Thursday, 24 March 2011


Just like most countries in the West, the United Kingdom has now become a “moral welfare state” (MWS). Just like the socio-economic version, this involves helping those deficient in some way by imposing a kind of levy on the general population. Indeed, revealing the Left’s far greater success in the cultural realm than the economic, it could even be said that the MWS has made considerable progress and that now moral communism exists in the UK, where people live according to the dictum:
From each according to his morality, to each according to his depravity.
Although the system is undeclared and camouflaged—it has obvious PR shortcomings—its workings were amply demonstrated by two recent news stories from the UK, namely,
“World’s largest paedophile ring” uncovered
BBC, 16 March, 2011
Six footballers jailed over gang rape of 12-year-old girls in midnight park orgy
Daily Mail, 18 March, 2011
In the MWS, rather than money, it is morality that is taxed, with the decent members of society losing much of the status and respect that their superior morality deserves, while this is redistributed to the morally deficient who are protected and morally compensated for their failure. The key point of moral welfarism is that the morally deplorable, both as groups and individuals, are not made to feel unduly inferior. This means that certain behaviours, subcultures, and tendencies that invariably produce ‘evil’—as it is traditionally understood—are spared any kind of moral condemnation.

So, how does this system actually work? Firstly, just like the economic version of the welfare state, it has its operatives. These are social workers, members of the judicial system, lawyers, politically trained police officers, liberal Christian clergy, politicians, and most importantly the media. Whenever there is a noticeable example of immorality and depravity, as in the two news new stories mentioned, the operatives of the MWS spring into action, redistributing the moral shortcomings of the guilty to the innocent.

This is done through a wide number of methods, for example attributing crime to “social injustice,” “racism,” etc. However, I wish to focus on the use of semantic subterfuge in the media, something that is strongly apparent in the two cases at hand. In both of these the morally deficient are quite specific groups, but the terms in which the cases were reported give the impression that the perpetrators are just bad individual examples of the rest of us—flawed Everymen—and the very real differences between these groups and the law-abiding mass are given zero moral weight.

The first news story, “World’s largest paedophile ring uncovered,” refers to a male homosexual paedophile forum, called, appropriately enough “Boylove.” According to Rob Wainwright, director of the European police agency Europol, the members of the network accessed films and images of abused children through a privacy protected channel. In the article in which I encountered this story, however, the words “homosexual” and “gay” do not even occur! Instead the term “paedophile” is employed throughout.

The article is not just being vague. In fact, it is tediously specific, even to the point of mentioning that one of the 240 suspects is a woman! Such an obvious omission of the gay element and the inclusion of a relatively insignificant and misleading detail strongly suggest that a decision has been made to avoid placing such an onerous but deserved moral burden on the shoulders of the gay “community.” Instead, it must be spread equally in the public mind not only to heterosexual males but even to females!

This glaring example of moral welfarism is absurd in the light of the facts concerning paedophilia. While no more than 2% of male adults are estimated to be homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual, and furthermore male-on-male paedophiles are believed to victimize far more children than heterosexual ones, so it is estimated that approximately 80% of all paedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males.*

It is now part of mainstream Western culture and morality that homosexuality is perfectly normal, healthy, and indeed ‘cool.’ It is regarded as equivalent to heterosexuality in almost every way. In certain respects it is: For example, just as the heterosexual male seeks a sexual partner who is smaller, softer, and less hairy than himself, the same thing can be detected in homosexuality. However, deprived of the feminine by his aberrant sexuality, the homosexual male may well find these characteristics in much younger males.

Whatever one’s views of homosexuality, its relative tendency towards paedophilia is clearly something that should be faced. But, instead of being treated with moral circumspection and opprobrium, its sociopathic elements are hidden beneath the West’s blanket acceptance and celebration of homosexuality, and submerged within the notion that all immorality is purely an individual choice and does not reflect in any way upon lifestyles and subcultures, which traditional morality is forbidden to condemn.

