“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.”Raskolnikov, from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime & Punishment”
This quote is a favourite decontextualised soundbite on the web. Those who have read the classic Russian novel of course know that this theme of new words is taken from Rodion Raskolnikov’s essay in which he justifies the amorality of the exceptional; the dispensing with moral principles by those who prove themselves worthy and willing to act without limit in the pursuit of revolution. Dostoevsky readers also know that, while brilliantly composed and not without shades of truth, Raskalnikov wrote this piece while descending into a murderous insanity.
Have you noticed how much the Regressive Left love to assert their “progress” by inventing such New Words? It’s not enough to be male or female anymore; now we must clarify whether we are cis- male, or trans- male. It’s no longer acceptable to simply be sceptical of the catastrophic effects of this spurious scientific orthodoxy known as “climate change”. You are a climate change denier. Contempt for the barbarism practised and preached in accordance with the Islamic Qur’an is now called Islamophobia, and the adherence to a Biblical view of sex and marriage is now called homophobia. Like so many of the terms which divide and vilify the natural and Christian worldviews, these are all new words.
The distortion of language through indoctrination via academia, entertainment, and news media, has proven to be the first line of offence from the Cultural Marxists in their insatiable march through our institutions and our culture, towards the coming ultimate Luciferian depravity. They failed to win by overt conquest with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but fortunately they had already gained their replacement stronghold in the West, through covert subversion. The intergenerational project of Marxism has been sickeningly successful in the latter part of the 20th century, and people are only becoming wise to it now that we are deep into the 21st.
Many on the Conservative Christian Right expend their energies trying to conserve our language and preserve the meanings of the words that define our Western worldview. But many are beginning to realise that this battle is being quickly lost, and that we must fight on the front presented to us, not the one in distant past. In the immortal words of George Carlin:
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
And so as Christians, Right-Wingers, Nationalists, and Patriots, we must meet our enemy where they stand, and harness control of the words that they so skilfully use against us.
Consider the term given to those who sexually prey upon children:
The term is quite new, though this scourge of sexual depravity against the most vulnerable and innocent among us has surely existed much, much longer. The name was chosen by one man in particular.
Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902; full name Richard Fridolin Joseph Freiherr Krafft von Festenberg auf Frohnberg, genannt von Ebing) was an Austro–German psychiatrist and author of the foundational work Psychopathia Sexualis (1886).Wikipedia
Why Philia? Surely this must have been a mistake… after all, the word originally meant love, and was used in the Bible to describe the love amongst the disciples of Jesus!
–philia word-forming element meaning “friendship, fondness, tendency toward,” and in recent use “abnormal attraction to,” from Greek philia “affection,” from philos “loving,” which is of uncertain origin. Related: -philic.Etymonline
Indeed, Philia is one of the four Greek words for love, each of which feature in the Bible.
“Brotherly love”, and a term used in chemical science to describe chemical attractions that bind various molecules together, or draw them towards each other (e.g. hydrophiles). There is an implication of mutuality, and this is the term used to the describe the brotherly love within the Church; the love of thy fellow brethren in Christ – that irresistible connection you might feel with a stranger who is of similar genetic stock, or of similar religious or ideological persuasion.
Or “affection” as C.S. Lewis called it, is the love that is developed between genuine kin; family members, close friends, and even pets. It is a love that is shared between two or more people who are in close regular contact with one another – less universal than philia.
The highest and most pure love, the love of God for His church, and of Christ for His disciples. Sacrificial, selfless, spiritual love. Think Jesus on the cross. The love we Christians strive to feel and express for our Lord, and with the blessings of the Holy Spirit, a love we might get to experience in small doses and rare moments of connection with our Creator.
Romantic or sexual love; the love felt between a husband and wife. In the strict Biblical sense, this is quite a separate concept from lust (epithumeó) and the basic animal desires that might be attributed to sexual desire outside of a Biblical heterosexual marriage – though of course we all know that the term has long been co-opted to mean “anything that turns you on”, devoid of morality, religion, natural law, or any kind of legitimate love.
Do any of these terms appropriately fit the bill of someone who has an uncontrollable sexual lust for those who are too young to procreate, and too young to consent? I believe not.
I don’t know if others already use this term, but a friend of mine just coined (for me) the term paedovore (or pedovore, for the Americans) to replace the euphemistic “paedophile”. I love children, especially my own, but I am not what we commonly regard as a paedophile (though, in the technical linguistic sense, that’s what all who love children are, including Jesus Christ himself). It would seem that in the strictest use of this relatively new term, the word is wrong!
