Friday, December 15, 2006

Pedophilia And Power

In speaking of coercive power, I refer to the ability to force others, with actual or threatened violence, to do your bidding. Excepted are those instances where we use force to prevent an accident or crime – such as restraining a child from running across a busy street, or using a gun to stop a rapist. By coercive power I mean that which is used to dominate and control others for the purposes of exploitation, to impose some ideology or religion, or simply for its own sake.

People who indulge in coercive power, by the very exercise of that power, are treating other people as objects, as things to be manipulated. Other people's essential humanity is disregarded. With coercive power the world is split into two groups, a small minority that rules, and sees itself as superior, and a vast majority that is ruled and is seen by the rulers as inferior. In this manner the stripping away of the majority's human essence is rationalized and an authoritarian hierarchy created. The majority is less human, and thereby the minority can commit atrocities with impunity. Hence, the minority can exterminate entire populations such as Aboriginal peoples, enslave millions of Africans, shove children into factories where they die at an early age, or ship out millions of men to be slaughtered while protecting the rulers stolen empire.

Such manipulativeness and lack of empathy are essential aspects of the sociopathic personality. Now, I am not claiming that all ruling minorities are sociopaths, but in the exercise of their coercive power over others, they are forced to act as though they were. Callousness and arrogance are the natural products of power over others.

The authoritarian hierarchy is not limited to the rulers and the ruled, but is replicated within the elite as well. Not only are the members of the elite alienated from the mass, but they are alienated from each other. A hierarchy of age and gender exists and this is maintained and reproduced by coercion. Elite children often suffer from neglect and other forms of abuse. (1)

We can see how the situation has been set up for pedophilia. Other people are objects to be used, and it really doesn't matter what is done to them, since they aren't really human anyway. The neglect experienced by the elite during childhood only exacerbates this callousness. And as we know the abused in turn often become the abusers.

The person who knew the most about the psychopathology of ruling elites was Sade. He revealed that the powerful derive a distinct pleasure in tormenting the powerless. Sade also claimed that in the same way an addict built up a tolerance for opium, so too the powerful built up a tolerance toward the crimes they committed. In his novels, such as Justine or Juliette, a bishop or banker might start out seducing young women, then tiring of that, proceed to rape, then on to torture and murder. The greatest pleasure of all for the dissolute elite was the rape and/or murder of children!

Thus, the Washington DC pedophile ring, the large numbers of right-wing child molesters, and the cover up of pedophilia among the BC elites comes as little surprise to me. Indeed, given the nature of coercive power, what else could you expect?

But such crimes are not limited to the elite. In an authoritarian society abusive child rearing practices become the norm no matter the class or ethnic group. Working class children grow up to become abusers as well, and some of this abuse will take the form of pedophilia.

Society as a whole is structured along authoritarian lines with a minority in control and a majority that is controlled, whether this is a workplace, a public school, a jail, or borstal or Indian residential school. “Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” Hence, where the power of the authorities is absolute as in a jail, borstal or residential school, a Sadean aspect tends to take over. Where a mix of religious fanaticism, racism and government sponsored genocidal policies are at work as well, as with the Indian residential schools, one should not be surprised that the result was a veritable orgy of child rape, torture and murder. For further information:

Indian Residential Schools Pedophilia and Genocide

BC Elite Pedo Ring Cover Up

Pedo Rings in Borstals and Orphanages

Republican Party Pedophiles

Washington DC Elite Pedo Ring

1. Throughout the 19th and much of the 20ieth Centuries, abuse and bullying were the normal and accepted means of raising and educating children in the Anglosphere and Germany, most particularly among the middle and upper classes.


Anonymous Anonymous said...


I come across your blog from a comment you left at a blog called 'void' ( 12/11/06 and decided to have a look at your posts.

I have found that they are well thought out and articulately argued. Whilst I agree with much of your analysis in general I disagree with some your conclusions. I made a couple of posts on the 'void' making a reasoned argument against some of the contentions contained there that are not to dissimilar to yours, and was asked to provide evidence for my 'dissent.'

