Want to see how disgusting pedophiles are? They use OUR suffering to promote their agendas, look at this garbage, these are quotes from a pro pedophile activist site.
Comparing Pedophiles to Jews
“ What red blooded American would stick up for a sex offender? And, what Arian blooded Nazi would stick up for a Jew? If you think there is a difference, then think again. ”
--Joseph Duncan III
“ Antis ARE the 'New Nazis' CL s are the "New jews"
Posted by RavenSA on 2007-June-27 10:53:11, Wednesday In reply to Do these anti-ped actvists consider themselves posted by Komerat on 2007-June-27 08:05:10, Wednesday I've been saying this in real life and under assumed identities for well over 5 years, back before the "antis" were called antis.
I think it is an inevitable fact that as pedophiles are more and more persecuted we will fit better and better into the mold of the persecuted minority, more and more into the shoes of suffering that have been filled by others in our position: Jews, Blacks, etc. And as the antis adopt more and more radical tactics against us they will fit better and better into the shoes of persecutor, of which the Nazi is the prime example.
At what point will this terrorism against us cease? I'm not sure, but already our legacy has already been written, we can read it in the history books by simply inserting Pedophile for Jew.
”
[7]
“ Fortunately, it's worse than you think.
Posted by Dylan Thomas on 2007-May-20 04:29:34, Sunday In reply to Boylovers and the Final Solution posted by Curtis on 2007-May-19 23:17:37, Saturday You write, "One wants to say, 'No, no, it's not that bad.' And it isn't--yet." But I will maintain now that it really is that bad--and, in fact, worse; I think you're significantly underestimating the scope of the problem. Not because of a flaw in your analysis--I don't think I've ever found an actual flaw in your analyses--but instead because of a frame error that surrounds your analysis.
The first decade of the twenty-first century isn't the 1930s. That may seem like an obvious thing to say, but it has several not-so-obvious consequences. One of which is that the accouterments necessary to execute a systematic extermination of a subpopulation in the 30s are significantly different now. We might say, "It's not as bad yet because we still don't have concentration camps... or gas chambers... or yellow stars..." but that would be wrong. We do have all of those things. We just don't call them by those names.
Aside from the actual number of murders to which The Holocaust aspired, I don't think one can name any element of Nazi extermination of the Jews that is not already present in our current situation. The reason concentration camps haven't been explicitly built is because they're merely being piggybacked on a pre-existing penal and mental health system. The reason why gold stars aren't necessary is because modern technology allows a different type of identity branding. It wasn't possible for Hitler's Nazis to simply glance at a computer connected to the main database and know instantly if the person in front of them was Jew; today, that is possible with sex offenders: the actual physical badge isn't necessary. And the reason why six million murders haven't happened is precisely because The Holocaust already happened. People instinctively know better, in the post-modern world, than to invite comparison by repeating history so overtly. We must make a show of living in more enlightened times, so instead of gas chambers and ovens, we have instead Death Lite: a permanent removal from the world of interpersonal influence. Unlike Jews, we don't have to be killed to be eliminated; we can be eliminated by various other means including permanent incarceration, permanent labeling (thus eliminated from the job market, the housing market, the political arena, and of course parenting; like Ralph Ellison's invisible man, the inability to leave a mark is in itself a form of death, a subsociety of walking ghosts) and the far more insidious self-elimination through the obvious suicide and the less-obvious therapy, behavior modification, self-imposed isolation and lifelong secrecy.
So don't ask yourself, "How many boylovers have been murdered like the Jews were murdered?" That's asking a 30s question in a 00s world. Instead, ask your self, "How many boylovers have ceased to exist in a way which would enable them to be boylovers?" Have people like our own hyacinth--who reminds us that he has no boys in his life and never will--already, in fact, been through the gas chamber? Yes, I concede, the fact we're not actually dead means that the tragedy is nowhere near comparable to that of The Holocaust. But are the consequences for the population nonetheless the same--a successful elimination?
