Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“It was granted to me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience: how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel.

In the surfeit of power I was a murderer and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments.

It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good.

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts….

That is why I turn back to the years of my imprisonment and say, sometimes to the astonishment of those about me: “Bless you, prison!” I…have served enough time there. I nourished my soul there, and I say without hesitation: “Bless you, prison, for having been in my life!”

(The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956, Vol. 2, 615-617)

I used to use the term “anti-politician” and argue for a “politics of anti-politics” as far back as 2007 on this blog and its predecessor:

“The only political figures who make sense to me are anti-politicians or pure constitutionalists.”

But, since, this last campaign of Paul’s – a complete fiasco – I’ve crossed him off my list of “anti-politicians”:

… I’m not an ideologue and the only political figures who make sense to me are anti-politicians or pure constitutionalists, like Ron Paul, who represent what I think of as the best American tradition — non-interventionist, entrepreneurial, and individualist. And I think corporations can be as anti-individualist as the state.

Lew Rockwell, on the other hand,  has decided he wants to call Paul just that

“In fact, he didn’t do any of the things we associate with politicians. What his supporters love about him has nothing to do with politics at all.

Ron is the anti-politician.”

Hey, Lew, quite right. We’re flattered you read us.

That IS what his supporters did like about him.

But guess what?

He isn’t an anti-politician any more. He’s an ex-politician.

He ran a political campaign, with political ads, that used political rhetoric, replete with sins of omission, if not commission. He spoke like the rest of the frauds.

He was in it to win, or so he said, and so all his supporters said too.

He took real money, not anti-money, and real time, not anti-time, and real effort, not anti-effort from his supporters.

And he handed the whole thing over to a real politician, not an anti-politician – Mitt Romney.

You can’t have it both ways, Dr. Paul.

You either remain an honest elder statesman, a lovable father figure, in which case you stick to that role throughout.

Or you become a politician, in which case, you get to shade your meanings, talk out of both sides of your mouth, play partisan hard-ball,  take expedient positions, and join the rest, walking on earth, not on water.

Remember wrapping yourself in Reaganism? Think that brought you favor with pro-Reagan or anti-Reagan folks?

It’s all very well for your friends to start a festival called P.A.U.L to save something of the brand value to help their marketing and publishing business.

A clever idea. Worthy of genius marketers.

I would have preferred a little humble-pie. Like, “we were wrong.” “Our campaign helped Mitt Romney and hurt conservatives who actually showed us some respect and whose ticket we could actually have joined.”

But we preferred to make nice to our liberal network.

Now that we’d done the damage, we just do a little revisionism and claim to be “anti-politicians” again.

Ha ha.

You lose your cherry, that’s it. There’s no delete button. You don’t get to rewind and undo what you’ve become.

At least, not without a lot more than a rebranding campaign.  You’d need an admission of reality, to begin with.

No. Paul was an anti-politician in 2007.  In 2012, he is a failed politician.

He played the game and failed. He sold his support and the credibility of hundreds of thousands of his supporters for a mess of pottage for his son, who doesn’t look he’s going to be dining, anyway.

The father lost with the son.  That’s how it goes with these things.

Wenzel can delete a couple of those blog posts and comments talking up the campaign as “genius marketing.” That’s his privilege. But he can’t delete my memory of them.

We like you guys. But we actually do worry for you. We don’t think you know what the stakes really are or how you are being played….

Or are you – sickening thought – players?

Whether it was rigged and Paul is one more tool of the elites co-opting the opposition, or simply old and unable to manage, it does not reflect well on him, in either case.

I would have made a statement that took some blame, myself. I would have given some explanation.

But no.

Double- down on the self-approbation and forget the mea culpas  that a level-headed glimpse of the truth would warrant.

But, of course, marketing isn’t about truth, is it?

It’s about selling.

So sell away, boys.

Just make sure you’re not selling your souls in the bargain.

You can’t press rewind on that, either.

From Oriental Review.org, a good dissection of the CIA-sponsored cultural terrorism of Pussy Riot.