When I did I was meet with a torrent of abuse and then censorship. The 'void' deleted the arguments that he/she could not refute and imposed 'comment moderation' upon the blog in true fascist style, clearly afraid (or incapable) to argue his/her beliefs and counter reasoned debate with reasoned debate

I have included a verbatim record of the (deleted) comments and arguments from the 'void' below as large tracts pertain to some of your views on the world. First, though I contend some of the arguments you make in this article.


I read this article with interest. The shocking scope of the cover-up of pedophilia in not just the US establishment, but the British too is beyond doubt. But I contend that you would be wrong to suggest those involved are really right-wing.

The perpetrators of pedophilia are overwhelmingly men, with the victims being overwhelmingly boys making the perpetrators homosexual. Traditionally homosexuals lean heavily to the left of politics because the right generally has a high disdain for them, and you will note that the persons named in the US for this type of behaviour have a common political goal, that is the breakdown of the US / Mexico border and the establishment of a 'North American Union,' essentially an open door for all to enter.

You appear to be suggesting that pedophilia is confined to the "Anglosphere", or that it at least has a higher rate of occurrence then anywhere else but the reality is that pedophilia is an endemic and even traditional way of life to a lot of the tribes of Africa (and elsewhere globally) Read Boy wives and Female husbands by Stephen D Murray and Will Roscoe for an insight into this area and to glean more sources for further research.

However, statistics in African countries are not as readily available as they are in the 'west' because the practice of recording statistics is not really an African trait. In South Africa, however, because of the white element such information is available is and it is truly shocking. There are an estimated 38,000 child prostitutes in SA. South Africa suffers an estimated 58 rapes of under 18 year olds daily and in 2002 40% of the 52,000 reported rapes were committed against children (incidentally, in 1994 before the complete African ascent to power in SA, there were only 7,559 rape reports, it has almost doubled every year of black power) Studies have shown that 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys have been sexually molested. (1) Rape in SA is known as 'jackrolling' and is viewed by many (south) Africans as a recreational activity. (2)

As if this was not bad enough, the raping of babies has become endemic there too. reports, such as the one where a nine month old baby was gang raped by six men are becoming commonplace. The reason often given for this is that the witch doctors tell men sex with babies will cure them of HIV / AIDS. (3,4 & 5)

As for slavery, this was by no means a scourge that effected only Africans, as is so popularly believed these days (and cited in your article). The word kidnap is derived from kidnab used to describe the widespread practice of forcibly taking white English children and transporting them to the US for slavery. This was even legal provided that the child was not used in the British isles.(6) And over a million whites were taken and used as slaves by Muslims (many black) between 1530 and 1780. (7)

As it stands though, South Africa, not a 'western' nation, has the worst record for sexual violence in the world and the worst record of pedophiliaa and this record only came about after the assumption of African rule there...





was gonna delete this but decided against it as it shows the bnp for what they truly are
by the way, the third world slum hole i came from was bradford"

The Void

"did you ever find out about the bnp councillors locked out of dagenham whilst we're talking?

let us know, sounds interesting

this is your isp yes? 195.93.21

aol tho', how embarrassing, still you had a good look round, perhaps you might learn something"

The Void

ANON says....

The fact that you were going to delete that post is unsurprising, as I said you are a fascist; if something does not fit into your narrow little view then it has to be destroyed. I note that you did not bother to attempt to answer the questions, i. e why you believe that you are entitled to impose your views on other, by violence if you feel like it and who you think you are to decide which parties can be voted for and which parties are to be allowed (in my country.)

I notice that your first response to this comment has been deleted, presumably because it was some kind of violent threat and as for giving the IP address of the ISP in attempt to intimidate me, it is utterly irrelevant. All ISP's use NAT servers to filter communication.

You say you are from Bradford and seem to find the notion that that city is comparable with the Third World amusing whereas Bradford is amongst the one of the worst underachieving and inharmonious cities in England given to race riots and immigrant murdering of police officers. These things did not happen before the mass, unwelcome and unwarranted influx of alien cultures into that city took place. No-one in the UK has ever voted, or given mandate to such a policy. (In fact Hackney was named as the worst place to live in the UK recently. The mayor, somewhat amusingly, pointed out that it is the most diverse place in the UK in its defence, failing to see the blinding obvious that that is exactly why it is the worst place to live in the UK.)

