Western intelligence agencies and NGOs have found a very effective way to infiltrate societies via the LGBT network. All societies have LGBTs, and they tend to form a sort of loose “secret society.” Most societies and governments simply want to ignore them and keep them out of the public eye, even very socially conservative governments.
But by drawing them out in a semi-public way, the Western intelligence agencies and NGOs have access to a large, distributed network that is now reliant on the Western intelligence agencies for political representation, and are in a semi-blackmailable state.
Apparently, this sort of intelligence operation has been around for a while. The USSR recruited gay male networks in Britain and the US, which started the “lavender menace” scare in the 1950s, when homosexuals were purged from government and espionage work. The “Cambridge Five” in the UK was perhaps the worst Soviet infiltration of Britain ever.
It’s a rather ingenious technique. You draw out the indigenous LGBT network, who due to their nature of being embedded at various levels of society can give you a vast amount of compromising information on even public figures, then when the inevitable crackdown happens, they are typically going to be even more amenable to cooperation with the foreign regime, for both “positive” reasons (i.e., they want Western help to get “freedom” in their own countries) as well as “negative” reasons (i.e., they are now easily blackmailed.)
The State Department under Hillary Clinton all but announced this as public policy.
It also shows you that all of those “conspiracy theories” about celebrities are, in some way, correct. The intelligence agencies most certainly do leverage popular celebrity culture and figures to organize dissident networks in other countries.
Popular culture, like traveling musical acts, are an amazingly effective way to smuggle into foreign countries both agents to network with indigenous dissidents, but also drugs – and highly sophisticated electronic equipment. Perhaps one of the spookiest rock bands in history, The Police, did a massive tour to various Cold War hot spots in the 1980s – right out in the open yet virtually no one even thought about the implications of that.
It got so comical that they even had kiddie cartoons in the 1970s about “rock bands” that were “secret spies.” A humorous example from not long ago – George Clooney, the Hollywood actor, arranging semi-pornographic photo shoots
in various countries in the Russian orbit with a British spy to “help Bosnia” that included a number of spooky people that would go on to be involved in various “Color Revolutions” against Putin’s Russia back in the 2000s. They even released a book about it. There’s George Clooney, the Hollywood actor, taking pornographic photographs and videos with a network of people who would then go on to lead the anti-Putin “color revolutions” a few years later.
George Clooney, Hayden Penettiere and Wladimir Klitschko are three of four celebrities– celebrities I know of– who made early public statements in support of the CIA-backed ‘Maidan’ revolution in the Ukraine. The fourth celeb, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is the only one not present at this porn shoot– he was Governor of California at the time. Public office kept his pants on.
There is so much bizarre about this book, Room 23, that I’m not sure where to start. So I’ll start with ‘Diana Jenkins’.
Her real name is Sanela Ćatić, a Bosnian who was born to a wealthy family in Sarajevo (her dad was an ‘economist’– or economic hit man?!). Sanela changed her name when she married Roger Jenkins, a shadowy British banker who supposedly got rich devising tax-avoidence schemes for clients of Barclays Capital.
According to the London Evening Standard in 2004:
Dijana [another alias for Sanela Ćatić? –a.nolen] is the second wife of Roger Jenkins, the banker who, Financial Mail revealed recently, was paid more than £19.5m last year by his bosses at Barclays Capital. That figure makes Jenkins, 49 last Thursday, the highest-paid employee of any FTSE company and almost certainly the best-paid investment banker in the City last year.
Salena has money of her own… from somewhere. Read her ‘biography’ here, she claims to have run through military barricades to flee war-torn Bosnia; found her way to London; enrolled in City University London; founded a financial company called D-Sol; made friends with the wife of Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani (chairman of the Qatar Investment Authority); found her ex-husband Roger Jenkins at the gym; set up a rash of charities to send money to Bosnia and chase down human rights abusers; backed/bailed out suspected mass-murderer and ex-President of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Ejup Ganić; and started Sarajevo television station TV1. All these activities went on when she wasn’t partying with celebs from both sides of the Atlantic! Wow, cool! Right?
When I think of ‘the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia’, I think of Americans choosing sides in an ugly civil conflict; building the Bosnians up as innocent victims; then bombing the hell out of the country. Once the dust settled, a bunch of taxpayer-backed investment funds bought up all of the Former Yugoslav national assets for international oligarchs at bargain prices.
