Political philosopher Noam Chomsky once referred to the mainstream media in the US as the largest and most sophisticated propaganda operation in human history.
The mainstream media, which is owned by just six corporations, does more than just advertise for the pharmaceutical industry: it attempts to shape our values and perceptions.
And now this propaganda machine and its surrogates are attempting to engineer a society where the desire to rape or exploit children — euphemistically called “pedophilia” — is normalized.
The reason this is happening, as we shall see below, is that many of the most powerful media moguls and Hollywood luminaries are themselves pedophiles.
Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood have testified publicly that the news and entertainment industry is infested by child rape rings, likening it to a society of “vultures” who prey on the vulnerable.
The propaganda is phased out incrementally in three stages.
First, the term ‘pedophilia’ is itself used as a euphemism for what is, objectively, a desire to rape or exploit children. When they redefine it as “attraction to minors,” that is an abuse of language.
Second, a fallacious inference is made from the assumption that pedophilia is a neurological condition to the conclusion that sympathy rather than shame ought to be reserved for men who want to rape or exploit children.
(There are many problems with this line of reasoning. It is simply false that the desire to rape or exploit children is a neurological condition over which one has no control. There is no extant body of independent, controlled, peer-reviewed scientific research that supports such a notion, which is why the propaganda peddlers must use loose pseudo-scientific weasel phrases like “studies suggest.” Moreover, it does not follow that men with the desire to rape or exploit children should not be morally blamed. Even if something were a neurological condition (which it isn’t, in this case), it does not vitiate one’s autonomy of thought and volition, and so it does not preclude negative moral evaluation. But the worst problem is that by sympathizing with such men, it silences the real victims: the children. If someone has a desire to rape vulnerable victims but by sheer luck, or fear of prison, hasn’t acted on it yet, they should feel deep shame and thereby seek ways of correcting their moral deformity, rather than viewing themselves as a “victim” and demanding that society sympathize with them.)
Third, with the errors in reasoning and ambiguous language in place, the propagandists will float the idea that pedophilia ought to be accepted. This is done mostly implicitly by framing the issue as a “debate,” advocating policy changes, comparing pedophiles to minorities, or accusing those who reject the abusers of bigotry.
As an example of media propaganda, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring that pedophilia is “not a crime” (Yes, quite clearly these people don’t want Johnny Law knocking on their door.)
The article is replete with pseudo-science, euphemisms, linguistic sleights of hand, and assertions without argument. For example, it characterizes pedophilia as a “disorder” that “these people [pedophiles] are living with.”
People who want to rape or exploit children, you see, are victims “living with” a condition that happened to them, as if they caught a cold. They have no choice. Of course this isn’t true, but again, even if it were, it doesn’t follow that it isn’t morally reprehensible.
The article inserts a soundbite about “recent studies” which “suggest” that the author’s opinion is correct. None of the studies are cited, of course, and instead readers must depend on the author’s vague interpretation of their results. Thus we are treated with claims like this: “Men with pedophilia are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous, a finding that strongly suggests a neurological cause.”
The implicit idea is that men who want to rape or exploit children are suffering from an affliction, much like people diagnosed with cancer, and so the consequence (without always being stated) is that they are not subject to moral evaluation and shame but ought to be treated with compassion. The claim that pedophilia is a condition that “happens to” men rather than an internal conscious mental state involving attitudes and desires functions to remove moral blameworthiness.
Any mental activity, sexual or otherwise, can be broadly described with reference to neuroscientific phenomena — and citing vague neural activity as an excuse for actions is simply a fancier way of saying “the devil made me do it.” It is patently fallacious to assume that correlative neural activity precludes higher-order conscious states involving agency, desire, action, and volition.
What kind of world are we living in when a New York Times op-ed devotes more space to apologetics for pedophiles than it does to defending the children themselves? How about we first rescue the children and then we can let pedo-apologists have a field day theorizing about the psyches of the abusers once they are quarantined from society? Or is that too “bigoted”?
Many will recall that the New York Times is the same fake news outlet that defended the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, which lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, so it is unsurprising to see their publications once again defending ideas that enable violence toward children.
“It’s pure propaganda,” Noam Chomsky says of the widely discredited outlet.
Interestingly, it was discovered that Mark Thompson, who is now the CEO of new york times, was caught lying in a cover-up of a case involving a child rapist named Jimmy Savile. Jimmy Savile would bite his victims and rape corpses. As many as 500 children may have been victims, while media moguls and celebrities fawned over him and covered up his crimes.
If that isn’t suspicious enough, when news broke recently of a major pedophile ring that was arrested in Norway, the New York Times and other corporate mainstream outlets deleted the reports of it.
One wonders what, precisely, is going on in these media outlets.
And of course the Father of Fake News, CNN, has been found to promulgate views which implicitly express “sympathy” for child rapists or at least raise the possibility thereof. The goal is not so much to outright defend child exploitation — not yet, anyway — but to incrementally expose the population to its normalization. For this form of propaganda to work all that is required is that a framework is established within which it is no longer evil but rather an issue that is “up for debate.”
Salon has also tried to normalize pedophilia with articles like “I’m a pedophile, not a monster.” It features a fat middle-aged man named Todd Nickerson who describes how he relieved himself in a bathroom after encountering and “falling in love” with a 5-yr-old child.
He says he has never acted on his thoughts about children. And supposedly that is why he is a “virtuous pedophile.”
While having such thoughts is not legally subject to arrest, it is a moral crime. 5-yr-old children cannot competently consent and would have to be manipulated and exploited by definition. Having thoughts of exploiting a child certainly indicates there is a monster inside.
The article enraged Americans.
In the current age of political correctness, some sects of society know no limits as to how far they will go to force acceptance to avoid offending others. In one extreme case of forcing such political correctness, Salon magazine implies that society must be accepting of pedophiles. In two separate articles, Salon refers to pedophilia as an ‘alternate sexual preference’ and suggests that society should embrace these differences by insinuating that this poor man is just misunderstood.
The article and video on Salon deal with pedophiles known as ‘non-offending’ — meaning while these individuals admit they are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, they claim they’ve never acted on it. However, the subject of one Salon article, Todd Nickerson admitted to seeking out jobs as a babysitter and noted that he “fell in love” with a five-year-old whom he babysat.
And then we have Hollywood. Here is Corey Feldmen explaining the problem of child rape in Hollywood:
Roman Palanski was convicted for drugging and raping a 13-yr-old child.
Rational, sane, and healthy human beings are disgusted by this, but some celebrities were observed defending him, confirming the truism that Hollywood celebrity culture is essentially an outdoor mental asylum.
Antony Kidman was yet another celebrity mogul reported for brutal child rape. Why is it that we do not see anybody who worked with him speaking out about the issue?
And then there are lower-shelf figures that contribute to the normalization or are otherwise implicated:
It is the sincere hope of many Americans that the vultures will be exposed and arrested so the plague in our nation can be ended, rather than defended.