I agree that people seem to be waking up a bit now. In the seventies there was a movement in Britain called "The Paedophile Information Exchange" and a lot of MP's were supporters - they wanted the age of sexual consent lowered - you can see why now, being as too many of them are of that persuasion. Those MP's scuttled like rats to distance themselves from it when public outrage finally closed it down and paedophilia became one the most despicable crimes that people could commit. How could it even have been allowed to happen? We are talking about sex with children for God's sake. I think the public will only accept so much before they turn - and from what I can see they are turning in a big way. When push comes to shove there are still more straight - honest - decent people in the world than there are deviants of any description - that's a hope I hold onto.

I have thought about this a little bit, a fair amount I suppose. The political elite in America seem to be populated with many pedophiles, Satan worshipers in some cases, murderers, etc. They are really scum, sociopaths who have learned to act normal in public, to mirror and mimic the values and behaviors of the voters. I think there are a couple of reasons for this. The more obvious one is that extremely self-serving, narcissists and sociopaths are attracted to positions of power for many reasons, one of which is the protection such positions afford them.

But I believe another reason is that, in the case of those who are pedophiles in particular, they like to control the party mechanism such that campaign support is only given to candidates who are also pedophiles, or who can be blackmailed for other reasons. They promote, support, and protect each other. Power corrupts, and the ultra wealthy and powerful all too often become corrupted by their power and take advantage of it. They can buy their way out of most trouble, or use their influence with other high ranking perverts in office to make the trouble disappear.
There is also a class of very powerful people who can destroy their enemies, even to the point of having them killed, and do so with virtually no chance of being held accountable. When people wield that sort and level of power, they may find it too tempting not to use it. Once that threshold has been crossed, they know how simple it is to 'solve problems' that way.

A late friend of mine served in the Marines four years in Vietnam, and I believe he was tapped by some intelligence organization afterward. He was tight-lipped about it all throughout his life, even though I was his closest friend. But he spoke more freely about his work in the service. He was given special assignments, sometimes wearing civilian clothes to slip among the enemy, passing as a Russian advisor, to get close to his targets and kill them. He was an extremely remarkable individual. One mission in particular was a virtual suicide mission, but he made his way back after killing a general and two of his aides in Hanoi. Anyway, he told me that after his first kill, then his second, it became very easy to do it. I think it is a similar process for these people in very powerful positions. Once they start to become corrupted, any pangs of guilt they may have had about crossing that line quickly diminish.

I think that freshmen Congressmen or MPs are targeted by the corrupt leadership, even to the point of being set up, secretly filmed with minors who flashed fake IDs, or whatever. Then they can be blackmailed so they will never risk turning in their corrupt colleagues.

I believe the ultra wealthy, global elites, people like Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire with the private sex island where he had parties with underage girls and boys (Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor), such people spend a great deal of money to ensure that politicians who are corruptible, and who share their perversions, are elected to office. I believe this can help explain why we see these people in power. You would think that a pedophile would be exposed, run out of office, and sent to prison. For the reasons given above, that doesn't happen, unless they are so publicly exposed and so clearly proven guilty that their network of perverts cannot protect them.

I agree with all you say - but I honestly believe that the general public are becoming more and more aware of what is going on amongst these rich perverts and there is a rise is people who are saying "no more". As can be seen with the "me too" movement - wealthy and powerful people (usually men) are being brought to account for their actions (R.Kelly is currently under investigation) Powerful people who were previously thought to be untouchable are being put in the spotlight to answer their accusers. So - hopefully - this trend will continue and their power will eventually diminish. I think with the broadcasting of so many crime series people are becoming very aware that paedophiles - once in a job around children - will hire other paedophiles - people are looking out for this kind of thing nowadays - it's no longer easy to operate in secrecy. Even the Catholic church has had to answer for their paedophile and rapist priests. I am an atheist - so I have no axe to grind - but how people can still allow their children to be in the same room as a priest unsupervised is beyond me. The power of religion I suppose. I think the ultra rich who think they are invulnerable will ultimately push their behaviour to such lengths that it will not be able to be ignored and they will be exposed and punished - they can't help themselves - they are all basically psychopathic by nature - their very success and power proves that - I don't believe you can get that rich and powerful without being completely ruthless and a taker of risks. That aspect of their personalities will lead to their downfalls. At least I hope it will.