Ironically, the immigrants in Bradford are not happy (nor are the whites) and want to be left among themselves (so do the whites). Herein lies the problem: 'birds of feather flock together', as evidenced by the result of a recent scientific study commissioned by the CRE, of all organisations.

If Britain is such a squalid, corrupt hate filled place that you contend, why did your parents come here in the first place? Why does any immigrant come here, and stay? After all, you do not see Europeans smuggling themselves in the backs of lorries to get into Africa or Asia, what is about Europe that the Third Worlders find so attractive, and so unable to produce themselves?

Incidentally I am not associated with the BNP or any party, I am just an ordinary, working class indigenous citizen who is sick of the level of crime in my country (the extreme level that did not exist before mass immigration), the amount of foreign voices shouting for change above the voices of its indigenous citizens, without whom this country would not exist or posses such to wealth to fund them, and I am sick of paying extortionate tax rates to provide for people that I owe absolutely no obligation to and I am disgusted that I will not receive a pension because the money has been stolen to pay for this people.

Instead of throwing around insults or destroying peoples opinions, perhaps you could answer some of these question without the usual hysteria or marxist soundbites.
4:42 PM


the void said...

your country is it?

says fucking who

this is my country too mate and my fucking blog which means if you're not capable of posting in the right topic and you just want to spam it with a load of hate filled crap you'll be deleted next time

if you'd like to post any evidence of your crap about immigration fuelling crime and all the other garbage you're trying to spew then go ahead

strikes me you're a bitter little loser wholl blame immigrants and anyone else who feels an easy target to make up for the fact that you appear to lead such an unhappy, angry life

normally id feel some pity and point out that its actually the capitalist system you live under which is probably at the root of your concerns

but hey, i dont think youre worth it, you go on blaming anyone whose different to you for your failure to find fulfillment in life

ain't like i care, lets face it the world you pine for died long ago, if it ever even existed

you keep on being angry and unhappy, shout at some people in the street, rant at people in the pub, show the world exactly what you're made of

and then fall back into your little england masturbatory fantasies where you're okay, you're valid, you dont really feel the self hatred that is so evident in your posts

hell, yo'ure ok, cos you're white and youre english and thats all you need

cos lets face it that all you've got

1:07 AM

Anonymous said...

After yet another eloquent response from you, I thought I may as well provide a little of the evidence you were asking for; either you genuinely do not know or, for obvious reasons you choose to ignore it.

Two things about your statement "this fucking blog" 1) isn't all property theft? 2) You are in the public domain, friend. In the real world, believe it or not, not everyone agrees with you, and that is just part of life and part of being British is accepting that and dealing with it.

If you really had anything interesting and reasoned to say about anything (and why have a blog if you don't) you would be capable of refuting an argument with an argument instead venting a litany of abuse and expletives, with no real core. The bit about spam is somewhat amusing; here you are this self-styled anachist/marxist/anythingwithanistoranisminit spouting on about the definition and enforcement of petty rules in order to silence an opinion you do not like! Again, that is Fascism.


Anyhow, onto what you asked for: evidence. Although, after the unprecedented spectacle of four Asian men, hailing from close to your home town, who like you were purportedly British (they were born here and had a piece of paper that said so) blowing themselves up on public transport during rush hour purely out of hate for the British might already have provided an argument that immigration has not only brought serious crime but new levels of it. Suicide bombers in London? Just one of the many benefits of a rich and diverse country.

But lets focus mainly on African crime and African failure for now (being that even Caribbean's are of African descendants.) In the UK there are five times more African youngsters in prison then white youngsters (1). Given that a trial is generally held near location of the defendant it would be safe to assume that any jury in say, London or Birmingham is very likely to have at least half of its number comprising of ethnic 'minorities' and so the argument that this is down to racism is baseless. When you hear Lee Jasper admitting that blacks have a huge problem with gun and drug crime you know that it is really a massive problem.

By stating that this crime is the "biggest threat to the black community since its arrival here" (2) Jasper is telling us that this crime has come here with the black community, that it did not exist before its arrival here. Something the indigenous population could have told you, were it not so 'racist' to do so.