Americans were pretty concerned about rounding up Serbian (only!) human-rights-abusers, just like Sanela Ćatić/Dijana/Diana Jenkins. Here’s the mission statement of her flagship charity, ‘International Human Rights Project’, find it on the Room 23 ‘About’ page.
About the Sanela Diana Jenkins International Human Rights Project
Proceeds from the sale of Room 23 benefit the Sanela Diana Jenkins International Human Rights Project (SDJIHRP) at UCLA School of Law. This project brings together cutting-edge human rights advocacy, education , scholarship and policy-oriented research. The Project is aimed at developing groundbreaking approaches to advancing human rights and to training the next generation of human rights lawyers and advocates. Its current activities focus on the uses of law in deterring, ending and redressing genocide and massive human rights abuses around the globe. Under this umbrella, the technology clinic is launching fall 2009, as the world’s first human rights “fire alarm” device of its kind, enabling witnesses of human rights violation to upload information onto a new website. The resulting database will be used as an early warning system of unfolding atrocities and as a repository of evidence and witness statements for potential prosecution.
Think how useful that database will be for functional organizations like the ITCY or the International Criminal Court.
I know it may be an unpopular opinion here, but if women have been dressing to attract men in one way or another for the last couple hundred years in western civilization, it’s because they find the men hard to attract. If it was easy, they wouldn’t go through all the bother. If all women took off their makeup and dressed in average clothes, only a small percentage would be considered good-looking by men. Women did not dress in a fashion to sexually attract men back in the day of the arranged marriage. They used to dress more modestly back in the Middle Ages and in previous times. They only started really dressing up once they were expected to find their mates themselves because they felt it wouldn’t work otherwise.
The goal isn’t just to attract a man’s eyes, it’s to get him to make a commitment to marriage. The latter has always been hard for woman. Before the modern era, young people went through a long engagement to find out whether they were compatible or not, and engagements were still broken right and left in those days. In this era, plenty of men refuse to marry or have kids if they can get sex for free without a commitment. The financial investment women make in trying to get a commitment out of a man has always been huge in proportion to her income, when you add in the amount of money spent on clothes, jewelry, hair, and makeup, much of it purchased on a young girl’s working salary, which is never that high at any sort of starter job. In the days of the arranged marriage, many men would refuse to commit if it wasn’t for a financial sum given to him provided by her family, which was called a dowry. Marriage has always been harder for women to achieve than a lot of men understand.
Don’t make me sing this part of the song,
The lyrics are so bad, so we’re going to skip ahead
To the single ladies part instead…
The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness was a 1912 book by the American psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard. The work was an extended case study of Goddard’s for the inheritance of “feeble-mindedness,” a general category referring to a variety of mental disabilities including mental retardation, learning disabilities, and mental illness. Goddard concluded that a variety of mental traits were hereditary and society should limit reproduction by people possessing these traits.
James Edwards of Political Cesspool is a good and solid pro-White advocate who is also a conservative Christian. Heartiste is the hilariously funny “game” blogger who has human sexual nature down to a science. Both of them have suggested that Roy Moore is an “alpha” – and both of them are comically wrong.
First, let’s get the feminist stuff out of the way. Roy Moore, at 30, courting for marriage women ten or twelve years younger than him is no big deal. In the secular world, if Roy More were say, Leonardo DiCaprio “dating” a succession of young starlets just this side of the legal limit, he’d be the envy of every red blooded man alive. Despite what over the hill cat ladies may say about power imbalances, those are the types of power imbalances that women LOVE. Those are the types of power imbalances that girls and women seek out.
Heartiste himself points out that a White father’s goals for his daughter, from acceptable to soul-thrilling, are either:
3. Date a well-heeled man 10+ years her senior
2. Marry a well-heeled man 10+ years her senior
1. Briefly court then marry an Epic Chad with a square jawline and family money
Moore was described as “handsome” – ok, that’s an alpha trait. But of all the teenage girls he “dated,” the only one that had anything positive to say about him said that he was “sweet” and “played guitar” for her and that her mom approved. That’s not exactly a swooning endorsement for a “handsome” and up-and coming power alpha, the home town boy made good.
That’s the way women describe “beta bucks.”
