Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
October 24, 2015
A couple weeks ago, Salon published an article promoting the idea that most pedophiles are actually good folks. The basis of the concept is that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” that people cannot help and so they should be embraced by society as long as they don’t rape kids.
The author is allegedly a pedophile who says he is only attracted to children, but doesn’t do sex acts with them because he’s a good guy. However, he threatens to start molesting/raping children if society doesn’t begin accepting him and his kiddie-loving comrades.
As part of his closing, he writes:
So, please, be understanding and supportive. It’s really all we ask of you. Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster. If we are going to make it in the world without offending, we need your help. Listening to me was a start.
If you don’t “help them,” they will “offend” – that is, they will molest/rape kids if you don’t do what they want you to do, which is allow them social acceptance. Benign as the wording is intended to be, that is a threat, placing responsibility for the actions of child-rapists on a society which refuses to accept pedophilia as a “sexual orientation.”
Now, The Independent has published basically the same article.
From it (after opening with a mention of Jimmy Savile):
There is a danger of becoming hysterical about paedophilia and seeing it everywhere, like witches at Salem, or “Commies” in Hollywood during McCarthyism. Paedophiles do exist, but there are very few of them and not all are child molesters. It is possible to be attracted to children as a sexual orientation without acting upon those desires.
In my studies of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1980s, many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to contain or turn to social good. Some gravitated toward occupations such as schoolteacher or social worker, where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse. This fitted with personality profiles indicating that they were gentle, rational and not disposed to harm anybody.
So the good pedophiles get jobs around kids so they can “enjoy their company” without molesting them?
Is this satire?
If not all paedophiles molest children, much child abuse (perhaps 80 per cent) is perpetrated by non-paedophiles, often family or friends. The UK legal age of consent of 16 is arbitrary. Many men admit attraction to underage girls, even if they would not consider taking advantage.
Yeah, and in the UK they constantly confuse this whole issue by playing a word game.
Pedophilia does not relate in any way to the age-of-consent, but to the sexual development of a person. Generally, a pedophile is defined as someone attracted to children under 11.
According to Wikiepdia: “Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.”
But the UK Jew media will call a 19-year-old who has sex with a 15-year-old a pedophile, in order to confuse the entire concept (even while a lot of countries still have an age of consent that is under 16).
Note that a big part of this came about during the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, when the homosexuals didn’t want the priests to simply be called homosexuals, and instead argued that they were “pedophiles.” Reality is that these were just normal homosexuals – all of these boys were pubescent, not little kids.
Actual kiddie-fiddlers love this confusion. The Independent article closes with further attempts to exploit this confusion.
Others might be more lax (John Peel famously said that he “never checked the IDs” of the backstage fans who queued up to meet him after radio shows). But such men would not be called paedophiles unless they were exclusively attracted to children. Nor would we regard a female schoolteacher who has an affair with one of her teenage pupils a paedophile, however immoral her behaviour – “sexual abuse” is often referred to, whereas the term “paedophile” is rarely employed.
Perhaps we should stop looking for “peds under the bed” as scapegoats and focus on clarifying the criteria regarding unacceptable exploitation of those in vulnerable positions – whether due to age or any other circumstance.
Because a female teacher who has sex with a student isn’t a “pedophile.” The word shouldn’t be employed in that case at all. Nor should it be employed in the case of not checking an ID when maybe the girl is 15 but looks like she is at least 16. It should be employed only as a scientific term to describe people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children.
Girls used to get married when they were 13 or 14. Pushing this definition, everyone in history was a pedophile by default. No sense there.
Look for this angle of “well, some people maybe like 15-year-old girls, that is the same as raping kids really” angle to keep being pressed as the Jewing intensifies.
“Pedophilia as sexual orientation” is the next crusade. Guaranteed. Gay marriage is global and Bruce Jenner has normalized trannies, and these people don’t ever just say “ah well, we’ve gone far enough now, might as well stop.” There is always a next step and a next one. They will also pushing having sex with dogs and horses as normal. That isn’t a prediction so much as it is just a fact.
As soon as they said it was alright for women to have sex with Blacks, it was all downhill.