I hope so as well. But they are so very cunning. They know how to manage these movements. The Rockefellers were instrumental in starting the women's lib movement for example. Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo, the late filmmaker about this during the period of time when he was trying to recruit Russo, an influential person, to be part of the elite. Russo said that until then he had always viewed the women's lib movement as a good thing, and as a natural organic movement. But Rockefeller said they started the movement for two main purposes. One, with women seeking independence and parity with men, with them joining the workforce in numbers, there were more taxes being paid, which ultimately get paid to the central banks since they create the money supply and loan it at interest to governments. The more insidious reason is that with both parents working, the main influence on the children would more and more become the schools and the media. The deep state could then become the surrogate mother to the children, instilling the values and beliefs it chose. Mom and Dad mostly saw the kids a short time in the evening and the mornings before school. It is sickening how this became our reality, the only reality most people have known for generations now. I remember when my mother was always at home, always there. For a majority of children in today's world, mom has to work, and so does dad, if he is even there. No fault of theirs, it is the way society is today. Inflation has made it so two incomes are nearly always required now for a two parent home. A single mother works her fingers to the bone. And this was the plan when they started the women's lib movement.

But they cannot fully control these movements; I think it is much more difficult for them to control people, what they believe, than it used to be. So that is hopeful.
R. Kelly has apparently felt carte blanche to rape minors and pay them to keep silent for decades. At least a dozen women have given statements of accusation against him, and several more states are also looking into bringing charges against him. There are rumors that he has women held prisoner, and police are reportedly investigating this. And he has apparently paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to several individuals and their families to lie to investigators, which is obstruction of justice. This 'gangster' will spend his life in prison, if there is any justice.

The cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein are also good news. These serial molesters and rapists may finally be facing justice. Though in Epstein's case, he initially was given reduced charges and a very light sentence several years ago. But it looks like his case may be reopened. More women are talking and the prosecutor who failed to charge him appropriately will hopefully face justice as well.

These people are all liberals so they likely felt they would always get a pass. That has often been the case in America. A female masseuse spoke to a reporter about Vice President Al Gore's sexual assault against her, aggressively demanding oral sex from her. Her friends told her she shouldn't press charges because Gore was "good on the women's issues". And of course, Bill Clinton has a long history of assaulting women. But when some of them reported him, they were harshly attacked in the media and threatened. Liberals are supposed to get away with the behavior they denounce. But hopefully that will change, hopefully it is changing. (But I will be very surprised if Bill Clinton ever has to face justice for his many assaults.)

I guess Catholics whose experience was with non-predator priests simply think it couldn't happen to their children. You know that mental outlook "it won't happen to me". Nobody expects to be in a car accident, though they are aware that accidents happen all the time. I take long trips and have never had the slightest inclination that my trip would be anything but uneventful. So I guess that is how Catholics think about the issue, if their experience growing up was positive. But with the revelations which have come out in recent years, they should probably rethink that. I read the Catholic Church has paid out around $4 Billion in hush money to victims. That is a LOT of dough. You would think that for purely monetary reasons they would want to become aggressive in dealing with pervert priests, even if they didn't care about the children.

I hope to God that the really wicked people in power will finally face exposure and justice, even though it shakes up the existing power structure to its core. The hacked emails from Hillary Clinton and her staff member John Podesta revealed some horrible, dark, stuff. References to "spirit cooking", coded references to various predilections of pedophilia, and pedo parties, and what look like references to killing children were found in the emails. I am so grateful and thankful that she was not elected President. She is a wicked person.

All the moreso because she is a woman - and despite history - we still expect women to be less ruthless and evil than men. There is a nursery worker (female) who took photographs of herself abusing very young children and distributed them to her paedophile friends - our wondrous parole board are considering her release despite the fact she hasn't served all of her paltry sentence. The sentencing for sexual abuse of children in this country is ludicrous - I think it is a maximum of seven years and they only serve half of that anyway. The sentences are higher depending on the severity of the abuse - but in my view they are never enough. Does the justice system think that these people will ever change? Of course they wont - they will go on to re-offend and more children will be traumatised for life. It makes you wonder why they are so lenient - the most likely answer is what is usually is - money. Personally I would have no problem with capital punishment for abusers of children. It is the only way to rid the world of them.

In American prisons child molesters are an endangered species. I suppose if it were the case of a 20 year old who got sent up for sex with a 17 year old girl, that might not count. I'm not sure about that, but if it were the case of two youngsters in love and one was slightly underage, that probably would not be a problem.