It hardly matters if the press coverage is slanted against Moore, the basic facts scream “insecure beta.” At 30 years old, he’s prowling the malls and diners flirting with teenage girls who are a captive audience. They have to be nice to him, especially in a culture like Alabama in the 1970s, they can’t say “leave me alone, creep.” At least some of these girls say they complained to their boss to try to get him kicked out of the mall.
Again, handsome 30 year old, more money than average, a powerful political position, and he can’t ATTRACT women, even young women, but instead is forced to prowl around and harass teenage girls who mostly want nothing to do with him. The most he’s getting is polite rejection, “I have a boyfriend.” He even called up one of them at school, talking to her teacher, pulling her out of class, and asking her for a date. She says “no.”
From a Christian standpoint, Moore would have been ready for marriage by, say, 25 at the latest. But Moore didn’t actually “court” these young girls for marriage, apparently. In fact, it apparently took Moore something like 15 years to even find a wife.
And what sort of woman did Moore eventually marry? Surely, a beautiful, blushing Christian virgin a decade younger than him?
Moore eventually, at 38, married a divorced single mom of 24 and adopted her kid. He “manned up and married the slut.” OK, in traditional Baptist churches, divorce and remarriage is called “adultery” and would have both Mr. and Mrs. Moore ex-communicated. From a secular, game perspective?
Roy Moore is a literal cuck.
Who married a mid 20s divorced single mom after spending 15 years hitting on jailbait that did nothing but blow him off for being a “creep.”
It doesn’t get any more “beta” than that.
Roy Moore fails on both counts. From a secular perspective, as far as “game” goes, he’s an insecure and creepy beta with no game who couldn’t get either the hot women his age nor the “younger hotter tighter” gals a decade younger than him.
From a Christian perspective, instead of doing the Christian thing, courting a marriageable woman, he (supposedly) goes without female companionship … until THIRTY-EIGHT … then marries a divorced single mom, thus cucking himself and engaging in decades long adultery.
A loser on both sides of the social fence.
All that aside, if the allegations of sexual assault of minors are true, this does of course make Roy Moore even MORE qualified to serve in the US Congress, as a conservative Republican, in the grand tradition of Dennis Hastert, et al.
(The interview with Becky Gray, a conservative Christian Alabama native saying she got Moore kicked out of the mall, and that he was “creepy” “not Christian” and “not what he claims to be” puts it all in perspective. Not that it matters, of course. Moore’s defenders are like Scientologists, creepy brainwashed fanatics of low IQ and even lower EQ. It is what it is.)
When the Washington Post article came out, I actually read it. Of the four women, three just said that Moore dated, or tried to date them, when they were 16-18. Frankly, I find the idea of a 30 year old man courting – for marriage – an 18 year old woman to be a big “meh.” It may not be something the culture should encourage, as it’s a pretty big age difference, but there’s nothing biologically strange about it and there are plenty of strong, healthy and fertile marriages that have such an age gap.
The only accusation that mattered was that of the 14 year old girl, and her story was somewhat corroborated by two other women, who said she told them at the time that she was “dating” Moore.
For the next 48 hours, Roy Moore issued a bunch of “non-denial denials” which frankly made him seem guilty. Hipster Racist isn’t a court of law, and I frankly could not care less about the Republican party or the Alabama elections, so I’m just calling it as I see it. The woman’s claims seemed quite credible to me, because I’ve had numerous women tell me stories of exactly such behavior on the part of men – yes, even men in socially conservative, Evangelical subcultures. In fact, that is exactly the sort of behavior I expect of men in that culture. No, of course, not all, nor even the majority or a large minority, of Evangelical men are rapists, or chase jailbait, but neither does Christianity or the Evangelical subculture change the nature of men. In fact, I thought that was an important part of Christianity – the idea that we are “born in sin” – and it’s particularly true of the Reformed/Calvinist theology.
Eventually, on Sean Hannity’s show, Moore specifically and categorically denied the accusations of the woman, said he didn’t know her, and I figured that was that. I did expect – and warned – that there were likely to be other accusers, but 40 year old “he said, she said” accusations can’t really be judged.
I wasn’t particularly surprised to see fans of Moore denying everything and suggesting the women were lying, but I have been somewhat surprised by the reaction of many so-called “Christian” conservatives. At least now three times, on Twitter and this blog, so-called “conservative Christians” have suggested that anyone giving any credence to the accusations, or suggesting that Evangelical men aren’t always angels, either:
1. Hates Jesus
2. are sexual perverts and want sexual anarchy, promiscuity, and only believe these women because they don’t want a sexually conservative society.
