sexually available to them, the more people they get to 'turn' then the more options they have available. The desire to be dominating over a particular person may not necessarily be sexual in itself but rather a percieved material/power gain from engaging in sexual activity with that particular person.

Clips of mine concerning the sociopathocracy that is ruling this earth in this world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qTSKos7VuU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XOQnd85NUQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAH3ZXIpfcI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkWA6b4qjM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRfe9YreBQ