Softening up the public at the twighlight of Empire

A friend of mine pointed this out to me. 

It's pretty dark stuff. 

Is the zionist publication  that published it advocating?

Pedophiles Want Same Rights As Homosexuals

Jews News,

28 June, 2015

An academic conference held at the University of Cambridge said that pedophilia interest is “natural and normal for males”, and that “at least a sizable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children, and normal males are aroused by children.”

These sentiments were discussed at a conference that took place last year to discuss the classification of sexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard international psychiatric manual used by the legal system.

Excerpted from the Northern Colorado Gazette:

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

 “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or hкeterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve non-consensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”

[Note: the website also says in its mission statement: The Institute is dedicated to the belief that sexual rights are basic human rights and it is appropriate to help students understand that many people have been hurt, falsely imprisoned, harassed and persecuted because of laws and misinformation about the role and place of sexuality and its many expressions by individuals in our society.

Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.

Some how the name of Mountbatten came up so in my search I came across this.

Should I be surprised.

"Some have even speculated that Princess Diana sealed her own fate after threatening to reveal networks of pedophilia within the Royal family. Indeed, Diana did speak of "dark forces" and members of an "organization" that were monitoring her shortly before her death"

The Prince and the pedophile: Charles' connections to pedophilia networks

Sott.net,

16 November, 2012

Fresh on the heels of the fallout from revelations regarding former BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile and his unbelievably sickening and innumerable instances of child molestation as well as the "look the other way" approach taken by the BBC, more and more questions are now emerging in regards to the connection between Savile and British Royalty, most notably Prince Charles.

At least, more questions should be emerging.

Unfortunately, however, the British mainstream media is deeming Prince Charles and the rest of his ilk in positions of power and perceived genetic royalty as if they are beyond reproach. This approach is typical and to be expected, yet it is also highly ironic considering the fact that such is the same position the mainstream media took with the allegations against Jimmy Savile for so many years.

As a result of the Savile affair, mainstream outlets, particularly the BBC, now have a lot of egg on their faces in the areas of credibility and respect.In short, any connections placing Prince Charles in an uncompromising position regarding his connections with Savile or his potential for sharing a penchant for unnatural relationships with children is being completely ignored if not officially covered up.

Although Prince Charles' friendship with Jimmy Savile, allegedly begun when the two met in the 1970s during the course of working with children's wheelchair sports charities, is now well-known, the extent to which the Prince and the Pedophile were connected appears to go much deeper than the mainstream media reports let on.

Of course, the two having come in contact at a "charity" event for the disabled is not too far-fetched, even if it is being reported by corporate outlets. After all, using children's "charities" as a hunting ground and a cover for his true motives was a notorious method used by Savile who actually lived in children's homes and hospitals so as to be closer to his victims. This method is by no means specific to Savile, however, as many other sexual predators and pedophiles know exactly what areas of society to be involved in and what careers to pursue in order to gain access to their victims. Jerry Sandusky stands as a perfect example.

Clarence House, Prince Charles' spokesman, declined comment on much of the relationship between Savile and Charles, only claiming that the relationship was mostly a result of their "shared interest in supporting disability charities."

Supporting charities, indeed.

Of course, Savile was doing much more than "supporting disability charities." That is, unless one places serial child rape in a much different category than the average person might. Indeed, one would not be judged out of place to question whether or not untold numbers of sexually assaulted children thoroughly cancels out any financial "support" that may have been given in the past. Apparently, in the view of British royalty, it does not.

In fact, child molester Savile has enjoyed an unbelievable level of access to the Royal Family for the past 40 years.

For instance, in the late 1980s, Savile was said to have acted as a type of marriage counselor between Charles and Diana, visiting their residence several times. At these visits, Dickie Arbiter, who took care of media relations for the Prince and Princess between 1988 and 2000 stated that, at these visits, Savile's behavior was uncouth to say the very least.

Arbiter stated,

He would walk into the office and do the rounds of the young ladies taking their hands and rubbing his lips all the way up their arms if they were wearing short sleeves. If it was summer [and their arms were bare] his bottom lip would curl out and he would run it up their arms. This was at St James's Palace. The women were in their mid to late 20s doing typing and secretarial work.

Not only that, but Savile was brought in to the private marital affairs of the Royals once again in order to help the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, in matters which were not disclosed to the public. Savile later claimed he was brought in to help "Fergie" keep her profile down.

Obviously, the relationship forged between Charles and Savile went far beyond two men who merely performed charity work for the same organizations. This can be evidenced by the fact that, in 1990, Charles even consulted Savile for advice on the appointment of a senior aide for himself and Princess Diana.