I think some are protesting too much. I also noted, here and on Twatter, that these reactions are EXACTLY THE SAME as the reactions of Jews and Scientologists. Anytime anyone says anything negative about Jews, the Jewish religion, Jewish power in America, or the Israel lobby, 100% of the time they are met with essentially the same accusation:
“You are just jealous of Jews because of your personal failures.”
Scientologists are trained to ALWAYS respond to any negative critique of Scientology with accusations that the critic is a “suppressive person” and Scientology has a “counter attack” strategy, laid out by L. Ron Hubbard himself, that is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
I was a little bit surprised to see otherwise normal seeming conservative Christians doing the same thing to me, for the “crime” of believing a bunch of Southern, conservative, Christian women that claimed Roy Moore, the GOP politician from Alabama, sexually assaulted them. All of a sudden it was ME on trial – even though it’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s a bunch of conservative, Christian, southern White women from Alabama – most of them, in fact, Republican Trump voters.
But it’s all so telling that his partisans, instead of dealing forthrightly with the accusations against Moore, or even having the decency to look at their own culture and accept maybe there is some dysfunction, to immediately start accusing others of having immoral motives or … “hating Jesus.”
It’s pathetic, it’s un-Christian, and it really says more about them than it does about the people they are attacking.
Well, what do you know, another woman has stepped forward and gave a detailed allegation of Roy Moore sexually assaulting her as a 15 year old girl. Unlike the 14 year old, Moore cannot claim he’s never met her, because he SIGNED HER HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK.
I find Beverly Young Nelson’s accusations to be VERY credible, because I have heard this story, from numerous women, for my entire life. Including and especially from women from the Christian and/or Evangelical subculture.
Not only have I heard stories, for my entire life, that match Nelson’s story, I practically witnessed it personally, myself, at a church meeting. Once, at a night time event, a young woman, about 16, came running into the church building, crying and hysterical, saying that she was attacked by one of the other church attendees, who was about 18. I knew both of them. The girl was an extremely beautiful and very sexy young woman – to be clear, I don’t believe she went out of her way to be “sexy” or “seductive” – she was just a beautiful and blossoming young woman and even I, at about the age of 12, was utterly mesmerized by her. She accused a young man, of 18, of offering her a ride to the church function, then he parked the car in a dark spot and assaulted her.
The boy was expelled from the church and the church school, although I don’t believe the incident was ever made into a legal case. I heard, through the grapevine, what happened, and it was virtually exactly the scenario that Nelson says happened to her. As far as I can tell, this is a very typical, very common, way that men sexually assault women. I knew the alleged attacker, and was in fact quite fond of him, even though he was much older than me. He was a “sincere Christian,” seemed somewhat like a “leader” to us younger boys, seemed quite serious about Christianity and the Bible, and it was shocking news to us.
But, now, as an older man with some experience under my belt, I think I can figure out what happened. He had a crush on this girl for a year, found her extremely sexy (as we all did) and one night he just “snapped” and made very aggressive sexual moves on her, and when she wouldn’t cooperate, became somewhat violent. His “Christianity” went out the window because his lizard brain – his testosterone, and his evolved biology, took over. Why? Because he was a human man with a strong, overpowering sexual drive and the naive culture he was a part of somehow thought that “Jesus” would prevent young horny teenagers from doing what comes naturally. I do also suspect that the Christian subculture simply had no way of dealing with the realities of sex, simply expecting that “faith in Jesus” would stop him from “lusting” after a highly lust-worthy young woman his age.
I also heard NUMEROUS TIMES of older men – adult men – doing very similar things to young teenage girls in that culture. Women and girls that I knew. They certainly had no reason to lie to me. I witnessed on NUMEROUS occasions very obvious strong sexual tension between adult men and teenage girls – the kind of sexual tension that you can cut with a knife. To my mind, the problem was that adult men simply shouldn’t be in positions of power over teenage girls. In fact, I think co-ed education itself is basically asking for trouble.