It is an irrefutable fact that globally, a concentration of Africans equals a high crime rate,; the higher the concentration the higher the crime rate. In the US for instance the city to top the 'least safe city 100' is Markham, Illinois, 78.9 % black. The safest city from the same statistics is Norwood, Pennsylvania, 97% white. The second least safest is East St, Louis, Illinois, 97.7% black. The second city ranked safest is Southport, New York, 89.4% white. The third least safest city is Washington Park, Illinois, and guess what? Its 91.9% black; the third safest Pell City, Alabama is, surprise surprise 82.5% white. Can you see a pattern emerging here? (3 & 4)

It is not just the fact that crime is disproportionately high wherever African peoples reside, but the types of crime they commit. Violence is bad enough but rape seems like an African hobby. In South Africa for instance, women are three times more likely to raped then in the US (which is alarming given the size of the US problem and the lack of black respect for woman there with the talk of 'ho's being prevalent) with a woman being raped every 26 seconds (presumably not the same one) and African men calling it 'jackrolling' and considering rape as a recreational activity. The problem is so endemic that even the SA president had to appeal for it to end. (5)

But it reaches real lows when we find that (south) Africans are gang raping babies. One poor 9 month old baby had six men savagely violate it; there are countless case of this disgusting, inhuman crime. Why? One excuse is that the witch doctors tell men it will cure AIDS to have sex with a baby. Great, lets bring more of these people into the UK as fast as we can. (6)

Which brings us onto disease and immigrants. Two thirds of all new HIV cases in the UK are from immigrants, with 70% of all TB cases also. TB was eradicated in this country when I was a kid but thanks to our rich and diverse country, it now has rich and diverse diseases. (7) Its the same in Malta (8) and the US (9) to name just two others.

The economic argument for immigration is baseless and utter rubbish as well, when you consider that four in every five immigrants takes more then they put in. (10)

And lets have a quick look at that old chestnut, the reason for black and African failings is the 'environment' with the image of Africa as one huge desert popularised. Anyone who has been there will know that this is completely erroneous.

Lets have a look at the UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX 2006. This annual report independently evaluates criteria such literacy, child welfare, longevity and standards of living and uses a complex mathematical formula to calculate a list, a hierarchy if you will ,of the most/least devolped nations. Guess what, every European country is in the 'High' tier whilst every African country is the 'Low' tier with most of the various Asian and Arab countries sitting in the middle. In fact Norway and Iceland are the two top nations whilst Niger and Sierra Leone are the two bottom nations. (10)

So we have two homogenous, north European countries at the top and two homogenous African countries at the bottom. Is it really the environment at root to blame? Of course not; lets compare, for the sake of fairness not the top country with the bottom country but, say, Iceland (2nd from top) with Sierra leone (2nd from last.)

Icelandic's enjoy a life expectancy 82.48 years for females and 78.23 years for men. They suffer only 3.29 deaths over 1000 live births and have an AIDS rate of 0.2%. Iceland enjoys a literacy rate of 99% has a GDP per capita of US$35,700. (11)

In stark contrast, Sierra Leone's citizens have a disastrous 42.46 years of life to look forward to for the females whilst males have 38.05 years. They suffer a horrific 160.39 deaths per 1000 live births and have an AIDS rate of 7%. Sierra Leone has a literacy rate 29.6% and has a paltry GDP of US$800 per capita.(12)

According to the old apologists the only difference must be the environmental factors that explain the disparity in development. However when we compare the two again we find that whilst Iceland has only 0.07% arable land, Sierra Leone has 7.95%. Whilst Sierra Leone only has some sandstorms and 'dryness' to contend with Iceland has regular earthquakes and volcanos.

And it is not the natural resources that determine a countries development either; whilst Sierra Leone enjoys an abundance of diamonds, gold, titanium and iron ore Iceland has only fish.

No, Sierra Leone should be riding high with the great natural setup it has and Iceland should have died at its inception, or at least ranked near last in the UN HDI with the environmental hand it has been dealt.

