Skip to comments.Meet 'Women's Auxiliary of NAMBLA'
Posted on 07/22/2002 7:57:27 AM PDT by scripter
click here to read article
"Abels data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."
Thats a staggering percentage of homosexual to heterosexual child abuse. Homosexuals are far more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, the Freund Watson studies bare this out too. Homosexuality is a paraphilic disorder interrelated to incest, bestiality and pedophilia.
Speaking of hypocrisy, here in PA there is a major thrust to make sure that convenience store owners know that selling cigarettes to people under 18 is illegal. Why? Are convenience store owners acting in-loco-parentis? They should be able to sell anything to anyone with the money, right? At least, that's the argument the public library uses when we ask them to restrict porn from children?
Someone forgot the word "homosexual" in the above.
I wonder if someday we'll need a NAMWLA (North American Man Woman Love Association), as the other groups just may eventually put us into the minority.
My mouth dropped open when I read the name of the site. "Butterfly Kisses" is one of biggest surprise hits in the history of the Billboard charts, and should have been included in VH1's "100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders," but strangely was excluded.
I wholeheartedly agree that Carlisle should go after them tooth and nail, if only to expose them.
These people need some serious "counseling"...
Watch out, or someone may accuse you of "hate" speech. We are definitely heading into the end times...
I think you mean "abhorrent." (I HOPE that's what you mean.)
These people need some serious "counseling"...
My gut reaction is "rope therapy."
The more we fight immoral relativism the longer well be around.
I hardly ever make a goof like that, but you're right. I had meant to use "abhor" as an adjective, but I spelled "abhor" wrong too. And you're right, the adjective form of "abhor" IS abhorrent, as in detestable, repulsive, repugnant, and disgusting.
That'll teach not to create my own words anymore... :)
I hope you're right. At the rate it's going though, the ancient Mayans may just have been on to something, as their calendar ends in the year 2012.
You won't even want to read the words on the personal stories page - one author recalls her "first time" (at 10 years old) with her 12-year-old friend's mother. The article goes into touch-by-touch pornographic detail. Completely disgusting.
I'm not really sure that legal action can be taken against just the promotion of any illegal act. If that were the case then anyone who has ever advocated repealing any law that criminalized any action would be in trouble.
Only if the server is located within the US, actually. If it is outside the US, it is outside our jurisdiction, and the law cannot do much, if anything.
The citizenry, on the other hand, could contact their ISP, or even perhaps do things like a DOS attack or hack into it, putting up some not very nice things. (Not that I am advising that, of course. It is, nevertheless, an option, and should be taken only as such.)
You obviously have never been to their website, then. I know, having visited there in the past (I am not sure where it is now, though. It keeps disappearing and reappearing like a cockroach.), they had a manual available to its members on how to get close to, befriend, and molest a child, as well as how to get away with it. In fact, the existence of this manual is part of the plaintiff's case in Curley v. NAMBLA, a $100 million lawsuit pending in Massachusetts (You may have heard of this case; this is the one where the ACLU decided to defend NAMBLA pro bono.).
There should be no question, no doubt, NAMBLA is a criminal organization. So why isn't John Ashcroft investigating them under the RICO statutes at an absolute minimum?
Well, that is a telling comment....from someone who knows, eh?
I think that there is a lot of kinky sex among the kind of driven people who rise to the top in business and politics, and that they are the people supplying "cover" by pooh-poohing popular outrage over vice, morals outrages, and their perpetrators.
Of course, if you follow that road, you wind up unable to make a moral case for keeping a Dahmer or a Gacy or a Charlie Manson in prison -- because it's all morals!
He might be, but right now he's up to his eyeballs in homicidal Arabs.
Still, I'm deeply gratified that the prosecution of people like the NAMBLA conspirators is in the hands of an upright man like John Ashcroft, rather than those of his predecessor.
Actually, I wonder if a majority of the American Psychological Association don't agree with you. You're aware, I'm sure (I can send you a link or an article), of how the gay movement rolled the APA in the early 70's and got homosexuality deleted from the APA's diagnotic manual as Step One of their bustin'-out move to get out of the shadows and into the Clinton White House.
Looking at survey data from the APA membership, it would appear that a majority of the older members still believe that the origins of homosexuality are psychological as well as genetic.
The younger members have been propagandized assiduously for over 30 years by homosexual APA members who have taken care to dominate the appropriate committees and control its message on homosexuality, both to the practice and to the public. But the older members still aren't buying it. That refusal to change professional opinions despite all the propaganda and eyewash that's been thrown out there is damning, AFAIC, of the APA/gay message.