I attended an upper-middle-class Christian high school based around a very mainstream, but very conservative, Protestant church. I remember at 15, sitting next to 15 year old girls, in those little school girl outfits, absolutely unable to concentrate on my school work because the slightest flash of leg, the slightest scent of “girl,” the tiniest hint of curves, flooded me with testosterone. It was often PURE TORTURE and it somewhat amazes me that these Christians, supposedly well aware of “sin nature” and lust, nevertheless, forced young horny teenagers together and then expected us to NOT “lust” after each other.
I don’t think at all that Christians are “worse” than the secular world, and I don’t think that the “answer” is “sexual liberation” or the promotion of promiscuity or “safe sex” for teenagers. I think, in fact, what old fashioned and traditional (even Christian) culture did is best for everyone – sexual segregation, a frank understanding of human nature and sexuality, and a restoration of old fashioned courting and young marriage – and by young marriage, I mean that 16-20 year old girls should be married off to 20-24 year old boys. That sort of marriage worked quite well for a thousand years and it can work again.
To accuse me of wanting “sexual license” because I have zero respect for some grand-standing GOP political hack like Roy Moore – and I find the stories of White, conservative, Southern, Christian women to be credible because it’s a completely observed pattern of behavior on the part of men – just shows how morally bankrupt the GOP, as well as the Evangelical subculture, really is.
It’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore. It’s not the Washington Post, the liberal media, or the Democrats accusing Moore – it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore.
It’s just that the Evangelical subculture can’t deal with biological reality because they have their heads in the clouds, expecting “Jesus” to fix everyone’s problems and keep everyone “free of lust.”
Which is, of course, highly ironic because Jesus Christ himself, in the Bible, said the exact opposite of that. The Evangelical cult, and “conservative” American culture, lost the culture war, and lost their culture to the sexual revolution, precisely because they didn’t even read their own Bible.
So much great stuff here.
Paglia theorizes that men’s sexuality is intimately connected with the hunter/hunted predator/prey instinct. How anyone can observe human, even pets, or read a book, a bodice ripper, watch a romance film, and not understand this is shocking. As Paglia has often complained, a lot of these academic types are simply ignorant outside of their own extremely narrow field. Paglia tends to take her ideas from the perspective of the entire sweep of human history, from caveman times until today.
Peterson points out that those who accept “PC” political correctness doctrine have specific psychological traits. One, typically women – it’s women that internalize PC doctrine. This isn’t a surprise. Second, men and women with stereotypically “feminine” personality traits tend to internalize PC doctrine. Also, not a surprise.
But third, women with personality disorders tend to internalize PC doctrine. So we are not talking about healthy, psychologically adjusted women, but women with personality defects, women with difficulties in interpersonal relationships with men and women, women who are highly neurotic, paranoid, etc.
Again, this isn’t really a surprise to anyone but it’s nice to see it spelled out.
Of course they are politically timed, and of course his political enemies are the ones promoting the story, but that doesn’t change the fact they are almost certainly true.
According to the story, at around 30 years of age Roy Moore courted a number of young women from 16-18. He eventually married a woman 12 years his junior. This is normal male behavior and it’s clearly a pattern for him.
One of the women, 16, wanted to date him but her mother forbade it because he was too old for her. Another of the women, 17, did date him, described him as “romantic” and her mother said she was “lucky” to have his interest. Moore was an up and coming politician, a home town boy made good, and was described as handsome. There’s another incident of him chatting up a girl at 14 then asking her out later at 16.
The real scandal is the 14 year old girl at the center of the scandal. He meets her when her mother is waiting for a child custody hearing at the courthouse: in other words, the alleged 14 year old victim came from a broken home. Exactly the sort of girl that would be a target for predation.
She claims he picked her up “around the corner” from her parent’s house. Unlike the girls he was actually courting and considering for marriage, he allegedly drives the 14 year old girl straight to his house, gives her alcohol, strips her down to her bra and panties, feels her up and tries to get her to feel him up. He does not rape her, he doesn’t go “below her underwear” and drives her home when she asks.
This makes the story much more believable because “heavy petting” would be exactly the “line” that someone in that culture wouldn’t necessarily cross. Two other women, friends of the alleged victim, went on the record saying that she told them she was “seeing” an “older man” and at least one said she named him: Roy Moore.
We have no problem believing all the stories about the Hollywood moguls like Weinstein, the “male feminists” and their bizarre and passive aggressive behavior towards women, and no one is at all surprised that Kevin Spacey likes “chicken” and is aggressive and engages in assault – and years ago an internet commenter on reddit claims to have witnessed him engaging in sexual behavior with very young “pubescent” boys in Thailand. Spacey was also on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” plane.