The real problems that Sierra Leone faces in regard to agriculture and sustaining itself in food are all man-made: Slash-and-burn agriculture resulting in deforestation and soil exhaustion (this is true all over Africa and the real reason for land that was once arable being irreparably damaged) along with the gross over-fishing of stocks. Conversely Iceland has mastered and worked with its environment using its natural geothermal activity as a source of power and utilising hydro power in addition; both technologically advanced and environmentally friendly. It fishes to maintain healthy stocks. In the barren interior, the Icelandic's grow tropical fruits and plants for export using that very geothermal energy, whilst Sierra leone cannot even fed itself with the resources it already has.

So if it is not environment that determines both of these racially homogeneous nations in the standard of development what is it?


The same rapid decline, when Africans go it alone can be seen in SA where the exuberant crime rate has rendered it un-investable and in Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of Africa now being unable to feed even its own people.

When refering to crime, of course I am not suggesting that all Africans are criminals and all criminals are Africans. I know from personal experience (and common sense) that this is not the case just as I know that there more then a fair share of whites (and other groups) who now indulge in hedonistic, criminal behaviour (and as a strange racial quirk, almost all serial killers are white men.) This irresponsible criminal behaviour is with us now more then ever since the police imploded after the agenda ridden Macpherson report. But the evidence is overwhelming that African concentrations, more then any other racial grouping are prone to criminal behaviour and will always be noticeable in countries where they reside by being at the top of the crime and prison 'league' and bottom of the education and success 'league'.


Whilst I ignore your personal attacks and nonsensical insults directed at me as puerile, because after all you have no idea whom I am but I have a good measure of who you are, I will point out that, perhaps unfortunately for your narrow view of dissenters, I am not a failure in life but moderately successful. I am also extremely well travelled and have lived and worked in many countries around the world. This has given me an insight into the problems they face and why: The worlds non-manufactured problems are not about money and never have been; they are about harmony, land, resources and moreover the intrinsic human need to belong. When two groups brush up against one another, they compete and they vie for dominance. Its just human nature; when you add hundreds of groups into the mix, as we have in the UK the situation is untenable. (If you want historical evidence I will be happy to provide it for you.)

It has nothing to do with 'racism' or any other 'ism' to seek the truth. Facts know no master. And it has nothing to do with hatred to want the best for your country and therefore your children's future within it. Nuture is nature.

You ask 'who says' this is my country and the answer is both history and common-sense. My family lineage stretches far back on this isle and my ancestors have helped paid for the wealth, contributed to the defence and participated in the evolution of this country. Just in living memory, both my grandparents fought the Nazis (the real ones, not the mythical bogeymen people like you like to throw around as labels) and worked for the vast majority of their lives paying taxes, giving money to the treasury and sustaining a pension fund that has now been raped to provide for people who have paid little or nothing into it. My father has done the same inasmuch as taxes and service, and so have I. Given that the mass immigration started here in 1947 (two years after the Nazis were defeated at great personal British risk, in part by the blood of Britons) and also given that most immigrants here now are foreign born and as such recent arrivals I think it would be obvious to say that the dues have not been paid yet. By a long chalk.

A piece of paper saying someone is British does not make them British; as a wise man once said "You can have jam written on a jar, it does not mean there is jam inside."

You play a very dangerous game disparaging this country and questioning whether it does, or has ever really existed and mocking the English as 'little Englanders'. You may believe that you are being controversial, radical or irreverent but I can tell you with no uncertainty that this country, whilst it has taken a battering from the current 'powers-that-be' is very much alive and kicking and that the contemptuous tone many immigrants and sons of immigrants use to describe our homeland is anathema to us.

Your comments are full of hate, anger and bitterness with a measure of spitefulness chucked in for good measure, but, as with all true 'ists' and 'isms' you bizarrely accuse me of hate, in a looking glass mirror fashion. But you cling to your labels mate, because, lets face it, that's all you've got.

And as for me being a victim of capitalism, what do you think immigration is all about? Love? The transposition of tribes for fun? No, Its about exploiting the newly arrived immigrants for cheap labour and then bringing in more when the last lot get rights, and that is primarily all it is about no matter how it is dressed up. You, as a child of immigrants are the true victim of capitalisation; and I would be angry too if I were you, effectively a 'boy from nowhere.'