A colleague of mine believes that boylovers can continue successfully being boylovers even in today's persecution simply by quietly living their lives and loving their boys--that a political aspect to boylove isn't necessary because really, all we need is to love the actual boy and if society can't handle that, they simply don't need to know. But at the same time the rest of us debate the utilitarian calculus: if I love a boy and we do get caught, since I chose to do that knowing how society is, aren't I partly responsible for the consequences that boy has to suffer? I may not have done him the harm, but I put him in harm's way: I knew what would happen if we got caught. To believe that having a quiet relationship between me and my boy is sufficient ignores the very lesson learned by the boy about the significance of keeping quiet. By painting boylove as harmful, society has made boylove harmful. The "quiet relationship" is itself part of the Death Lite, with collateral damage. Those who subscribe to this philosophy may need to investigate whether or not they've already been exterminated, and are merely taking a boy or two with them as they go. (There's a big asterisk here--it's a topic in itself and the reality is not this black and white. But framing it that way may provide some reference points for the shades of gray.)
I've saved the punchline, though. There's something that gives this situation its own brand of volatility, something impossible to compare with The Holocaust. That fundamental difference is that Hitler believed that Jews were a threat to the economy, politics, power and stability of his nation. And he was wrong. He was a simple lunatic with an obsession and the power to carry it out on a grand scale.
In contrast, while no one actually posits that boylovers are a threat to the economy, politics, power and stability of modern society--merely a threat to the children--if someone were to say that about boylovers, he'd be very different from Hitler in one important aspect: he would be right. And that's why I can make the odd statement that fortunately, it's worse than you think.
The majority of the hysteria against us, as with the Jews, is a generated hysteria. Anyone who takes time to research the actual numbers--everything from recidivism rates to intrafamilial molestations to stranger abductions to metaresearch trends--can't help but reach the conclusion that the fear does not correspond to the threat. One possible reason for this--the one to which I subscribe--is that this is explained by the recognition that pedophilia in itself is not the threat (that is, as I've always said, anti-pedophile hysteria is not about sex, and those who dedicate their efforts to convincing people that pedophiles are good people really and sex isn't harmful are misguided in their focus). The real threat is something else--something pedophiles represent, something they bring in their wake independent of whether or not they ever have sex with a child. And while most people hate pedophiles because they've swallowed the party line--they really believe that we "destroy the souls" of children--someone, somewhere, knows the truth.
Someone knew how to exploit Adam Walsh. Someone knew how to exploit JonBenét Ramsey. Someone is spinning Madeleine McCann even as we speak. Is this a conspiracy theory? No. I doubt very much these respective "someones" are receiving common instructions beyond what their own professional journals tell them. But they don't believe their own stories, either; they know that Walshes and Ramseys and McCanns are once-a-decade rarities that don't represent the reality of the pedophile menace (if indeed pedophiles were even involved in these cases, something not conclusively demonstrated in any of them). There's no coordinated conspiracy to protect post-industrial society from the revolution boylovers represent. But these people know they are justified in responding to the threat as though it were a threat to state, not person. In much the same way as the Jews were treated as a threat to state.
And we are. In the abstract--if you accept that governments have a will to survive the same as people--they are perfectly justified in this Persecution. If they don't eliminate us now, they may not get the opportunity later. In that, not building gas chambers is the biggest mistake they've made. One which I intend to exploit fully, should I still be around when the moment comes. The fact that the oppression has become so insufferable is my biggest source of optimism because I have faith in human nature, and I believe that people who have nothing left to lose will act like people who have nothing left to lose. I'll even print up t-shirts that say, "You should have gassed us when you had the chance."
Hitler's Holocaust set the chain of events in motion which led to the current nation of Israel. And they didn't start out as a threat; they were a regular population of human beings, as peaceful as any other when left to live their own lives. But we were a threat from the very beginning. Our existence is anathema to industrial-based governments. So I won't settle for a small coastal nation like Israel; my price is something much larger. The United States will do for starters, with option to expand. And I express my sincere appreciation to current administrations worldwide for creating my army for me.
(This, I think, is the most fun I ever have with you, Curtis: you are brilliant at setting up the analysis, and observing the potential consequences... but you've always hesitated at the very end, as though you may be a little uncomfortable with what it really means if your analysis turns out to be correct. But if you're going to use a historical metaphor, why not use the whole thing? Why end with, "I really don't know"? Why not admit outright, "The last time this happened, nations fell, new nations rose, new weapons were invented and the Jews were by no means the only ones who died in the millions"? It's a philosophical analysis. Of course we could be wrong. But I'll bet you two fives and a ten that we're not.)
Source
http://wikisposure.com/The_Persecution_Delusion
Topic: EVIL U.N Pushing for global gay rights (Read 3475 times)