Few have expressed doubt that Bill Clinton may have been having sex with Epstein’s teenage prostitutes/”sex slaves” – we’ve seen the picture of Prince Edwards with the then 16 year old Virginia at the center of the Epstein case. Few expressed doubts about this because it fits exactly the profile of these people. This is exactly how we expect “male feminists” to behave and it’s how we expect wealthy sociopaths like Bill Clinton to behave.
Well, this behavior fits the Christian conservative subculture that Moore is a part of. The choice of targets, the fact that it didn’t escalate beyond “heavy petting.” The fact is that Moore’s entire political shtick has been using a particular version of “Christian” sexual “repression” – that is virtually a mirror image of the “male feminists” the “Jewish moguls” and the “liberal’s” version of “sexual liberation.
Watch this famous video of an Evangelical preacher in Alabama named Paul Washer. Notice that sexual shaming used against teenagers just on the cusp on adolescence when they are first starting to develop a serious sex drive.
There is no healthy sexuality here. There is no promotion of marriage. There is no acknowledgement of the sex drive as “God’s plan for marriage.” Instead, it’s literally making horny teenagers feel bad for being horny teenagers. In fact, after watching a number of Paul Washer videos, my impression is that he is a typical sociopath, a high functioning emotional “abuser” (for lack of a better word.) He’s highly emotive but in way that seems clearly feigned – and highly practiced. Remember, sociopaths are often far more charismatic – and far more “sexy” – than emotionally normal people. They do not have normal emotions and no empathy for others, but highly functioning sociopaths are often quite good at feigning normal emotions.
Roy Moore’s pattern of behavior – and the behavior he is being accused of – matches PRECISELY with the negative sexual patterns of conservative Christian subcultures. It is not the same as the negative sexual patterns of feminists, homosexuals, the “sexual liberated” nor Jews with hostility to “shiksas.” No, this is the negative sexual patterns that are common to conservative subcultures.
Growing up, I have not only witnessed this exact same pattern of behavior of conservative religious men towards teenage girls, I’ve heard numerous stories from teenage girls and older women from that subculture describing this pattern of behavior from older conservative Christian men.
If she had claimed he took it out and jerked off into a potted plant – that would totally be unbelievable. If she said he held her down and raped her, that wouldn’t have been believable. If she was, say, a black prostitute that claimed Moore had paid her to pee on him, that would sound like a political hit.
But an up and coming powerful man with a pattern of courting teenage girls and women, who engages in “heavy petting” with a particularly vulnerable girl – but doesn’t actually rape her and won’t even take it to the level of sex (only “above the underwear”) – that fits the pattern.
Monogamy was always a balance of the sexual and reproductive interests of men and women. Young marriage is a good and healthy social practice – and a man like Moore marrying a woman a decade younger than him is not particularly scandalous to my mind.
But the problem with Christians (and considering the previous post, I’ll include Mormons here) is that they often can only rely on shame to repress young sexuality. They have no way of discussing sexuality and thus revert to a very simplistic mechanisms to keep teenagers from doing what comes naturally. It typically worked – when you have segregation of the sexes and young, companionate marriages.
But add in a power imbalance and an inability to deal forthrightly with biological reality, and you have just the situations that Moore is accused of engaging in. It’s understandable too that Moore is being attacked by the people most opposed to his conservative sexual morals, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he is being accused of is precisely the type of behavior one would expect of just such a man.
Catholic priests were able to get away with buggering the altar boys for close to ONE THOUSAND YEARS, and despite dozens of reformers, dissidents, and actually chaste Catholics complaining about it, it was only AFTER the “gay liberation movement” forced the uncomfortable issue into the public discussion that the victims could, in fact, complain about it, be heard, and believed.
Strom Thurmond had a black daughter. Of COURSE plenty of Southern plantation masters had sex with the prettiest of their black slaves. The power imbalance makes the sex ULTRA-HOT.
Of course Weinstein liked to humiliate “shiksas” that needed him to help their careers. Of COURSE some goofball like Louis CK likes to jerk off in front of women. Of COURSE “male feminists” are some of the biggest creeps – and rapiest rapers – of all.
And of course powerful men in sexually closed religious subcultures are going to be attracted like moths to a flame to vulnerable young girls – the power difference makes it all so ultra-hot.