Oh, and one last cavil -- people using the term "pedophilia", beware. It's the latest sand-in-the-eyes tactic by the gays and their media pals, to confuse homosexual ephebophilia, or love of youth (usually called "pederasty" instead), with the pedophilia that preys on young children (under age 8, say).
We have to be clear about terms. But at some point the distinction between an urge to ephebophilia and one toward pedophilia begins to blur. I'm sure there's a substantial difference between the two for the diagnostician, but how do you tell on the street?
This is the cached version of their homepage on Google. Its links get you into the rest of the site. (And it's a pretty sick and twisted site, BTW. Don't go there if you're easily offended.)
I respectfully disagree, its the ages between 8 and puberty where homosexuals are more likely to abuse children, this age is well within the definition of pedophilia. However, definitions aside, its ludicrous to distinguish between pedo/ephebo philia unless they are seeking therapy; discerning the differences between bestiality, incest and homosexuality would be equally as meaningless. The APA removed homosexuality from the DSM III as a disorder if the patient has good psychosocial functioning, showed positive well-being and had no anxiety related distress, how many pedophiles do you think can pass that kind of diagnosis?
homosexual APA members who have taken care to dominate the appropriate committees and control its message on homosexuality
Ah yes, the self-serving division 44 where the inmates are running the asylum. I did an impromptu check on their members, out of 15 investigations, 10 were openly homosexual. Division 44 is in charge of making APA policy on homosexuality, theres a conflict of interest when the committee is disproportionately homosexual.
Yes because homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. See Freund Watson 1992.
"Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.
His paper describes psychiatry's attempt to adopt a new "adaptational" perspective of normality. During this time, the profession was beginning to sever itself from established clinical theory--particularly psychoanalytic theories of unconscious motivation--claiming that if we do not readily see "distress, disability and disadvantage" in a particular psychological condition, then the condition is not disordered.
On first consideration, such a theory sounds plausible. However we see its startling consequences when we apply it to a condition such as pedophilia. Is the happy and otherwise well-functioning pedophile "normal"? As Dr. Bieber argues in this article, psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; and social effectiveness-that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively--"may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order."...
Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic and statistical manual as "the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals."
Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if, as homosexuals, they were accepted as normal. "They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort." To promote this aim, Dr. Bieber reports, "Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal."
A task force was set up to study homosexuality, but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. There followed riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who increased the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.
Will preventive therapy for homosexuality be prohibited, Dr. Bieber wondered, when homosexuality is normalized?
Furthermmore-is it the proper domain of psychiatry to remove diagnoses to eliminate prejudice?
Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the "distress and social disability" criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.'s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II -- and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.
SummaryThe factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:
- Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.
- A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act.
- There was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
Although late, some may find the following report from Culture Wars magazine interesting. It concerns Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the "Abbe Hoffman" of France, and a major figure in the revolutions of '68.
In a discussion which took place on Germany's second TV channel not too long ago, the former comrade in arms of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and current French(!) "Green" delegate to the European Senate, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, was suddenly confronted with his past as a revolutionary of the '68 period as well as his former activities as "pedagoue" in a left-wing, alternative, red Kindergarten. It was the return of a past that allowed a closer look at what has come to be known as the '68 movement.'
The topic isn't pleasant. We're talking about ideologically motivated social experiments with children in the one area where it's possible to damage them the most. .... In the dogmatic certainty which the Marxist gospel provided as a blueprint for changing society, they [the revolutionaries of '68 used children as experimental guinea pigs in the sensitive area of sexual development.....We're dealing with the topic because it makes clear just how the irresponsible behavior of people like Cohn-Bendit can now be found in the highest offices in both Germany and Austria [and I'm sure many other countries], and how these people dominate public discussion in both countries. These same piople are quick to attack anyone who disagrees with them as fascists. These same people will find this retrospective on 1968 a source of infamy.
[The following exchange on German TV makes clear what the author means by "infamy."]
ZDF: Was Daniel ever employed as a teacher in one of red day care centers?
Daniel: Yes, of course, of course.
ZDF: Did he publish the following text about his experiences in the day care center: "It often happened to me that children would unzip my fly and begin to fondle me."
At that point the eloquent European Parliamentarian had the look of a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car. Daniel suddenly found himself in the lion's den, observed by millions of TV viewers. What Cohn-Bendit then stammered out deserves to be quoted in extenso:
Daniel: Nothing real happened, but it sounds so real.
ZDF: You sound like the day care center Bukowski in this text! (Charles Bukowski is an American author who gives very graphic descriptions of his diverse sex life.)
Daniel: Yes, but that's the problem, that I believed, if I were to only in an abstract manner...then you discuss and then you don't discuss it. And in this situation I have attempted to create a history out of the various situations and occurrences that were part of the discussion in the day care center, things that I observed in part, by using the first person pronoun, saying things that, uh, I'm happy to discuss, in other words, yes.