It doesn’t matter that Putin isn’t a “good guy”. Putin’s goodness is irrelevant to the ethics of CIA interference and mind-control operations. The fact that your neighbor is beastly to his wife doesn’t mean you have a right to assault his daughter:

“To illustrate the Russian public reaction on pussy-provocation we are posting a fragment of the open letter to Sir Paul McCartney written by a Russian priest. (He replied to the recent touching message of the British star in support of the ‘rioters’).

“Dear Sir Paul,

Some months ago Russia witnessed an act of evil. We, Russian believers, perceive this event in this way. In the church, built in honor of freeing Russia from Napoleon’s invasion, in the church which for us is the greatest national shrine, four young girls began to dance right before the altar swearing, singing sacrilegious songs and offences to Patriarch, who is for all of us the spiritual leader and honorable man. All this Bacchanalia was filmed and blown the world. Needless to say what a shock and spit in the soul we, Russian orthodox religious people, had experienced.

Several weeks before this event Pussy Riot tried to do something similar in another Moscow church. They were politely asked out without giving this public utterance. They conducted a similar action in the Red Square, just exactly where you, dear Sir Paul, gave your concert. And again, sacrilege and twisting were left without any consequences. At last, before the “action” in the Church of Christ the Savior members of Pussy Riot cropped up and performed an act of group sex with their partners in the State Zoo Museum in the broad daylight and in the presence of visitors including children. Video and photos of this effrontery were also made public in Internet and shown over the central Russian TV channels.

Sir Paul, I would like to ask you whether you consider these actions normal? What could happen in future if these so called punk rock performers who in reality have nothing to do either with punk movement or with rock music were not stopped? Of course, times are changing and in the “civilized world” this is probably considered normal, but I cannot imagine that musicians of Beatles group even with their nonconformity would allow something alike in the presence of children in a museum. There exist some norms of moral, decency, ethic, good and evil, not necessarily connected with this or that religion, which nobody can neglect. Because if the people overstep this limits, they will lose the character of Homo Sapiens and become the animal.

Dear Sir Paul, I am sure that you and other famous musicians were misled as to the essence of this latter event and came out for Pussy Riot without knowing these details. That is why I ventured to let you know the position of Russian believers. In your letter addressed to Pussy Riot you struggle for the freedom of art and self-expression. Nobody is against. Everything – freedom, art and self-expression – are elementary rights which God gave every man. As Lord Jesus Christ is teaching us, You shall know the Truth, ant the Truth shall make you free (The Gospel According to John, ch. 8, para. 32). Christianity is the religion of lovers of liberty and free-thinking people.

And in the present Russia our desire to be free is multiplied by that life experience in totalitarian communist state which we, Russians, had. Sir Paul, please note that the Russian Orthodox Church did not call upon to punish Pussy Riot: judicial proceedings took place upon the court petition of private persons who had been deeply offended by their act. And I understand those people. When Pussy Riot blasphemes in the street, it is their private affair. Many people do the same. But if they break into our church disturbing praying people, blaming our God, out faith, our Patriarch, they offend personally each of us.

Please tell me, Sir Paul, what would be your reaction if during your concert somebody run onto the scene and began to break your instruments, hindering your performance and then took your microphone and in dirty words offend everything that is dear and sacred for you, i.e. your wife, your parents, your art, your moral values? Would you call it self-expression and freedom of art or consider it as usual disorderly conduct? And what would you do in such a situation? I think that as a man possessing chivalry you would not wait for the guard but take actions against such a person yourself.

Probably the sentence for Pussy Riot is somewhat severe. But it was passed by the judiciary bodies. Wishing these young women good, please understand also us, orthodox believers. To nobody we wish ill, prison, long time in prisons, but at the same time we wish that our shrines for which not in so far past our fathers and grandfathers spilled blood, were subjected such an affront. It was not us who pitched the members of Pussy Riot group but it were they who plunged into our church and insulted deeply the present people and thousands of Internet users, which saw the movie with this sacrilege. They mocked before the God’s altar. And we wish not long terms in prison for these ill-educated and disorderly women but only that something similar will never take place in any of our churches.