But if it is an adult who likes to diddle children, they are frequently killed in prison. I hear the prison officials try to keep their crime a secret, but that is hard to do. I am sure the families of the abused children might be motivated to send word somehow to the inmate population that prisoner X is a child molester. Prisoners may have children of their own, or they might have suffered emotional pain from being abused as kids themselves. And people generally don't like child molesters. Most shun them, and some kill them.

But the liberals in society are trying to mainstream underage sex, just as they are attempting to mentally abuse kids with gender identity confusion. When I was growing up if someone tried to make a boy dress and act like a girl they would have faced severe problems. I don't know if it would have constituted child abuse in a legal sense, but the public would have viewed it as such. And some members might have sought "frontier justice" against them. I am sure you can recall a time not very long ago when the general public would have reacted with shock and revulsion if they heard of adults trying to make little boys dress up and act like girls. It fits the definition of grooming the child to become an effeminate homosexual, even if they have not seduced the child into performing sex acts (yet). People would have looked the other way if someone took a bat and broke their arms and legs. Well, many people would have looked the other way. But today the leftists are trying to bring charges against parents who refuse to crossdress their boys. It is insane.

They are going too far. They cannot help themselves. I hope there is a backlash of biblical proportions. I hope Trump is able to bring charges against dozens or hundreds of these pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and insurrectionists. I would like to see them tried in military tribunals because the deep state has corrupted our judiciary to the point that I don't believe justice is very likely within the civilian system.

I have never heard of making children cross dress in Britain thank goodness - it would definitely come under the banner of child abuse here. There used to be a time when child molesters (nonces) had to be put in isolation in prisons because they would be attacked in the general population. (Peter Sutcliffe - the Yorkshire Ripper - although not a child molester - killed an innocent 16 year old girl - he has been attacked numerous times in prison and is now virtually completely blind as a result) You don't hear much about that happening these days - crimes that used to shock people into acts of revenge don't seem to have the same effect any more - and I believe that is down to society becoming increasingly liberal. We do have paedophile hunters - ordinary people who pretend to be children on line - they lure the deviants into a meeting and then report them to the police. (sometimes they take punishment into their own hands) The police actively discourage this happening - they say it could be interpreted as entrapment - but what else are people supposed to do with a decimated police force that don't have the time or inclination to seek out these monsters. I don't quite know the proper terms for this - but in history periods of decadence are sometimes followed by periods of extreme morality - one can only hope.

I guess I meant coercing children to cross dress by subtle means. I recall a case I read about recently where the parents were divorced, the mother was very liberal and she thought her son was transgender and she dressed him as a girl. The father was able to get custody of his son. He didn't try to force the boy to change, he didn't give him any encouragement one way or the other. I guess he had to agree to let things progress as the boy wanted in order to get custody. Anyway, on his own the boy immediately began dressing as a boy, playing ball, doing all the things normal boys usually do. He completely quit dressing like a girl and playing with dolls, etc. It was all because his mother thought he was a transgender. I suspect she encouraged it, suggested it. I think she was probably sincere in her belief, but she had confirmation bias. She saw what she believed. The boy was likely trying to please his mother and the mother was chasing her belief that she was helping the boy be his "true self".
That is the insanity going on today with this transgender nonsense.

A college student was expelled recently because he disagreed with his professor about the gender issue. His position is that there are only two genders. The school expelled him. The left is extremely intolerant. They have become the thought police. But it is becoming so ridiculous that people have had enough I think.

I actually read that report and I remember thinking "Good for you young man - you can think for yourself and you're not afraid to stand up for what you think is right". What he said was perfectly correct and he should sue that school for expelling him. There ARE only two genders - male and female - some birth defects might result in genitalia not being definitive - but that does not constitute a third gender - merely a confusion between the two. The idea of being transgender has resulted in a transgender (so called) male - who said that he was a woman and demanded to be put in the female section of a hospital - they caved in- the result? he raped two women - I think they were elderly too. The criteria in these cases should be blindingly obvious - any patient with a penis will not be allowed in a womens ward. The PC brigade struck again to the trauma of two helpless and terrified women - well done you lot.

I hope the two women sued the hospital for malpractice and reckless endangerment and anything else the lawyers could think of. I think it will take huge punitive damage awards to force institutions to adopt conventional and sensible outlooks and policies.

Gender used to be a language term only. The use of the word to mean 'how an individual perceives their sex' is a recent development. Liberals are quick to treat almost anything as serious and valid if it challenges traditional values. A few years ago some sensible professors, I think they were a mathematician and a philospher, decided to create a nonsensical paper and submit it to a journal to see if they could get it published. Here is a short blurb on it:

"...Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle, published a hoax gender studies paper, entitled The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct, in the peer-reviewed, pay-to-publish social science journal Cogent Social Sciences. The paper was written in the jargon typical of gender studies papers but was deliberately constructed to be completely, even comically, nonsensical."