The solution is NOT “sexual liberation” nor is it “sexual repression.” The solution is a frank recognition of biological reality, and a civil society that recognizes that biological reality, and can steer these natural biological forces into socially productive – and biologically reproductive – ways.
If the Christian sexual repression was a workable system, it wouldn’t have been overturned so easily by the sexual revolutionaries and the pornographers. And if sexual liberation was a workable system, we wouldn’t see the barely 50 years old sexual liberation movement collapsing on itself over and over again.
If I was creating a religion from scratch, it would probably look a lot like Mormonism. They get all the key features right:
1. Early marriage of young couples.
3. Just-this-side of explicitly White.
4. The right amoung of mystery and ritual and a hierarchy that is kind of secret.
Interesting line, the interviewee suggests that religion makes people slutty, and the interviewer agrees and says “it worked for me.” This is a post-hoc rationalization of what actually happens – what actually happens if the early sex drive is not steered into marriage, it will go crazy.
Since anecdotes are evidence to these people, my own. One girlfriend and I actually staged a “wedding” after we had been together for a year. It was very paganish. She had her bridesmaids and I had my grooms, it was in an amazing part of nature. It was utterly sweet and extremely erotic.
Neither of us had the experience of the traditional build up to a young marriage – we were both sluts at that point and were living together and decided to do it on the spur of the moment. Our sex life was uber-fantastic but both of us – apparently – were yearning for something a bit more. Some ritual, some commitment, some “magic” in the antropological sense.
Like a bunch of pagans, we immediately retired to a tent and consummated the marriage with just the slightest hint of privacy.
She wasn’t religious at all, and I had abandoned religion years before. It wasn’t religion that made us slutty, it was in fact the lack of it.
I find it interesting how HATED the Mormons are by the secular culture. The Vice interviewer even mocks a Mormon anti-porn conference as “a thousand white people who claim to not masturbate.” (NOTE how the attacks on Whites are paired with the anti-sex attitudes of replacing sex with masturbation.) Just watch how hostile Vice is to the Mormons while in another video they absolutely fawn over the Sascha Gray porn star.
Vice lies and conflates “anti-porn” with “anti-sex” which obviously just isn’t true. Porn does not equal sex. In fact, as porn has become mainstream – teenagers are having LESS sex than ever.
(Also note the appeals to authority, “the psychiatric community finds no harm in porn” – which is not true. Scientific studies have shown that porn IS addictive by the same mechanisms that various other drugs and vices are addictive. It just shows how fragile the anti-sex, anti-monogamy left’s consensus really is.)
Interestingly too that the pornographer they interview:
1) Literally finds the Mormon marriage rituals to be highly erotic. There goes the idea that they are “anti-sex!” Do leftists even TRY to make sense?
2) The pornographer is a dyke, and I’d bet is extremely masculine looking/presenting. So it’s pretty obvious that all those pretty blonde girls in white dresses she is filming is just her making up for all those pretty blonde – and straight – Mormon girls that wouldn’t dyke out with her in high school. Porn is her way of getting back at all the normal people. Pure resentment. If she was a man, the rad feminists would call what she is doing “misogyny.” She’s the lesbian version of the Asian manosphere “Supreme Gentleman” that murdered all those people in California.
3) She tries to imply something sinister about Mormon male authority figures – OF COURSE.
I think it’s pretty obvious who has a healthy sexuality and who does not. Mormons marry young, are extremely PRO-SEX, and have big families.
Vice Media employees watch porn, masturbate, have OBVIOUS hang ups about sex, and have a TINY fertility rate. They probably have more abortions than live children.
Mormons are Pro-Sex, while Vice Media – and the anti-white left – are ANTI-SEX. They are like something out of 1984’s Junior Anti-Sex League.
This is an aspect of the culture war that the pro-whites and “the right” (whatever that means) could WIN. But they don’t have a rhetoric about sex in the modern era. Partially, because before the sexual revolution, they didn’t need one. The sexual revolution hit and they just did what conservatives do, tried to ignore it, then made some concession, then ran and hid.
That’s why you need Hipster Racist, who knows how to take on the anti-sex forces of the sexual revolution. The pro-white “right” needs to explain how utterly PRO-SEX we are, and how the entire purpose of the Politically Correct, anti-White left is to spoil healthy fun sex for everyone.