With all due respect,

Hegumen Sergy (Ribko),

Rector of Moscow Church of Holy Spirit,  in the 1970s – drummer of a rock-group and member of hippies movement.”

Comment:

Some have pointed to Pussy Riot’s elaborate and thoughtful (I would say, pretentious) political statements as proof that the group is genuine.

I read through the manifestos and was even more convinced that the whole thing is yet another intelligence psyop.

The girls compared themselves, modestly, to Jesus, Dostoevsky, Socrates, Solzhenitsyn etc. etc.

Tut.

Pompous, rude twits AND bad artists.

A too-fer.

Pussy Riot talks too much to be genuine rebellion.

The trio remind me of one of those modern paintings with ten paragraphs of explanation for each boring blob. Anything that needs that much explanation in polysyllabic words shows the dead hand of  agitprop not the living touch of art.

I got news for ya, sweets.

Art ain’t big on manifestos.

Jesus – never wrote a book. Spoke in parables. Threw the merchants out of the temple. Didn’t desecrate it.

You’re thinking of Aleister Crowley, not Rabbi Yeshua.

Socrates – never wrote a book. Asked questions and drew out answers from the man on the street.

Solzhenitsyn – wrote good books, not pamphlets. Submitted himself to his tradition.

Dostoevsky –  Real books, not agitprop.

Books take effort and thought. Agitprop takes ego. Especially, lascivious, bigoted agitprop.

Rioting is not rebellion.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of the West in all this takes away the breath.

In the US, there is NO major media outlet that dares to expose things as they really are, without adding its sly twist, its sin of omission or commission into the mix.

Each has an agenda, some more, some less. With millions of agendas clashing, the noise is continuous. We can barely hear our own thoughts through them, let alone our consciences.

We have marine vets threatened with psychiatric confinement for two sentences on Facebook.  Every word written or spoken by activists is monitored, collected and analyzed. Even casual words spoken by ordinary citizens.

TV and print media are a pack of lies or distraction, for the most part.

Drive down the road and forget a paper, you are liable for hundreds of dollars. Do that a few times, you pay in the thousands, more than the average man earns in a month.

If they even think you have contraband, they pull down your pants, bend you over and search your anus manually.

Women are spreadeagled like whores over the front pages, shaved and displayed like specimens in a lab, categorized like butchers’ cuts according to the shape, size and age of the parts.

Girls are spread out like this.

This is called “sexy.”

We live and die for “sexy.”

Yes. This is sexy like factory-farming or a slaughterhouse is sexy. It is the sexy of  serial killers and psychopaths.  It is John Wayne Gacey sexy.

This is empowerment of women, our special gift to the world.

And we have our own Defender of the Vagina, Naomi Wolf, to speak up for the new cloacal revolution.

For this joy of letting it all hang out, without consideration or feeling or judgment or modesty or shame or any shade of feeling, except the one supreme one of modernity – utter shamelessness.

The shamelessness not even of the brazen, but of the utterly ignorant. The shamelessness not of people who reject their forefathers, but of those who don’t even know they have them.

What’s the matter, mama. People acting like they got no mamas, Kuzhali Manickavel likes to say.

People acting like they have no teachers, no churches, no histories.

Each day brings a fresh propaganda assault, a new idiocy.

Blogs are hacked, wikipedia is manipulated, activists are harassed and jailed.  Public office is bought and sold, journalists lie, stalk, and assault people for a living, calling it freedom of expression.

TV is filled with porn propaganda or war propaganda.

The women on them are cretinous puppets, giggling and shaking their cleavages in hopes it will make up for the drivel spewing out six inches up.

From left to right, activist leaders have shown us their clay feet and their idle talk.