So you have had a little bit of evidence that you wanted (about 10 minutes of research) and I will be happy to provide more citing France, Sweden, Norway and Australia's wonderful experiences with immigration, amongst others, if you feel that this is not enough for you to go on.

It will be interesting to see if you can come up with a reasoned argument to explain, dispute or refute the evidence, but I suspect that you will rely on fascistic rule mongering and abuse, labels and expletives instead to try and shout down logic and reason.














6:30 PM

the void said...

ok anonymous (why don't any of your type ever have a name), you're a bit thick, i understand that's ok, were not prejudiged here at the void

your comments were spam because you posted the same comment on two different pieces, one of which was in no way on topic. presumably you posted on the year in the void piece to increase the readership of your political views rather than only posting them on the post you were referring to (which you did as well)

you then posted yet another anti-immigration rant on a post about riots in turkey, again, nowehere near on topic

thats spam

your silly arguments and in some cases questionable statistics prove only one thing (apart from your deep and inherent racism), that the poorer people are, the more disenfranchised they are, the more likely they are to suffer from disease and commit crime than more prosperous groups

well done, have the nobel prize for sociology

to compare sierra leone and iceland is ludicrous, iceland has not suffered mass famine, had its agricultural systems and political systems destroyed by 400 years of western dominance and both physical and economic slavery ... you might read 'late victorian holocausts' by mike davies to inform yourself of the devasting effects of colonial policy on both african and asian infrastructure

both continents are still recovering from these crimes against humanity

and who do you think owns the diamond mines in sierra leone, or the oil refineoies in nigeria, gold mines in south africa for that matter

when you talk about different groups vying for dominance you further reveal your ignorance

we are all mongrels, race is a cultural concept, based on little more than levels of melatonin in the skin, you might as well use hair colour or height as a dividing factor in society

there are without doubt different cultural groups, however 5,000 years of of human history disproves the notion that different cultures are unable to live together in some sort of harmony and successfully

in fact my own experience of growing up in bradford and living in tottenham, hackney and brixton for the last 15 years also reveals the hollowness of this arguments

you quoted hackney as being the worst place to live, if the level of your analysis is based on some two bit survey for a low brow tv show then i can understand why you think the way you do

by the way, my grandparents also fought hitler, im as white and english as you, not that it matters.

you made the assumption i was an immigrant, i dont know why, ive never claimed to be ... this again displays your level of research and analysis, you should think a little harder before jumping to kneejerk assumptions

so i ask again ... your country is it?

says fucking who

i dont like deleting comments, but if you can't keep on comment in future then fuck off, i'm not interested in having someone posting a racist diatribe under every post no matter what the topic and if you keep it up ill just keep deleting you until you ger bored

stormfront's that way

8:11 PM

As I suspected, no reasoned argument just well worn excuses and personal insults. The reason I am 'anonymous' is because I have no need or desire to register; I doubt very much that 'void' is your real name as such is a pseudonym used by you to protect your anonymity, making you in effect anonymous also.

You say I am a "bit thick" and then go on to let me know that your not 'prejudiged' by which I presume you are attempting to express the English adjective 'prejudiced'? If you are not educated to a standard high enough to spell words longer then 'fuck' then for God's sake just use the spell check. It will not correct your appalling grammar but at least it will appear more coherent.


You state that race is merely a "cultural concept" which is completely at odds with the evidence (and the bleeding obvious). Just a few examples that race is clearly a genetic, not cultural entity include:

1) Sickle Cell Anaemia is almost exclusive a black disease (1) There is no recorded incidence of a north European ever contracting it, because, surprise surprise, they have major differences in genetic structure to blacks. (It is recognised by the Sickle Cell Society as a 'black" condition.(2')

2) Cystic Fibrosis is a genetic disease that almost exclusively effects whites and Ashkenazi Jews, with a few cases of mixed Jewish / Black or European / Black people effected.(3)

3) "Doctors have long known that blacks are substantially more likely then whites to develop lung cancer and die from it" even when the two racial groups smoke a similar amount per day. Unsurprisingly, doctors have found that the reason behind it is genetic.(4)

4) A heart drug called BiDil has been approved by the FDA and is now in usage. BiDil is used exclusively by black patients to treat and target genetic heart disease that effects blacks only. (5)

5) Eastern Asian and West African men have less facial hair then other racial groups. American Indians cannot grow beards or moustaches. (6)

Clearly, if disease or a particular characteristic trait is confined to one racial group then race is not cultural but genetic. I could give dozens more examples but these will suffice.

