NBC is catching web pedophiles at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY8BkoyH8m4&mode=related&search
Why? I think the reason is the growth of white nationalism on the web.
This is the way it SHOULD be done. Pedophiles who use the internet, especially SCHOOL Teachers, should be EXPOSED. But the timing is very suspicious, and it won’t stop there.
The media never worried about pedophilic school teachers BEFORE, and it’s as old and well known throughout the public schools as pedophiles in the priesthood, something EVERY Catholic bishop knew about, even if he didn’t help the pedophiles out, a generation ago.
The media led in the battle to get pedophilic homosexual scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts.
Remember the media kept saying priests were molesting CHILDREN, and it took them forever to admit it was BOYS who were being molested.
No matter how many times I repeat it, those who have mastered the art of Missing the Point will miss what I am saying. I am NOT asking “Why expose pedophiles?”
I am asking “Why NOW?” Why, after all the decades, is the media allowing this sort of thing to air NOW.
Before the Missing the Point experts go into their usual blather about moral righteousness, let me remind you the key word is NOW.
Normally the age-old molestation of children by teaches was a secret, like the priest thing. But the media is beginning to allow stories like this NOW because of a simple agreement between liberals and “Christian” conservatives that, as white nationalism grows on the web, is becoming urgent for them.
“Christian” televangelists are leading the fight to censor the web. Also Pat Robertson is pushing intermarriage and interracial adoption. So they demand that we “protect the children” by censoring the web, and are happy to join those who want to ban “Hate,” too.
All to protect the children.
That’s why NOW.
#1 by Hardric on 08/07/2007 - 10:02 am
Absolutely right! No need to miss the point here, it is as clear as a cloudless sky on a sunny day. The first person I related it to, not a scholar but an observer to be sure, was in 100% agreement.
#2 by shari on 08/07/2007 - 10:15 am
I’m not a technology expert by a long shot, but I don’t see how they can control the web the way they want too. That horse is out of the barn.
Also, you know there is plenty of depravity in high places in the media. Why is TV so sick? They can’t keep covering their own crimes, because they have already exposed themselves. No pun intended.
#3 by Pain on 08/07/2007 - 2:22 pm
While the media push censorship of the web, they are having an exciting time, too. I once had a Jewish professor who was married and had a daughter. But he used to love talking about King Frederick the Great of Prussia and Voltaire supposedly having an affair; you could see the excitement in his eyes. Anything lurid and disgusting was a real upper. You can see the same in Chris Hansen, the oo, wow, this is really nasty. You can see the delight in his eyes as he realizes he has just ruined somebody.
Censorship and concupiscence are close friends.
The funny thing is that this could backfire on the internet censors. The publicity given Oscar Wilde’s show trial was followed by an expansion of buggery, which as we know became fashionable in cities. Hansen’s show makes the ones he catches look like people to feel sorry for.
One episode had a guy who was about 20. He claimed that he thought he was responding to a practical joke by one of the guys, played along with them, and responded to Dateline’s invitation to come over to the house so he could see who it was. When he found it was no practical joke, he started CRYING like a little boy. You couldn’t help feeling sorry for him.
So the censors are hoping to abolish political free speech online in the name of saving the children. But they are doing it by unleashing the beast of lust, an animal that is hard to control. There will be unintended consequences.
#4 by Tory on 08/07/2007 - 3:52 pm
The above analyses concerning the timing of the pedophilia excitement just doesn’t ring true to me. (And, by the way, I’m sure we all recall the witch hunt just a decade or so ago for pedophiles running day care centers… This pedophilia hunting is not brand new.). I think the reason it’s all over the media now is that there is a cable tv channel for everything. And somebody figured out he could get ratings by having a Pedophilia Hunt cable tv channel.
#5 by Bret Ludwig on 08/07/2007 - 4:09 pm
Not just Catholics, but every Christian denomination has had gay pedophile clergy on occasion. In England, the colloquialism for gays equivalent to our “three dollar bill” is, “queer as a scoutmaster.” That goes back to the days of Baden-Powell, though B-P himself was almost certainly a flagrant heterosexual.
Gay priests became a substantial minority if not an outright majority in the RCC after Vatican II, not out of increased desire to chickenhawk from behind a Roman collar, but because of the fashionable color coordinated vestments and fabulous altar decorations replacing the staid old Tridentine cassock and surplice. An increase in “child” molesting followed, but what we saw was predictable-the new, gayer priests bothered not prepubescent kids but 12-15 year old boys primarily, whereas the old pervs tended to the younger stuff, and girls as well as boys.
Why NOW the discovery, is the same reason why the media started outing the Jim Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggarts all of a sudden in the 1980s. Anton LaVey was the first to concisely and, largely correctly, describe the core issues in print.
#6 by Mark on 08/08/2007 - 6:21 pm
Okay Peter, thanx for using the word “buggery.” I had to look it up and now I have another word I can hurl at people I don’t like.
You Bulgarian, you. Tee Hee
#7 by mderpelding on 08/08/2007 - 6:42 pm
Makes me think of good old Lord Acton.