They are all eunuchs, every one of them, and their followers too, leading us no where, blowing soap bubbles and massaging our backs in the tub, while the house is on fire,  while the mandarins of global order relentlessly add piece upon piece to their master plan, while the spymasters run non-stop assaults on our souls with twisted lies.

And this is the culture from which Putin is denounced?

If Russia today has cancer, in which part of the world did the cells first metastasize?

Wasn’t it here?

Was Marx a product of Russia?

Who spits out the global porn industry, which has turned the diminutive for a beloved pet into slang for genitals?

Isn’t more than 80%  of porn from the US?

We are the p**** peddlers of the world.  The kings of the sex-trade and the sultans of child-rape.

The masters of  huckstering and packaging and hyping and pimping everything, including our sons and daughters.

Who controls the drug trade? Who sells the arms? Who instigates and meddles and lectures and bombs? Who has been at war every year with now this, now that country?

Who meddles in the currency and trade of every country?

Who dumps its waste in pitiful backwaters in the third world, and bribes the worst elements there to the top? Who hides in off-shores havens and manipulates economies to extract their value, then runs, leaving ruin behind?

Who sells junk financial products of no value – none – and extracts real value from everyone else?

Isn’t this slavery?

Aren’t we the slave masters of the world, fat, crude, and lascivious, our tongues out, drooling in front of every base act, sniggering and leering, peering, and calling this freedom?

Freedom to be base and barbaric.

Freedom of pornocracy and fascist finance and race supremacism and hatred of goodness that masquerades as universalism and rights and liberalism and freedom.

It’s not a free world we have. It is an enslaved world.  A world of slaves.

Bondage and submission, indeed.

Bondage to the flesh and submission to the father of lies.

Our p****** can riot and our c**** can party.

But upstairs, our brains have been foreclosed on and the debts have come due on our souls.

“Remember it is better to take the largest plate within reach and fling it at a woman’s head than it is to wriggle like a worm whenever she looks at you!”

From Murder in Mesopotamia circa 1936, Agatha Christie (h/t to Alphagameplan.blogspot.com)

From comments at EPJ this morning:

Taylor ConantAugust 26, 2012 10:22 AM

Too bad Ron Paul’s truth machine didn’t. Imagine if the RP campaign had spent all its funds on witty TV ads explaining basic economic and political principles not connected to Ron Paul’s campaign instead of… whatever the hell they spent it on that was ultimately a waste because his campaign is now dead.

Well said, Taylor Conant.

The excellent reference site ISGP.EU (formerly pehi.eu) run by Joel Van Der Reijden has not disappeared. It is now housed at wikispooks.

It was an original and serious multi-researcher project attempting to compile lists of members of important secret societies influential in world politics and economics.  ISGP stands for the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics. I came to the site only in 2010 and I changed my mind about the extent and significance of child sex abuse after reading its account of the Dutreux scandal.

In “Mobs,” (2007) I  included a section about it, as an example of moral panics, at the suggestion of my co-author, who had seen what was happening in France in the nineties, as I had seen the equivalent panic in the US. For my research, I relied mainly on the account of Alexander Cockburn, the co-editor of Counterpunch, who took the view that the child sex abuse scandals had been vastly exaggerated by sensational accounts.  That was my view too, from reading about it, with the caveat that I came to believe the panic was manufactured in some way. Since then, my research leads me to believe that the moral panic was fanned in order to create a cover for real, intelligence-related sex rings, used to entrap and blackmail politicians and other prominent or influential people.

Posted at the Lew Rockwell blog:

Brandon Raub Ordered Released By Circuit Judge

Posted by Christopher Manion on August 24, 2012 11:30 AM

In a stinging rebuke to the FBI, the Secret Service, and other self-appointed Thought Police, Hopewell Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett ordered the immediate release of Brandon Raub, whom Virginia authorities had imprisoned last week because of anti-government comments that he had posted on the Internet.

Judge Sharrett found “that a document ordering Raub’s transfer this week from a Hopewell hospital to the Salem VA Medical Center was faulty and “so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.”