Also, if you were to take an African group, and move them to, say Oslo, and leave them there breeding amongst their own gene pool for ten thousand years, do you seriously assert that they would be become white, or blond or blue-eyed?

As for all of us being mongrels, that term is generally considered to be racist these days, and is any case not true. Although there has been an enormous admixture in the rest of the world and Europe, south of the Seine and east of the Baltic is particularly mixed, many north Europeans are still homogenous.

As for poverty excusing black crime, there is absolutely no reason for them to be poor in the UK or the US. They have the same level of access to education, social security and jobs as the rest of us. In fact they have better levels of access because both countries have made it legal to discriminate against whites in order to force black workers into good jobs (Affirmative action or Positive discrimination, depending on the side of the pond.) But discrimination is discrimination in my book.

Even if, for arguments sake we left aide that fact, poverty might produce theft, and some accompanying violence, since when has rape been associated with not having as much money as you might like. Since when has raping babies been liked to poverty? Do you really believe there can be ANY excuse for that type of behaviour?

You say it is ludicrous to compare Sierra Leone and Iceland because Iceland has not "suffered mass famine" but that is exactly the point: with only 0.07% arable land they should have but didn't compared to Sierra Leone's 7.95% arable land who shouldn't have but did. You claim that "colonial policy" devested Sierra Leone "political and agricultural systems" but the fact is that they did not have any such "systems" rather they lived in disparate tribes in a hunter-gather fashion. It is only because of colonisation that there is any agricultural system there at all, and that system has been shortcut and malpracticed and has been replaced with slash-and-burn agriculture resulting in deforestation and soil exhaustion, all resulting in famine. In short their own fault.

As for slavery, you might try reading White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam's One Million White Slaves by Giles Milton to inform yourself about unfashionable, but historically accurate truths of slavery and race.


But lets take your contention is that it was "colonial policy" that excuses Sierra Leone from its failure to take advantage of its environmental benefits in comparison to Iceland by comparing Ethiopia (ranked 170 in the UN HDI, 7th from last) which was never colonised by any European power, to Iceland.

Icelandic's enjoy a life expectancy 82.48 years for females and 78.23 years for men. They suffer only 3.29 deaths over 1000 live births and have an AIDS rate of 0.2%. Iceland enjoys a literacy rate of 99% has a GDP per capita of US$35,700. (7)

Ethiopian men can expect to live to just 47.86 years and women 50.24 years. They lose 93.62 per 1000 live births and have an AIDS rate of 4.4% (1.5 million people.) They have a literacy rate of 42.7% and a GDP of US$900 per capita.(8)

Iceland has only 0.07% arable land whilst Ethiopia has 10.01%. Ethiopia problems with feeding itself are all man-made and include: deforestation; overgrazing; soil erosion; desertification; water shortages in some areas from water-intensive farming and poor management. Iceland's problems in feeding itself in such hostile terrain are all man-made and include: utilising the natural geothermal energy to cultivate crop in an otherwise barren country, fishing within sensible stock limits and have productive citizens to generate enough revenue to trade for commodities not in existence in Iceland.

Explain, if you can, how a country that has a better environmental position and was never colonised can fail so miserably, whilst the other country, having a very poor environmental hand, and having been colonised for nearly a thousand years is such a success?

Incidentally, who exactly does own the mines diamonds, etc. in Sierra leone?


You claim that that peoples do not compete for resources and dominance, and 5000 years of history demonstrates this: you could not be more wrong. I will post historical evidence of this occurring throughout history to the present day if you really do not believe it, and were it not for time constraints I would have done so here and now.

As a quick aside, though, why do you think it is necessary in the UK to have a Bangladeshi woman's group and not just a woman's group; or an Afro-Carribean Health Association instead just a health association. Or a Muslim council of Great Britain when we already have councils, over a thousand years old. Or the countless other groups and associations drawn up along racial lines with members exclusively from that race, working for the exclusive benefit of that race?