Paedophilia is commonly understood to mean a sexual desire for children, and given that this cannot be consensual (for children lack the biological requisites for procreation and the neurological development for full agency), and if enacted does irreparable and immeasurable damage to the child and society, it is better framed as a consumption instead of a –philic love (which if applied properly refers to something which of course is entirely wholesome). This euphemistic language is part of why it is apt to be reclassified today as a legitimate sexual preference, and not the sick and damnable disease that it is, worthy in the eyes of many of summary execution when acted upon.
Does this sound far-fetched? Don’t take my word for it. Check out these headlines (articles linked):
The Telegraph: ‘Paedophilia is natural and normal for males’
Wikipedia: North American Man/Boy Love Association
Here’s a list on Wikipedia of all the known groups worldwide committed to celebrating and legalising sexual activity with children. You might be surprised at just how many there are, and given that they have logos and legal organisation names, as well as this published directory, they are not exactly trembling in the shadows:
The evidence is clear: there is a growing worldwide movement to normalise paedophilia, largely spearheaded by social scientists (on behalf of the sick men who wish to abolish age of consent laws and allow children ‘freedom to choose’), who make the claim that the desire is an unchosen affliction (quite possibly true) but that the demonisation of the desire makes it impossible for the paedophile to come forward for fear of being ostracised or even harmed. Yes, once again, the potential perpetrator is being framed as the victim. The depravity of Social Justice knows no bounds.
Now I don’t believe that this is entirely without truth. It would seem from what we understand that paedophiles may indeed have different brain matter to people who have a normal non-sexual love for children, and they may not be able to control themselves. It may not be a disease at all, but rather an incurable mental defect. So how do we know the difference between those with self-control and those without? These social scientists would have you believe that by creating an inclusive society that treats paedophilia as a normal and acceptable desire, so long as it is not acted upon, we will see fewer crimes committed against innocent children, and more paedophiles seeking psychological care, or permanent solutions like voluntary isolation or chemical castration.
Really? Do we really think that’s where this rapidly progressive, “inclusive” society is headed?
It wasn’t long after this sexually-enabling appearance on Good Morning America that “Desmond is Amazing”, the “pioneering” drag-kid was filmed dancing in a gay strip club, after dark, for dollar bills. Why are the mainstream media and so many “social scientists” pushing so hard to normalise the sexualisation of children? Surely this can’t be helping those afflicted with the neurological defect we currently call paedophilia.
We have all heard the stories of what goes on in the pools and mansions of Hollywood. We know about what happened to the two Coreys (Feldman and Haim). We know that child sex trafficking is a lucrative business at the (still wide open) US-Mexican border. We know about Jimmy Savile in the UK. We know that the BBC covered for him.
The very walls of BBC buildings in the UK still hold the questionable artworks of known sexual deviant and child-abuser, Eric Gill.
While the hyper-feminine social engineers want to ensure that we infantilise and make victims out of those who would harm children (while at the same time “believing all women” and claiming there is a “rape culture” in Western nations, where there simply is not – go further East to find the real rape cultures), there are plenty of men in the West who would happily deal with this another way.
Curt Doolittle from the Propertarian Institute suggests less carrot, more stick, and I’m inclined to agree:
–The Judgement of Natural Law on Paedophilla–
From The Propertarian Institute’s website.
… a) A paraphilia: Paraphilia is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals. Such attraction may be labeled sexual fetishism. No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual sexual interests and paraphilic ones. There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the International Classification of Diseases.
… b) Pedophillia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for pre-pubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.
The criteria therefore is:
… i) obsessive or exclusive interest
… ii) in those under 13 years of age, and or the degree of development we attribute to those under 13 years of age.
… iii) by those 16 years of age or older
… iv) and at least five years older.
These are NOT evidence of pedophilia:
… a) photos of nude babies or children in one’s own family as documentation of the beauty of life.
… b) There is a long standing artistic tradition in western civilization of the nude form including that of the young. The difference between beauty, innocence, and virginity (promise of future fertility) and sexuality (opportunity in the present for consumption) is not a difficult one to judge by triangulation with traditional works of art. If there is a question there is no question.
… b) taking care of one’s own kin’s hygiene or taking one’s own kin to public toilets or changing rooms or other private places as is required of all of us. The conflation of male and female responsibilities in these matters has not helped us because it exposes ordinary men to unwarranted risk of false accusation.
… c) protecting, disciplining, educating, praising, talking to, amusing, or playing with children – which may include physical contact.
… d) incest – incest is a different crime – one of availability.
… e) natural experimentation between pubescents.
… f) natural aesthetic attraction to the beauty of those who are fertile if not yet fully mature enough to make rational decisions regarding the commitments of reproduction and offspring.
… g) As a general rule male female ratio of Male Age, then divided by two, then add seven, produces limits to non-coercieve relationships from 14 onward. Below 14, more than one year of difference is outside the limit.
… a) consumption of child pornography
… b) obsession in attention, speech, collection
… b) molestation
… c) co-morbidity
… … deficits in response inhibition,
… … smaller stature, left handedness, frontal development.