Special thanks and congratulations are in order for the vital role played by the Rutherford Institute, which immediately came to Raub’s defense and exposed the scandalous series of illegal actions on the part of Virginia officials that railroaded Mr. Raub into a psychiatric jail for a thirty-day term without being charged of any crime.

Readers should note that every level of government, from the federal to the local police in Chesterfield County, here in Virginia, were complicit in this illegal arrest and incaceration. No one at any level of government stepped forward to defend Mr. Raub’s First Amendment rights until the Rutherford Institute initiated legal action in his defense and took the matter to court. That includes Virginia Republicans Rep. Bob Goodlatte and former Senator and current Senate candidate George Allen, both of whom did not respond to requests I placed with their respective offices.

This should be a lesson — and a warning — for us all

Comment:

I’ve been thinking this case is very strange (see my comments under my post about the Sikh temple shootings) and I’ve held my tongue about it for the same reason.

This sudden release confirms my feeling. There’s something more going on here and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was not just a misstep on the government’s part but a staged arrest to let the blogosphere know what could be in store for it if it steps out of line. I think it is especially aimed at homecoming vets who might be inclined to lead any “revolutions” or “sharpen their axes” for the generals, as Raub put it on his Facebook page.  I don’t think Raub is what he seems to be.

It’s a kind of intimidation, just as the massive militarization and purchases of arms by the DHS is  intimidation. The government could also be worrying about a possible insurrection from the vets, who would make credible foes that could unite the country behind them.

More on this to come…

The Ulsterman Report has an insightful analysis of the publishing block-buster, “Fifty Shades of Grey,” the first of a trilogy of erotic novels based on a fan-fiction take-off on the vampire-genre “Twilight” series.

I have been reading about and around this story for a while, including wading through the first volume in e-book format, where it allegedly first made its name, looking for clues to bolster my hunch that this is an elite media psyop.

I started out believing it was about mainstreaming BDSM (Bondage-discipline, Dominance-Submission, and Sado-Masochism), but  because of the virginal nature of the heroine, I saw it as a romanticizing of an abusive relationship between an inexperienced young woman and a sociopath.

That would be bad enough.

The Ulsterman report however goes further and argues that the story line is a cover, a sop to mainstream sensibilities, which is marketing it as “mommy porn”.  The report argues that Fifty Shades is actually a sick joke at the expense of American mothers and what it actually glamorizes is the pedophilic rape of a just pubescent or pre-pubescent child.

The analysis of the book’s sub-text is disturbing and thoroughly convincing, but there is yet another angle it leaves out that I will address in another post on the piece. I strongly advise anyone who has the time to put pressure on public libraries to withdraw this book from their shelves. On my part, I will also talk to local Walmarts where they are piling up this piece of dangerous propaganda, to cease and desist.

I hear that a couple of public libraries in Florida and New Jersey (?) have already done so. No need to censor it and turn the book into a first amendment issue. Let people read it privately. But it sure as heck needs to be boycotted in the public square.

Here’s the piece:

50 Shades of Grey – Pedophilia Hiding In Plain Sight

Read more in News

« Anti-Obama Book Now #2 On New York Times Besteller List

Hillary Clinton Tells Valerie Jarrett – NO THANKS »

The story of convicted child rapist Jerry Sandusky is well known.  So too is the 50 Shades of Grey phenomena, a book that has become so popular among women that some are referring to it as “Mommy Porn” for the masses.  That description is actually a lot more disturbing than a lot of folks are currently realizing.

Yes, 50 Shades is pornography. Like most pornography, the storyline is weak, the characters one-dimensional, while the sex itself graphic, detailed, but formulaic.  The underlying theme to 50 Shades is something far more sinister and appalling though than your mere run-of-the-mill porn.  It is pedophilia.  It is child porn.  Kiddie porn.

Now I know after saying that, many female fans of 50 Shades, many of them mothers, will naturally put up a defense against that kind of description.  These women, being mothers, are naturally wired to protect kids.  People like Jerry Sandusky are viewed with hatred, revulsion, and disgust.  Rightfully so.  What mother would want to condone anything having to do with the sexual abuse of children?  Of innocents?