As for you not being an immigrant and surprised where I (and others) might get that notion 1) from reading your blog & 2) from the picture at the head of your blog, below the title 'void' which shows a black (man I think) as the only one looking at the camera.


If you could reason your argument with facts (and those facts I give are taken from reliable sources, but it is easy to call any statistic or source dubious if you do not like the content), as I have done and prove me wrong then that would be the end of that. I would concede defeat and move on. Instead you use a mixture of tired old excuses, unprovable assertions and insults whilst failing to disprove the facts given, or to even deny them.

If I am wrong, it should be an easy enough matter for you to prove it.










10:27 AM  
Blogger Larry Gambone said...

A. Nonny Mouse,
1. Pedophilia is not exclusive to gays and to try to pin it on them is a bigoted slander. Indeed, most of the cases in the Indian Residential schools were hetero.
2. Not all homosexuals are left-wing. The ones who are overt about their sexuality do tend to be, but the authoritarian right is full of closet queens and repressed homosexuals. Think only of the Nazis and your average “dost protest too much” homophobic macho right-wing male.
3. If left-wing gays were molesting children in any number it would be trumpeted to the skies by the right wing. The fact that they don't indicates such occurrences are few and far between.
4. The fundamental differences between the left and authoritarian right make crimes like pedophilia (and rape and serial killing) much more likely to be crimes of those whose outlook has been formed by authoritarian relations. The world view of the left is based upon empathy, upon democracy and egalitarianism. The authoritarian right is based upon anti-democratic, inegalitarian and instrumentalist concepts – as I have already pointed out, a fundamentally sociopathic world view which cannot help give rise to crime.
5. This article deals with North America and Western Europe and nowhere else. Bringing in Africa or the Middle East is a red herring. Nonetheless, causes of pedophilia in those places is also rooted in authoritarianism, sexual repression, and misogyny.
6. I am not interested in your discussion with The Void. Nor am I interested in reading a long racist diatribe. Please do not send me any more of this sort of thing.

2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, I disagree that it is either 'racist' or a 'diatribe' but you are not interested in reading it and that is fair enough. If I ever post any comments in the future I will make sure that they only relate to the scope of the article you have posted.

3:26 PM  
Blogger BLueRibbon said...

Have you actually done any research? Paedophilia does not mean sex with children and it is not a crime to be a paedophile. Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubesecnt children.... the majority of molested children have been molested by a non-paedophile, such as a parent.

Your whole article is flawed because you are using a technical term as an informal definition.

11:37 AM  
Blogger Larry Gambone said...

And I personally don't give a rats ass about your definition. Google "pedophilia - definition" and all 7 definitions mention sexual urges directed at children. I checked your blog. You are a pedo it seems. Fuck off and don't come back here.

2:36 PM  
Blogger BLueRibbon said...

Do you assume that Google is correct?

The official definition of paedophilia is decided by the APA.... and if you masturbate while thinking about children, you are a paedophile.

Yeah, I'm a paedophile, but is that relevant to you? You'll attack people for their race, gender preference, etc. You'll attack anyone unless they're 100% normal, which often indicates membership of a repressed minority ;)

I don't "fuck off" because someone disagrees with me.

If you want to write a decent article, use your brain, because if you don't, you'll look like an idiot.

4:27 PM  
Blogger Larry Gambone said...

Yeah, and nazis are a "repressed minority" too, I suppose. As I said before, fuck off...

8:59 PM  
Blogger BLueRibbon said...

Dude, I don't "fuck off". I state my opinion and I debate it. If people censor me, I invite my friends at BoyChat, GirlChat, or AN to join the discussion.

While I believe that even Nazis should be given the right to free speech, I do not believe that one minority's free speech should be allowed to harm another minority's free speech. Unfortunately, the majority of Nazis do attack the free speech of many minorities.

You appear to support Fascism, which has killed more people than minor-attraction, so you really have no right to ask me to be silent.

Now, please tell me how an attraction to children offends you, because you haven't presented a rational argument.

8:58 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Blogging Change
BCBloggers Code: Progressive Bloggers Site Meter