The relationship between Charles and Savile, particularly Savile's access to the Royal Family's affairs and the respect which was afforded Savile in this regard, has confused many onlookers. After all, Savile was nothing more than a BBC presenter and disc jockey who was well past his prime. Not to mention the fact that Savile was well known as an uncontrollable freak, although many were under the impression that Savile's television persona was merely part of his schtick.

Yet the clues to the Prince's friendship with the Pedophile might have more to do with similar interests in entertainment than a mere happenstance relationship. Although the evidence which connects Prince Charles to pedophilia is nowhere near as documented as that of Jimmy Savile, a trail of information certainly seems to be leading in that direction.

At this point, it should be mentioned that, although the official line is that Savile and Charles met in the 1970s as part of the coincidence of mutual charity work, Savile himself has stated that he was friends with the Royal family "for a million years." In fact, it was reported that Savile actually stated he was introduced to the Royals in 1966 by Lord Mountbatten, a known pedophile and sexual pervert. In addition to Mountbatten, however, Greg Hallett, in his book Hitler Was A British Agent, also names Prince Philip as a pedophile. In reference to how he became introduced and ingratiated with the Royal family, Savile stated,

Coming from Lord Louis, who was the favourite uncle of Prince Philip, that was quite something. So obviously I hooked up with the Prince - what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him.

So, already, we have Savile, a notorious pedophile linked to other individuals of the Royal Family named as pedophiles as well. Prince Philip, of course, is Prince Charles' father. Lord Mountbatten is largely considered Charles' mentor.

Savile was indeed close to British Royals as well as other elites for many years. It seems his qualification for such high connections were mainly due to his ability to obtain children for the twisted appetites of those considered beyond reproach for the mainstream media and, unfortunately, the general public.

Savile himself seemed to hint at this possibility in an interview conducted with Esquire where he stated, "The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover."

Savile's ridiculous television show (created for the sole purpose of enhancing his access to children) was thus appropriately named, Jim'll Fix It. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public were completely unaware as to what he was fixing and who he was fixing it for.

Essentially, it is clear that Jimmy Savile was a procurer of children not only for himself but also for wealthy pedophiles all across the world, particularly in Britain. Even Savile's own nephew has recently gone public with information tying Savile to a network of pedophiles and sick sexual parties where children were repeatedly raped. Guy Marsden, Savile's nephew, also stated that the parties were attended by household names in show business.

However, as is being widely reported in the news, Savile's escapades of pedophilia were by no means limited to parties with the elite of entertainment. Many of his attacks on children took place in the halls of the hospitals and charities he helped fund and operate, even residing in his own personal room at two of these institutions. At this point, it is worth noting that Savile and Prince Charles are open "supporters" of the same charities.

Apparently, Prince Charles and the Pedophile did have some similar tastes, some of which were even reported by the mainstream media. In 1999, after the Prince accepted Savile's invitation to a private meal at Savile's home in Glencoe, Scotland, Savile had arranged for three women to parade around dressed in pinafores, a type of dress without sleeves and an open back that is often worn over other dresses. Interestingly enough, pinafores were often worn by children.

After the dinner, Charles wrote Savile a Christmas Card with a note that read, "Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland."

Of course, the mainstream is certain that Charles is referring to the local women brought in for the Royal entertainment. However, unless the hired help made an exceptional impression upon the mind of Charles, one must wonder whether or not these particular ladies are the "ladies" to which Charles is referring in his Christmas note. After all, Savile's Scottish cottage was also the scene of much child abuse as well.

Later, Charles sent Savile a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday along with another note that cryptically read, "Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that." Fortunately, many are now aware of what Jimmy has done for his country. Clearly, it would be best if they are given the full story along with it.

This is not likely to happen, however, as global pedophile rings are generally made up of some of the most elite individuals the world over. This is particularly relevant when it comes to any questions regarding the behavior of the Royal Prince. At any moment when there is a chance that information might be leaked that would be damaging to the reputation of genetic royalty, the documents are sealed, the whistleblowers are dealt with, and the controversy covered up.

Some have even speculated that Princess Diana sealed her own fate after threatening to reveal networks of pedophilia within the Royal family. Indeed, Diana did speak of "dark forces" and members of an "organization" that were monitoring her shortly before her death.

For instance, when it appeared that the so-called Black Spider Memos, a series of letters written by Charles to government ministers, would damage the perception of Charles' impartiality if he were to become king, then memos were immediately blocked by the British government. Indeed, it would be extremely interesting to see the contents of the letters, since, in reality, the impartiality of the king is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of British society and government.

What is particularly interesting is that the letters are being blocked from release now, as the biggest pedophilia scandal in British history is unfolding - specifically, at a time when one of the main focal points of the scandal, Jimmy Savile, was a close friend of the Prince. Even more so, it comes at a time when British government officials are also being implicated in pedophilia networks.