He was a liberal. And of course, he tended to reverse cause and effect.
Power doesn’t tend to corrupt.
It tends to attract the corrupt.
Of course, this is a moral issue. Too many of our people get trapped into moral thinking. And then they think that morality and politics should be kept separate. Just as our enemies claim they should.
But our enemies combine their own morality with politics. Their church and state are one.
Politics supply the means to implement religious ends.
And that is the sole purpose of politics.
All human groups possess the capability to practice politics.
In fact, animals do too, albeit without the ability to chose belief.
Or religion.
The whole establishment clause of the constitution turned political power into a kiddie game.
Good guys and bad guys.
A giant popularity contest. Just like public schools.
Power exercised for no reason except that it can be.
But the left understood “The Prince”. Politics exist for a purpose.
That purpose is to control people. That control is best accomplished by belief, as in religion.
Our current religion rejects “The Prince”.
The problem was never about politics.
All groups are political in nature. But we as a people have forgotten why politics matter.
And the master that politics serve.
The holy constitution states that politics and religion should be separate.
So all turncoats pontificate on being strict constitutional purists.
Who cares what the founders thought? The “contract” they decided on has resulted in our collective destruction.
So all these conservatives say, “well, whole problem is that leadership veered away from the program”.
I can read the same crap on the CPUSA website discussing the USSR.
You know, if we just return to those good old days, everything will be well.
The Soviet constitution aided and abetted the genocide of the European Rus.
The American constitution is aiding and abetting our destruction.
Yes the preamble states “for us and our posterity”.
But it didn’t work, did it?
#8 by AFKAN on 08/08/2007 - 10:27 pm
We tend to forget the fact that what is on the Internet, as far as your ISP is concerned, is not “speech,’ which is still Constitutionally protected, but CONTENT, which is NOT Constitutionally protected. Remember, your ISP is a private carrier, and does not have to give you one packet of “content” that does not meet their personal “guidelines.”
You’ve probably noticed a tremendous consolidation of ISP’s since 2000, and they ALL offer “Family Protection Filters.” Most people see the Internet as the functional equivalent of a specialty tv channel; the big money is made in porno, which you can target with great precision, and creative finance – gambling.
The excuse they need is “protecting children from sexual deviants,” which is already in the flters, as well as sites they don;t want you to look at. Gary North reported tremendous problems getting his Internet newsletter delivered via AT&T, which is, once again, AT&T.
They do not need reasonable reasons to do this; all they near are reasonable sounding rationalizations. Thus, “Family Friendly Filters” will block out some sites, which you are aware of, and many you won’t be aware of.
How many companies control the cable section of the Internet?
What stops them from putting on the filters automatically, particularly for “hate sites?”
Damn little, that I can see.
#9 by Z on 08/13/2007 - 5:56 pm
Bob you are 100% correct sir. I remember when I first seen that show on MS NBC regarding the child predators. I found it interesting and the same time disturbing. But notice what they’ve done now. They’ve made it a weekly show. It seems its on every day of the week. In fact, on the show, they call them “child INTERNET predators. Obviously we know where this is going.
The first job is to condition the people. The next is to connect the Internet with “terrorists.” The last step is for some politician to introduce an Internet censorship bill. They will argue that this is to “protect children” when their parents should be the ones protecting them anyway.
Have you also noticed how O’Riely has been constantly talking about “left wing hate sites” that are “just like the Nazis or The KKK?” This is to condition the “right wing” who is usually very suspicious of censorship. This is no doubt a coordinated attack between all the networks. The average person on the street will say “well, I’m not a ‘Nazi’, left wing ‘bomb thrower’, or a pedophile so I don’t see why censorship is any problem?” After all, it to “protect the children.”
This latest immigration debate really scared the globalists. They seen the power of the Internet and even worse, the power of white grassroots activism. The white race is the biggest obstacle for the globalists. When the censorship debate starts, the globalist hacks like Sean Hannity will say things like “if you don’t support censorship, then you support ‘Nazis’,left wing ‘bomb throwers’, and pedophiles.”
You can be sure that eventually, the “War on Terror”, will become a “War on Hate.” All that is needed is the proper propaganda and before you know it, WE will be the globalists new declared enemy.
The question is- DO THE WHITE MEN OF THE WEST STILL HAVE THE WILL TO OVERCOME OUR DESTRUCTION?
#10 by Pain on 09/06/2007 - 11:26 pm
Stormfront, David Duke, and BUGS are censored at a number of servers, especially colleges, by third-party software.
Mommy professor is known by night as net nanny.
By hammering nightly at the pretend threats of comic-book “child predators,” censorship looks legitimate.
The only way to attack truth is to make it look like Lex Luthor doing the nasty with helpless little children. Since anti-genocide websites are censored at colleges, the idea is that anyone under 21 is a helpless little child and that sites like this blog are too stimulating for them.
Thus the media’s fixation on child sexuality is really a ruse to sell more net nanny software to adults.