Groomers

August 30, 2022 Longrider General News, misanthropy, Political, sophistry 22

It’s been a long time coming. Remember the senior members of the Labour party and their involvement with PIE? Anyone who follows James Lindsay will be aware that the term ‘groomer’ is now verboten on Twatter because it hits so close to the truth. But it’s not children they are grooming, it’s us. All of us. They are grooming us into accepting the sexualisation of children and eventually, paedophilia. Now they don’t even attempt to hide it – although they use a nice cuddly term such as ‘minor attracted persons.’

A researcher has seemingly admitted to being a paedophile and has argued for an end to stigmatizing ‘minor-attracted persons’.

A Nonce is a nonce, whatever euphemism you may use. There is a reason that society abhors these people. They prey on the most vulnerable. So, no, it should not be deemed acceptable.

He graphicly details multiple incidents of a sexual nature with children, such as bringing a 15-year-old into his tent where they sucked his finger and sneaking up on a sleeping 13-year-old while having a ‘painful’ erection.

Mr Vaerwaeter argues that paedophilia should be recognised as a legitimate sexual orientation and people like himself should be accepted by society.

A few years ago, he would have been run out of town. A few years ago, no one would be attempting to make his ideas acceptable in the mainstream – well, apart from the Labour party, I suppose.

However, he argues for the broader acceptance of paedophiles in society.

‘I feel that paedophilia should explicitly be recognised as a sexual orientation by anyone who deals with issues of sexual identity in any way,’ he said.

Mr Vaerwaeter added that paedophiles deserve ‘recognition and attention to their emotional problems’.

‘Rejecting paedophilia as a sexual orientation is unethical and intellectually unfair,’ he said.

There you are, ladies and gentlemen, that’s where we are at. Groomers gotta groom.

He looked to the LGBTQ+ community to provide a base for this movement.

‘Pedophiles are a particular sexual minority,’ Mr Vaerwaeter wrote. ‘[They] face the same problems of stigma, discrimination and social isolation as other members of the LGBT community, albeit to a greater degree.

‘If the community is to be inclusive, then it must live up to the meaning of the ‘+’ in its acronym.’

I think that you will find that the average gayer will not be amenable to this idea one little bit. Gayers don’t prey on children.

But others have argued that making paedophilia more socially acceptable would encourage people who are sexually attracted to children to come forward and seek mental health support.

No! No! No! They are supposed to feel shame. Shame is good. It is a controlling mechanism. In what twisted world would this vile, abusive perversion become socially acceptable?

22 Comments

  1. And then, – the animals.
    What inoffensive name can pig and chicken shaggers give themselves?

  2. A few years ago, he would have been run out of town.

    A few years prior to that he would disappear quietly one day and nobody would care to look into it too much.

    What inoffensive name can pig and chicken shaggers give themselves?
    I was trying to think up a clever acronym.
    Just going with:

    Dirty bastards

  3. The key part of any sexual activity, no matter how strange it may seem to others, being morally acceptable can be summed up in two words. Consenting adults. Have fully informed consent between adults and there isn’t a problem. Without this Mr Vaerwaeter doesn’t have a case.

  4. To Longrider: As someone who sat in and observed one of the latter PIE trials in the early eighties I can see a lot of parallels between PIE and these new lot of nonce apologists. Both PIE and this latest lot of nonces courted and do court the wilder shores of academia and in particular the world of cultural studies. The main difference I see is that back then PIE were promoting themselves by speaking the language of sexual revolution at a time, the 1970’s, when there was a lot of turmoil over the fallout from the sixties and sexual mores were changing. PIE hitched their wagon to groups campaigning for things like LGB equal rights or civil liberties and exploited them.
    Now the nonce apologists speak the language of diversity equity and inclusion in order to promote themselves instead of sexual liberation.

    I also find it disgusting that the nonce apologists are trying to exploit the in my view unwise extension of what was once a clearly understandable acronym to describe those who are attracted to the same or both sexes. However these nonce apologists have done this before when a group of American nonce apologists managed to get affiliated with an international Lesbian and Gay organisation. Back then there might be the excuse such as it is that those in mainstream gay rights organisations were naive about the nonce apologists, but that excuse is not applicable now. The + in the tortuous acronym LGBT+ should never mean nonce. Nonce apologists need to be kept well away from mainstream LGB organisations. They need to shunned but in order for that to happen ordinary LGB people need to take more of an interest in the organisations that purport to represent them. Nonce apologists should not be allowed by academias loony tunes to again slip in the back door of organisations that purport to represent ordinary LGB men and women. No good will come of this.

    I most certainly agree that there are two types of grooming going on here. Of course there is the grooming of children into the cult of trans but we as you say are also being groomed both to deny the evidence of our own eyes or of biology in the case of the trans cult and in this very disturbing story to quietly accept the unacceptable in order to not be accused of being ‘unkind’ or ‘untoward’.