For those who may still be under the impression that pedophilia is a crime beyond the capabilities of British politicians, take a look at this partial compilation of British politicians convicted of pedophilia in recent years.

But, while the connections between Prince Charles and the Pedophile Jimmy Savile are themselves enough to make one wonder, the fact is that Savile is not the only relationship with a potential pedophile that Charles has maintained.

As reported by the Digital Journal, the Right Reverend Peter Ball is the most senior member of the Church of England to be arrested for offenses against children. Ball was arrested on eight suspected cases of abuse against boys and young men ranging from ages 12 to 20 during the 1980s to 1990s. Ball, who was the former Bishop of Gloucester, resigned in 1993 after he was served with a police caution for "committing an act of gross indecency against a teenager."

Upon his resignation, Ball retired to Manor Lodge, "a wisteria-clad property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall." Manor Lodge is a property of the Prince's Duchy of Cornwall.

In reference to his new living arrangements, Ball stated, "He (Prince Charles) has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house. The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him, he has been through horrific times and is a great person."

Considering the connections and personal friendships maintained by Prince Charles, one must question whether or not Charles himself has had some experience in the underworld of pedophilia. At the very least, the Prince is the absolute worst judge of character who ever lived.

What is also very interesting regarding the people named in these child sex scandals and the scope of the scandals themselves, is that the individuals who have been trying their best to bring this information to light have been ignored and derided for years on end. This has been the case whether the individuals were whistleblowers, researchers, or even victims themselves.

For instance, while much of mainstream Britain has had quite a time laughing at David Icke, suddenly his claims do not seem so fantastic and funny after all. Indeed, it was Icke who mentioned the global cabal of pedophiles and even many of the participants in them by name many years ago. While his voice was scarcely heard above the laughter at the time, he is, at the very least, on the record as having exposed these networks early on.

As for Icke's remarks regarding the scandal today, he had this to say on November 7, 2012.

This guy, William Hague, the foreign Secretary, needs to be questioned on why that Welsh inquiry into the massive pedophilia in Welsh children's homes was given the brief that it did and therefore stopped these kids from talking about what happened to them. And this is the big thing. If the police investigation does not knock on the door of Buckingham Palace over this whole Savile [case] and the wider implications that have followed then it's a cover up. Because the British Royal family are fundamentally involved in this right to the top. Right up to the people like Prince Philip and all these other people . . . . . This man [Savile] was an aging sleazy disc jockey, right? And he had complete access to the British Royal family AND they used him as an official go-between [with] Prince Charles and Princess Diana when they were falling out in their marriage. And now it's come out this week that he was advising Prince Charles on aids to employ. Why is this man so close or was so close to the British Royal Family? The answer to that will bring the British Royal family down.

Considering Icke's accuracy in terms of information on this particular issue, perhaps it would be wise if those who heard him speak years ago might take him a little more serious the second time around.

As far as the "manufacture of consent", the softening- up of the public we have this example

German ethics council calls for incest between siblings to be legalised by Government

the Independent,

24 September, 2014

Germany’s national ethics council has called for an end to the criminalisation of incest between siblings after examining the case of a man who had four children with his sister.

Patrick Stuebing, who was adopted as an infant and met his sister in his 20s, has launched several appeals since being imprisoned for incest in 2008 and his lengthy legal battle has prompted widespread public debate.

Sexual relations between siblings or between parents and their children are forbidden under section 173 of the German criminal code and offenders can face years in prison.

But on Wednesday, the German Ethics Council recommended the section be repealed, arguing that the risk of disability in children is not enough to warrant the law and de-criminalising incest would not remove the huge social taboo around it.

The chairman of the council, Christiane Woopen, was among the 14 members voting in favour of repealing section 173, while nine people voted for the ban to continue and two abstained.

A statement released on Wednesday said: “Incest between siblings appears to be very rare in Western societies according to the available data but those affected describe how difficult their situation is in light of the threat of punishment.

“They feel their fundamental freedoms have been violated and are forced into secrecy or to deny their love.

“The Ethics Council has been told of cases where half-siblings did not grow up together and have only met in their adult lives.”

Such was the case with Mr Stuebing, who was adopted at a young age and traced his birth family in his early 20s.

He and his sister Susan Karolewski, who were not brought up together, met for the first time when they were aged 24 and 16 respectively.

He was convicted of incest in 2008 and spent three years in prison, failing an appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court in 2008 and to the European Court of Human Rights over his rights to a family life in 2012.

Ms Karolewski was allowed to keep custody of their youngest child but the other three were taken into care. Two are disabled, although it is not known whether incest is the cause.