… … failed lateralization (ie: they’re feminine)
… … personality disorders (increase risk of acting)
“Brain Damage.” Current understanding is an in-utero attack on fetus and fetal proteins – particularly male – which prohibit development, giving more miscarriages, birth to lighter weight and smaller offspring. (CD: future research will undoubtedly show that this process is far more vast in affect than just sexual development. I have seen no, and expect to see no, variation on this general theme other than mother’s genetic predisposition to produce this immune response.)
… a) in-utero developmental defects (Potential)
… b) developmental trauma (Trigger)
… c) brain trauma (Trigger)
The defect is incurable because the developmental phase of the brain cannot be recreated. It is possible to use CBT to train certain low risk individuals but even this evidence is limited. (Important:) The individual lacks executive function necessary to suppress the underdeveloped and obsessive urges.
… a) Non-Reciprocal – violates voluntary reciprocity
… b) Harmful – violates imposition of harm
… d) Externality – produces vast externalities
… d) UnRestitutable – restitution is impossible
… e) Unstoppable – violates demand for cessation, placing the burden on the court:
… … Because the Law must:
… … … Provide restitution
… … … Provide punishment
… … … Prevent repetition or expansion
It is the judgment of the law that:
Pedophilia is an incurable defect, not disease.
Pedophiliacs cause harm closed to restitution
To those incapable of self defence,
And unable to engage in reciprocity,
Producing extraordinary (Vast) externalities for parental behavior in defence of children which increases with transportation rates, anonymity, and population density.
Pedophiles who signal risk, by:
… a) manifesting obsessive risk behaviors (watching, stalking, talking)
… b) possession of, use of, or creation of, child pornography
… c) molestation
… d) association with one another
… e) conspiracy to engage in any of the above
Shall be permanently removed from the population by:
… i) death by burning for molestation
… i) death by hanging for all other violations
… ii) permanent, irrevocable isolation in hard labor prisons (camps)
… i) no judge nor jury nor polity may warranty the others in society from this harm;
… i) no legislation or regulation of finding of law may circumvent this natural law whether in in act or consequence.
… ii) and any who speak of, propose, author, or adjudicate such shall be held liable for consequence.
AND WHEREAS, CONVERSELY ;
false accusation is:
… a) harmful to the accused
… b) exposes the accused to risk of death
… c) produces vast externalities whether or not true
… d) is closed to restitution
… a) the court shall use harshest possible publishment in the punishment of false accusers, and the highest possible restitution, ensuring that the false accuser’s quality of life is reduced to half that of the falsely accused.
–This is the Law–
(From: Propertarian Institute Website)
This piece of legal writing was lifted from a social media post by Curt, and is part of the larger body of work he is currently completing with others at the Propertarian Institute; the writing of a new Constitution aiming to complete the scientific method and create a document defining the Natural Law.
In Curt Doolittle’s own words:
“Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.”Curt Doolittle, Propertarian Institute, Kiev
I’m flattered to see that my comment on that post was incorporated into the website article:
The beauty of this piece of law is that:Comment by James Fox Higgins
Anyone with a mild perversion but some retention of agency will NOT commit the crime, because the punishment dis-incentivises it so severely.
So those who DO harm children in this manner are literally doing it because they have NO agency or self-control, which makes them, by definition, an uncontrollable cost to society.
If they recognise their own lack of agency, they can turn themselves in and serve the community from isolation. If not… feel the flames.
Civilisation has become feminised to the point of it being unsafe for our children. Laws have become relative in the social justice mode, no longer colour- or class-blind, but now, entirely inverted to protect the wicked, and often punish the innocent. A return to the masculine (dare I say, patriarchal) origins of Western law and norms, one that is intolerant in the extreme – violently so – seems to be the sensible and likely effective recourse for this madness that has turned America, Europe, and soon Australia, into the new Sodom and Gomorrah.
Whether you agree with the harsh stick of Propertarianism’s Natural Law or not, perhaps you would agree that we should at least call the affliction by a proper name, and I don’t think paedophilia cuts it, etymologically or symbolically. After all, as the truism often attributed to Socrates states:
The beginning of wisdom is the definition of termsSocrates?
Are paedophiles actually pederasts (pedo-, child + eros, sexual love)? Or shall we use the Biblical understanding of eros as a divine and true sexual love, and not a mere animal lust and malevolence, to inform us?
I would argue that, in the spirit of the linguistic and rhetorical battleground to which we have been driven by agents of Satan, these purveyors of the lies at the heart of the Social Justice movement, we must take the offensive, and brand those with the desire to corrupt the innocence of children with their depraved and highly destructive lust with a name as insidious as the fallout of their crimes: they are the eaters of children. They are Kindlifresser.
They are paedovores.