    Stonyground: Spot on there. Informed consent is the absolute moral wall in all this. Adults can consent to a whole variety of sexual activity. It is morally impossible for a person or another living thing that is unable to give fully informed consent to agree to any sexual activity. I agree that this nonce apologist really doesn’t have any case.

    • I don’t disagree there. However as Kelly Jay Keen Minshull found out, her local police didn’t take the same view, they came around to her house and quizzed her about being ‘untoward’ about nonces. Those who are preying on those who cannot legally or morally consent to activity that is solely the preserve of adults should be shunned, not validated by academia.

      I can’t help but wonder whether the cult of trans and its blurring of the lines between adult and child and what is acceptable behaviour as regards them and its promulgation of the twisted idea that children have ‘agency’ with regards their gender, has assisted the growth of the nonce apologists? It certainly seems to be the case that there are a lot of trans activists whose interest in children is not all that innocent and is more aligned to recruiting new members to the cult rather than helping confused children.

  6. Consenting adults is a grey term at best. I’ve worked in pubs for many years and met many under eighteens who are quite capeable of enjoying a beer without being a dick about it, and many ‘adults’ who don’t deserve to be around alcohol at all.
    The age of consent for sex varies around the world and has varied throughout history. Some of the relationships in Jane Austen novels would not be acceptable today.
    I get that we have to have a legal cut off for clarity of the law, but the idea that a person can consent to sex on the day they turn sixteen, but couldn’t the previous day, is a bit daft. Same for beer at eighteen.
    Cut off points have got later as life expectancy increases, as childhood is supposed to be preserved for longer, but many children are doing the things they are not supposed to do, long before they are old enough to do it.
    When it comes to sex, ‘age gap’ probably has a lot more to do with it than the legal term ‘adult’.

    • Paedophiles are interested in prepubescent children, so regardless of the country’s age of consent, they are well below it and therefore not able to legally consent. Someone who is interested in a child at the age of sixteen – and blurs the line between a day before or a day after is a hebephile. So while you make a fair point about how or where the line is drawn and the behaviour of so-called adults, this one is clear cut.

      When it comes to sex, ‘age gap’ probably has a lot more to do with it than the legal term ‘adult’.

      Well, yes, there’s a whole other argument here. Two young people who engage in sex where one of them is still fifteen, for example can result in a charge of statutory rape and that is absurd.

  7. Writing in an academic journal under a pseudonym, ‘Brecht Vaerwaeter’ detailed his experience of being attracted to young boys.

    I notice that the nonce didn’t use his real name, which shows full well that he knows that while his pederastic activities might be viewed as “problematic, but acceptable” by the leftist libtards of the university, in the real world he’d be the subject of death threats and being beaten to death in the street. Not that I’m one for vigilante justice, but the mob is the mob.

    I’m sure the elite, those that rode the Lolita Express and committed similar abuses in other places without newspaper headlines would love it if we made sex with children legal, since that seems to be one of their predilections, but quite rightly, the vast majority (whose sons and daughters the elite want to prey on) are violently opposed and quite rightly so.

    Presumably, this is why they’ve decided to go via what they think is the easier route via propaganda, grooming and “Drag Queen Story Hour”, so that when the current crop of kids grow up they are less resistant to the idea of the elite using their children as sex toys.

    I suspect the elite are in for a rude awakening before a lynching.

  8. I make no apologies for my stance on people who assault the innocence of childhood with their sexual perversion.
    Kneel them down and put a bullet into the back of their head.
    That they should be allowed to try to make their vileness palatable to a wider society, is not only despicable but says much for the ethics of those who encourage it.
    Such a sad indictement of some modern day western ‘ civilisations ‘.

    • I would be happy to see these babyf#ck#rs garrotted. The old Spanish way, but without the blade at the back of the neck.

      They have no place anywhere near pre-pubescent children.

  9. “But others have argued that making paedophilia homosexuality more socially acceptable would encourage people who are sexually attracted to children people of their own sex to come forward and seek mental health support.”

    See how that works? Either it’s Just Another Sexual Orientation or it’s a mental illness requiring treatment (or locking up, melting the key down, then throwing it away). That’s what the goodthinkers have been telling us for the last sixty years, right? Can’t have it both ways, guys.

  10. As for the LGBT+ thing, the “+” HAS ALWAYS meant all of those nasty little perversions that they can’t mention in public, like the pedos, the animal “lovers” and those who prefer their meat cold.

    Meanwhile we continue to slide down the slippery slope that we are told doesn’t exist since its just a right wing dog whistle.

    “Here Shep! I’ve got some peanut butter for you!”

  11. I wonder if this dangerously-deluded man would promote such evil if he had a daughter? At what age would he consider her ‘ready’ for sex with adults?

  12. Once society has been ‘taught’ to accept this filth, the worst of perversions, it will literally accept all others without a whimper.

    Lynch mobs will form, newspapers will decry the pedophibic attacks, celebrities will tweet, stupid women will march and eventually we will arrive at exactly the same point we have with homosexuality, where most people don’t care if you are a friend of Dorothy’s, which was utterly unthinkable when I was a child.

Comments are closed.