In a statement outlining its recommendations, the Ethics Council said the law against incest “put couples in a tragic situation”.

“The majority of the German Ethics Council is of the opinion that it is not appropriate for a criminal law to preserve a social taboo,” it added.

“In the case of consensual incest among adult siblings, neither the fear of negative consequences for the family , nor the possibility of the birth of children from such incestuous relationships can justify a criminal prohibition.

“The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination has more weight in such cases than the abstract protection of the family.

Members objecting to decriminalising incest argued that it would weaken “ethically significant” family values that contribute towards personal development.

A spokeswoman for Angela Merkel's CDU party, Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, responded to the Ethics Council's vote saying that the abolition of the law against incest would give out the wrong signal.

“Abolishing criminal punishment against incestuous actions within a family would go completely against protecting the undisturbed development of children,” she told Deutsche Welle.

The Ethics Council’s recommendation only covered incest between siblings and members did not recommend decriminalising sex between parents and children.

Quite the most evil suggestion has come from an academic source in this country. This was reported in the New Zealand media without irony or condemnation.

This policy could just as easily come from the nazis.

PROPOSAL TO 

TEMPORARILY STERILISE 

ALL NZ TEENAGE FEMALES 

SHOULD RAISE SERIOUS 

RED FLAGS

Leading Edge,

1 July, 2015

Yesterday the NZ media featured coverage of a new proposal that has been put forward by two “senior” academics from the University of Otago, who would like to see all young New Zealand females temporarily sterilised with long-acting chemical contraceptive implants.

In their ideal vision for the future of New Zealand young people, these academics would like temporary sterilisation to be the default policy that young girls would have to deliberately be opted out of if they didn’t want their new and still-developing fertility to be chemically shut down for months or years at a time.

No, this is not the plot of some dystopian novel or film, this really is a policy that a couple of NZ academics apparently now seriously consider to be a good idea.

To put things mildly: there is a lot to be concerned about with this proposal.

Firstly, these academics don’t seemed to have considered the possible impacts that temporarily sterilising an entire population of females from a very young age could have.

As far as I am aware, no attempt at the population-wide temporary sterilisation of very young females, whose physiology is still new and still developing, has ever been attempted – meaning that the outcome of such an experimental scheme is totally unknown.

We are talking here about synthetic hormonal interference with the female fertility system while that system is still very young and developing, and there is no reliable way of knowing how such interference could turn out (for all of us) in the long-run.

We already know that chemical contraceptives are an environmental pollutant that end up in waterways, and from there cause harms to wildlife populations. Imagine how devastating this environmental impact could become if every female in NZ was temporarily sterilised with these agents at a young age?

Then there are the eugenic memories from recent history that make mass sterilisation (even if it is reversible) a very unpalatable idea for most people today – the Nazis experimented with ways of trying to sterilise entire female Jewish populations, and in Apartheid South-Africa a similar sterilisation scheme was attempted on Black Africans.

Then there were the forced sterilisations of those considered to be ‘defective’ that took place in the United States of America prior to, and after World War II – not to mention those that took place in other parts of the world as well last century.

I think people are right to be extremely wary of any attempt to introduce any sort of mass sterilisation programmes – even temporary chemical sterilisations – because these can very easily morph into state-mandated sterilisation programmes for economic or social reasons (the old saying: ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ is still as true today as it was the day when it was first uttered.)

And none of this even touches on the negative impact that synthetic hormonal contraceptives can have on female health and wellbeing, or the fact that such a scheme would not actually do anything to alleviate the far more serious problem of sexually transmitted diseases.

(By the way, I hoped everyone took notice of the fact that these academics have rightly pointed out that condoms have a failure rate of 18% per annum (that’s 18 pregnancies per year, for every 100 couples using condoms) – which makes condoms only 4% more effective than the woefully unreliable withdrawal method! This is important, because pregnancy can only occur for a very limited window each month (due to the way that female fertility works). Sexually transmitted diseases, on the other hand, can be transmitted 24/7 – meaning that condoms are a far less reliable form of protection against sexual disease than some people wrongly believe and tout them to be.)

I think that most people are rightly very concerned by this proposal for the automatic temporary sterilisation of all young New Zealand females – and for lots of very good reasons.

For me, one of the most troubling aspects of this proposal is the way in which it so flippantly treats normal healthy female fertility as if it were something that needs to be shut down or medicated against – like we would a disease, or some other physiological problem.

At the end of the day, this proposal would actually create far more social problems, and expose us to far more risks and unknown factors than we are currently experiencing in this country – which is precisely why I think that it is one of the worst health policy proposals that has been mooted in this country in quite some time.