But that is exactly what 50 Shades of Grey is really about.  It is a story of a girl being sexually molested, over and over again, by a male figure with all the power, all the control.  It is the classic abuse scenario.  And mothers are, in some cases, quite literally getting off on it, which takes the disgust of this phenomena to a whole other frightening level.

So having put that out there, and I hope I haven’t lost any of you just yet.  I owe you an explanation after having made that kind of accusation about a book some of you may be reading right now.  I’ll start with a bit of background first.

My professional experience centers around nearly 20 years with Child Protective Services.  Over that time, I’ve seen situations that do, literally, keep me up at night.  The amount of abuse that is going on in our society, that sexualization of our kids…well basically, what you hear about, what is reported in the news, that is only a small sample of just how large of a problem and the disgusting acts that are going on every day.  Kids are being raped.  Kids are being abused.  Every single day.  Over and over and over again.

I didn’t seek out 50 Shades of Grey.  It was brought to my attention by a longtime friend who is also a clinical psychologist at a university.  She’s a bit older than me.  She grew up in the counter culture era and did her fair share of experimentation of all kinds.  So she’s hardly a prude.  What she today though is a mother and grandmother.  And she’s smart.  One of the things that fascinates her is this age of cultural phenomena.  How due to technology things now spread so quickly throughout society and become the next big thing at an increasingly rapid pace.  She says sometimes this phenomena is pretty much harmless, and other times it can be very damaging to kids and or adults who begin to emulate something out of a need to belong to the “next big thing”.

Her reaction to 50 Shades of Grey though was much more aggressively negative than anything I could recall her talking about before.  It came up because I mentioned it to her offhand.  I had seen a couple mentions of it on the news and knowing her interest in cultural trends, asked her about it.  She stopped talking, looked right at me, and said the book was about pedophilia.   And it was her who then connected it to the Sandusky tragedy where so many young boys had been sexually abused. Sandusky committed his acts of crime under the cover of actually helping youth.  That is how he gained access.  My friend said 50 Shades was basically the same exact thing.  Its cover was a story of a young woman engaging is a very graphic sexual relationship with a somewhat older man.

The problem for her, and it was a BIG PROBLEM, was that the narrator in the story, was in fact, an underage girl.  My friend indicated, based on the use of language in the narration, that this girl was likely no more than 12 or 13 years of age.  I made mention that the girl in the story was actually getting ready to graduate college.  My friend, a woman with years of experience as a clinical psychologist, whose expertise I had personally witnessed a number of times over the years, shook her head and told me that she would not be able to convince me by simply talking about it.  She said I should read the book myself, but do so with the eyes of somebody whose job it had been for many years to try and protect children.  As someone who has seen over and over the signs of abuse, and the damages of abuse.   Because there are always warning signs.  I know that.  How many times have I heard people horrified in saying “I can’t believe I didn’t see that”  “How couldn’t I have known?”  Or even worse, “I knew something wasn’t right but I didn’t want to believe they were capable of doing something like that.”

I’ll try and summarize my friend’s words at this point as best I can.

“Sexual predators are cons.  They almost always have a cover.  It’s that cover which allows them access.  50 Shades of Grey is a con.  It now has access to millions of readers.  It is a story about abuse from beginning to end.  And it’s not just the abuse of a man and a woman – it’s the abuse of a man and a girl.

When you read it, look for the signs.  They are all there.

The female character has no sexual experience.  None.  She is given the age of 21, but that age is itself a cover.  Her true emotional age is much-much younger.  She has never even masturbated.  She has never even experienced an orgasm.  That alone is one of the greatest attractions to the pedophile.  That is the psychology of that kind of act.  You get off on taking purity.

But move from the fact the girl has no sexual experience whatsoever.  Now pay attention to her narrative dialogue.  Really listen to how she talks.  Again, she’s not talking like a young woman, she’s talking like a girl.  She talks about cartwheels, and skipping, over and over again it is the language and the imagery of a girl.