The paper was readily accepted and published. It just goes to show that gender studies is a fake science.

Fuelled by fake intellectuals.

I have a matter I find interesting I would like to ask your opinion on. It concerns a gay male school teacher in Birmingham who decided that children should learn about lesbian, gay and bisexual matters. These children range from four to eleven years old. He started with a book about two daddy penguins raising a baby penguin. Despite massive protests from the Muslim community (most of his class are Muslim children - Birmingham has a 37% non white population) his idea has been taken up nationally and is now set to become compulsory in all schools as of 2020. Now - what do you make of that? It is a massive victory for the gay community of course - but what if there is a deeper reason behind it - if you were a Muslim would you come to Britain with your children if you knew that every school was teaching what is anathema to them? People need to work to survive in Britain - so home schooling is not really an option - would you take your children out of Britain if there was no other option? Private schooling is extremely expensive - especially if you have more than one child. Is this a very subtle way of reducing the Muslim presence in Britain? I would be very interested in your learned opinion !!

That had never occurred to me, but on reflection I kind of doubt it, unless there has been a massive shift in the left in Britain I am not aware of.
What I mean is, the left globally has seemed to be on the same page concerning some key issues. They wish to 'normalize' gay relationships. And for the past 10 to 15 years they have been supporting and pushing immigration of people from non-traditional, backgrounds. For example, in America they want to bring in poor immigrants of color, non European, non Christian groups(with the exception of very poor Catholics who are more likely to vote for liberals), and so on. They have been screaming for rights for Muslims, special rooms in universities where Muslims can put their prayer rugs down and pray, special foot baths install in restrooms on campus, and so on. (But of course, Christians cannot pray in school; there must be separation of church and state-um...unless the church is Muslim).

My perception was that the liberals in the UK and Europe, the leadership anyway, was also on board with the same immigration goals. It seemed to me that the idea was to bring in any groups who were likely to vote for the liberals, and whose presence would dilute and diminish traditional cultural practices and beliefs. Destroy the culture, and replace it with something the liberals want. Oddly, they seem to believe they can get the Muslims to go along with them.

It seemed ironic to me to see flaming gay pansies marching in parades holding signs demanding rights for Muslims. Those gay people are not only stupid, they are angry at me because they are stupid. Hey, it's not my fault. They are ignorant of Muslim beliefs and practices, of the way they lie to their hosts until they reach a sizable percentage of the population (as in Lebanon where they slaughtered the very families which gave the refugees food and shelter, because they were infidels). They are suicidal, and they are a danger to my country. That has been the character of the left.

So if there is now a collaboration between the liberals and others to discourage Muslim immigration by these means, it would indicate a shift in liberal policy regarding Muslim immigration.

But it wouldn't work. The population jihad the Muslims are waging doesn't involve families for the most part. Many have pointed out that the waves of "refugees" seeking relief from their war torn countries are comprised of nearly all military aged males, few old people, few children or women. If life is so bad back at home, wouldn't they want to bring their wives, children, their parents, etc.? The goal of the Muslims engaging in population jihad is to shift the voting demographics enough that they can take over from within. The young single males don't care for now what is being taught in public schools. They didn't bring children over here. If they start families, they will likely form enclaves and start their own schools. You can be sure they won't hire any gay teachers to indoctrinate their kids. If they were forced to hire some gays by law, those teachers would wind up leaving voluntarily, or having accidents.

Look at France and the hundreds of black military aged males attacking the police force to demand that their immigration status be finalised. They may get away with that in Britain - but France is a different kettle of fish - they will probably deport the lot of them.

@strangebedfellows said:

Look at France and the hundreds of black military aged males attacking the police force to demand that their immigration status be finalised. They may get away with that in Britain - but France is a different kettle of fish - they will probably deport the lot of them.

Yes, things may reach the boiling point before long. If the government in France doesn't toss them out, if they capitulate to the criminal antics of this mob, they will be admitting that they have no rule of law, and signalling that they can be bullied.

In Germany and in Sweden, I have read of groups of citizens fighting back against the Muslim mobs who have terrorized citizens. Sweden is now the rape capital of the free world, perhaps the whole world. If the governments in Europe do not step up and do the right thing, they may find civil unrest happening on a large scale, something akin to civil war.