The BBC article is a perfect example of the MWS’s moral equivalence in action. The 240 suspects in the “Boylove” case are not presented as part of a particularly pernicious subculture and perverted value system that involves tens of thousands, but merely as 240 individuals who share the capacity for paedophilic evil with everybody else equally, whether straight, female, or gay.

The second news story—“Six footballers jailed over gang rape of 12-year-old girls in midnight park orgy”—follows a similar trajectory. Once again the precise moral aspects are obscured and the wrongdoing is expanded into a generalized, morally nebulous, individual capacity for evil that is non-group-specific.

Although the headline screams about the gangrape of two 12-year-olds, conjuring up images of innocence violently outraged, the actual details tell quite a different story. The sex seems to have been consensual, involving two girls and six young men between the ages of 18 and 21, all of whom appear to have been football players for minor clubs. This fact is strongly emphasized, possibly to suggest the physical fitness and therefore sexual attractiveness of the assailants.

After reading the details of the case, it becomes clear that the word “rape” is being used here to cover up what is actually a case of “paedophilic” or underage sex. The reason for this semantic choice is because, in this case, the idea of “paedophilic” or consensual underage sex threatens to throw the moral load firmly onto the shoulders of the guilty group, their milieu, subculture, and even race. Using the term “paedophilic sex” here would raise issues of age, sexual maturity, and the feral behaviour of young girls, something that not only flies in the face of mainstream English family values but also raises troubling questions of race and cultural incompatibility. For the MWS this amounts to a highly toxic situation that must be contained at all costs.

Following the publication of their pictures, the race of the “perpetrators” is now clear. Of the six men, four are Black, one is of mixed race, and one appears to of Italian origin. What is not known is the race of the so-called “victims,” but, reading between the lines, a picture starts to emerge. The following details from the story are highly significant:
"The court heard how after driving to the park with the men, the girls separated and while one appeared to be reluctant to engage in any sexual activity, the other went to the far end of the area and called the defendants over one-by-one to have full sex or perform sex acts on them."
One of the defences for the accused was that they genuinely thought the girls were 16 years old. The fact that the sentences given for “child rape” were extremely lenient shows that the court believed this. The facts of the case clearly reveal that both girls were in fact much more sexually mature than average 12-years-olds, by which is obviously meant White 12-year-olds. As Blacks are known to reach sexual maturity about two years earlier than Whites, it seems reasonable to assume that what we are dealing with here is a case of mainly Black-on-Black adolescent sex that the West is forced to criminalize in order to preserve the myth of "equalitry."

Guilty of being African, convicted for
being a racially non-specific "rapist."
Rather than “child rape” or “paedophilia” what we have here is something much more shocking and unpalatable for Western society—the fact of the racial and cultural incompatibility of Blacks and Whites.

Faster rates of maturation, the loose family structure, the feral behaviour of young females and packs of young males—all characteristics that have their roots and possibly even a legitimate place within an African context, simply do not dovetail with the slower maturation rates, stronger family bonds, and more sexually inhibited behaviour of northern Europeans.

For the very reason that these behaviours are African and alien, conventional northern European morality would judge them extremely harshly, but the MWS simply cannot allow such ‘moral inequality’ to arise. The moral burden must instantly be shared as widely as possibly.

The Blackness of the assailants is allowed to leak out, activating the public’s conditioned notions that racism and social injustice must somehow lie at the heart of this, while at the same time the morally inconvenient Black characteristics of early sexual maturity and feral sexual activity are hidden away beneath the European concept of paedophilia, which is itself further buried under the idea of “rape.” Instead of being an age-sensitive or Black thing, this turns it into a general male thing with "individualized" cases of wrong-doing. In this way a degree of moral equivalence is established.

In this way the MWS goes about its work, and these days it has an ever-increasing workload thanks to multiculturalism, homosexualization, and the liquidation of traditional morality.


*See Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.)

No comments:

Post a Comment