ZDF: How do you explain the writing of such a text to your 10-year-old son?
Daniel: Yes, I have other problems. Yes, exactly. How do I discuss things like abortion with my 10-year-old son. For example, I want...so in other words, I want women to have these rights.
ZDF: Yes, but ultimately we still have to ask how do you explain this to him?
Daniel: Yes, if my 10-year-old son were to read this text, then I would explain the situation, explain the situation, to him precisely by saying that things like this were being discussed back then. And you know, it's the same with teachers nowadays, how do you explain to your 10-year-old son, who wants to get into the bathtub with you? Yes, or this, yes, you have to say something, yes or no in some form. These are real problems....
Britain's Guardian did an article which can be reached here. Don't have a German language link at the moment. (Oh, but to have this exchange on videotape!!!)
23 August 2002
Butterfly Kisses has moved to a new address.
They appear to have a new email address at a security company with a contact name in Mountain View, CA. Looks like their site is gone for now. That's a good thing!
Administrative Contact: Srinivasan, Arvind email@example.com 1265 Montecito Avenue Suite 106 Mountain View, CA 94043 US 650.968.8989 650.968.9089 Technical Contact: Admin, DNS firstname.lastname@example.org 1265 Montecito Avenue Suite 106 Mountain View, CA 94043 US 650.968.8989 650.968.9089The way the homosexuals went after Dr. Laura's sponsors gives me some ideas here with ziplip.com...
David Ehrenstein, a gay fascist propagandist and Hollywood film critic (and self-appointed persecutor of magazine editor Andrew Sullivan), has written a book on the overthrow of the APA. He of course took another point of view, but in between his agitprop-terrorist fulminations on Salon's "TableTalk", his pride of authorship led him to divulge the method by which the APA was turned.
It seems that the principal investigators of homosexuality were, some of them, themselves gay. Gay-rights spear-carriers went to these people and offered to "out" them if they failed to see the light and support the new position rallying around the famous study that laid down the new rationale you outlined for "discovering" that homosexuality was not a paraphilia and not a disorder, if other mental-health criteria were satisfied.
So in short, major support was gathered for the DSM-3 rewrite via plain old blackmail.
Ehrenstein was eloquent in his disgust for gay psychiatrists who were engaged in psychotherapy work on other gays to attempt to reorient them. He said that he felt that it was a) hypocritical of them and b) deeply cynical of them to accept pay and emoluments for doing what the straight community wanted done "to" other gays.
Ehrenstein is a gay essentialist who believes it is the duty of the gay psychiatrist or psychologist to assist the embryonic gay in his development and self-realization. Ehrenstein didn't share his opinion of the practice described by the street phrase, "skinning some chicken".
So under the criteria accepted for DSM-3, an otherwise well-adjusted pyromaniac could not be ethically treated against his will.
Sounds good to me.
rallying around the famous study that laid down the new rationale
Are you talking about the Hooker Study? Im not aware of any other studies other than a vote from the board of trustees, Sabshin, Spitzer, et al followed by a vote of only 58% from the APA (psychiatric) general body in 74.
Ehrenstein didn't mention any names in his post to me. I don't know, not having read his book, whether he used any names in his book on the subject. I'm not sure even which book he discussed it in, but it was most likely Open Secrets: Gay Hollywood, 1928-2000.
Here is David Ehrenstein's post to me on Salon "TableTalk"'s thread, which is the Dr. Laura Schlessinger thread now in their "Social Issues/ Attic" folder:
David Ehrenstein - 07:28 am Pacific Time - May 24, 2000 - #276 of 867
Someday Andrew Sullivan's Gonna End.
What "older professional opinion" are you talking about? Are you aware of the history of psychiatry re gays and lesbians? Talk about "wiggle room"!
Until 1973, when gay activists forced the establishment to change course (thanks in no small part to pressure exerted on the closet queens who were a mainstay of said establishment) gays and lesbians were a cash cow. "Dr." Laura is disinclined to regad those udders as having run dry. And she is joined in this by Janet Parshall and the usual suspects.
That is the quote. As for the names of individual "closeted gays", he mentioned the names of Harry Stack Sullivan and Donald Webster Cory in another post following this one. He never gave me any particulars about Cory, but on a different thread (which, having spent about six hours excavating that last post, I think I'll refrain from trying to research) he said that Sullivan had made a living giving psychotherapy to other gays including aversion therapy for their homosexuality. Ehrenstein made it clear that he felt that Sullivan's motives were venal, cynical, and deeply immoral, given Sullivan's own homosexuality.