After that this girl has her innocence taken from her.  The abuser, the older man, makes her think its her choice.  Again, you and I both know that is one of the primary tools of the pedophile.  They create an environment where the child feels it’s their idea.  It’s what they want. But what happens after that innocence is taken away?  Then the abuser becomes more openly abusive. Controlling.  In this story he tells the little girl how to speak.  What to wear.  What to eat.  He is Daddy and she is daughter.  When you read it read it like a mother who is also a woman who is experienced with the real life tragedy of abuse.

And there is many more themes about that abuse in this book.  There is spanking and the use of Baby oil.  Why baby oil?  Think about it.  The girl wears pigtails.  She complains that he is treating her like a child.  He says she acts like a child.  There is even a scene where the abuser creates a situation to take her innocence from her again.  He rips out her tampon and engages in forceful sex yet again.  Her hymen is ripped, and the bloody remnants of it are again symbolized in an act of pedophile rape.”

She went on to say there are women now defending the book, and she understands that, but it concerns her.  A great deal, because she is absolutely convinced the book is purposely advocating the raping of a child and attempting to normalize that atrocity.

So, I left that conversation thinking maybe my friend was exaggerating.  I had a hard time believing something so popular could actually have such a sinister and revolting theme, and while I respected her expertise and experience, thought this time she had to be seeing something that just wasn’t there.

I got the book, I sat down, and I read it.

The first thing that struck me was how poor the writing was.  It wasn’t just bad.  It was horrible.  But horrible writing is no crime, (thank goodness or I would have been put away a long time ago) and it doesn’t make the content of the story evil.  But in my reading of it, just like my friend said, the theme of child abuse, of pedophilia, was right there in plain sight.  I remember being told a long time ago that sometimes the best way to hide something is in plain sight.  That is what 50 Shades of Grey is really doing.

The main character had no sexual experience.  None.  She was an innocent.  She was a kid who had just had her first drink of alcohol.  No way that was an accident by the author.  That author had to have purposely made her, despite her given age of 21, by any other measure, a little girl.  At that point, it struck me as odd.  In my business, we call that a warning signal. A sign we may have a problem.

From there, just like my friend had warned, it got worse.  Much worse.  And she was right, her telling me about it did not have the impact of me reading it myself with eyes open.  She had given me the signs to look for, and as I turned the pages, those signs confirmed it over and over again.

The narration, which is the voice of the girl talking to the reader, was the voice of a little girl.  It’s unmistakable.  There is very little emotional maturity and absolutely no sexual maturity.  She is seduced by this man in the very same way a pedophile seduces a child.  The male character is Gerry Sandusky.  He makes a show of his money, his power, the things he can buy for her, but while this is going on, we are reading the thoughts of a child.  We are reading the seduction of a little girl by a pedophile.  She is almost completely powerless.  She is naïve even for a teenager, and certainly much much more naïve than a college student.  She is incapable of even making the most simple of every day decisions and must be told what to do by her abuser, who in turn though spends a lot of time and effort convincing this child this is really what she wants.  I’ve seen this before.  Too often.  Too many times.  And it always leaves me sickened.

We are reading child pornography.  Remove the false age of the girl, which has no basis in reality, and what we are actually reading is the abuse of a little girl.

The main character is described in pigtails, given words like “Holy Cow”  “down there”, “jeez”  “double crap” she can’t operate a computer (but is supposedly a college graduate), describes skipping and doing cartwheels, repeatedly says she is made to feel like a child, has her imaginary friend (inner goddess) feels shame, is spanked and slathered in BABY OIL, told what to say, what to eat, what to do, until finally and sadly so predictably, is physically beaten.  (But she returns to him soon after, which is again, a very common theme of abuse, including pedophilia)

And beyond all of this evidence there is the fact that the male character is himself a product of sexual abuse at the hands of a pedophile.  The girl whose thoughts we listen in on as she is being abused, recognizes this aspect of the male abuser, but apparently, is too naïve or unwilling to realize she has continued this cycle of abuse herself. (Which again reinforces the idea that she is actually herself just a child)  There is no way the author did this by accident.  She puts out the theme of pedophilia openly, therefore hiding it in plain sight.

People who have had to deal with the real world of sexual abuse of children will understand this perhaps more easily than others.  How the pedophile is so often themselves victims of earlier abuse.  They enter society, they become fathers or mothers, but so often they too become abusive.  They seek out dominance, control, and the taking of innocence just as it was taken from them.  Those who were once abused, become the abuser.  It is the sad sick and tragic cycle of pedophilia.

With 50 Shades of Grey this abnormal condition is trying to be normalized.  Thanks to the insight of my friend, and my own experience,  I know it for what it truly is – a story of the sexual abuse of child, wrapped in the cliché cover story of a mysterious and troubled wealthy man.  That is another thing my clinical psychologist friend pointed out later.  Take away the aspect of money, and the character of the abuser becomes much less attractive and therefore it would have been much more difficult to pull of the deception.  Are women actually that shallow?  Yes, we can be.

But women, the vast majority of us, are not people who knowingly condone the sexual abuse of children.  We do not condone in any way, the horror that is pedophilia.

Sadly though, that is exactly what is happening with the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey.  It’s a pedophilia con.

It is one of the most horrible and sickening acts against the most powerless of our society, hiding in plain sight.

Maybe my friend put it best when we talked all of this over.  50 Shades of Grey didn’t excite her.  She didn’t find it interesting, sexy, or romantic.

50 Shades of Grey made her weep.  It made her sick.  It made her think of the abuses of all of those kids by a demented, warped monster like Jerry Sandusky, who, just like the pedophilia of 50 Shades of Grey, was hiding in plain sight.

Half-sigma, another manosphere blogger, describes how value is created by Asian employees and extracted, via “Ivy League” brand marketing, top-heavy corporate structure, and inflated management/investment banking salaries, by largely white elites.

The same thing can be said of practically everything else in the state-capitalist fiat money system:-

“A blogger called Education Realist (whom I found on Steve Sailer’s blog) wrote the following:

If you read of a school that’s suddenly moved to elite status or seen a dramatic rise in test scores (e.g., AIPCS), or heard that a test prep process has gotten out of control, it’s a sure thing that it’s become “an Asian school,” as we call them in my area. Once a school “goes Asian”, hitting a tipping point of about 40%, it’s a short step to 60-80%. Check out the top-scoring comprehensive high schools by SAT average, and the highest ones will be “Asian schools”. They end up Asian because of white flight. It’s not that whites don’t like Asians, but their kids will lose access to AP/honors courses and get lower GPAs—not because they have lower abilities, but because the white parents haven’t managed to convince their kids that the world will end of they don’t get straight As.

I love learning stuff like this from bloggers. Until now, I never really thought about how there’s an Asian tipping point in public schools. But of course, it makes perfect sense.

* * *

BrunoBrazil writes:

Sigma, what the heck do you have against asians that have their noses to the grindstone, work hard, grind to tests, become betas with average families and suceed in situations where people from other ethnicities fail? As far as I can see, it is at least a culture that doesn´t promote eliteness, but makes socially adjusted individuals who are much better off than whites or blacks in the same context.

I don’t have anything against. Asians. I enjoy calling out SWPLs for their racist and hypocritical behavior.

But as I previously explained, Asians are acting against their children’s interests with their Asian parenting style:

The Chinese parenting style will no doubt produce workers who are good value creators, and their corporate employers will love them, and they will be paid far less money than the value they create, the excess value being transferred to white people who got into better colleges because their curricula vitae had more leadership and sports activities, and with those more prestigious educational credentials they got into higher paying value transference career tracks like investment banking and upper level management, and now enjoy the value created by those Chinese cubicle employees who are doing the real work and the real value creation.”