(Part 1 is here.)
it is these very same groups who actually promote
paedophilia, but they get away with doing this
In this second part I hope to demonstrate that the paedophile
hysteria being generated by so many groups of people has nothing to do with
protecting children. On the contrary, by and large, it is these very same groups
who actually promote paedophilia, but they get away with doing this because they
masquerade - very vociferously - as being 'concerned for children'. And,
somehow, this self-serving hysteria successfully blinds the public to their own
culpability when it comes to promoting paedophilia, and, indeed, to promoting many other
forms of child abuse; e.g. as a result of family breakdown, drug abuse, poor education, violence,
teenage pregnancy etc etc.
So much has already been said on
this website demonstrating that organisations such as the NSPCC, the various
women's victim groups, the feminists and the government are major promoters of
child abuse that I will refrain from talking about these particular culprits
again. Instead, I want to look at other areas where this is happening and so put
into a more realistic context Chris Langham's crime.
downloading illicit pictures, it is argued by many, Chris Langham helped to promote
child sexual abuse, because he added to the demand for the product - at least in
some small way.
when one looks more closely at those activities which promote not
only child sexual abuse, but also other kinds of serious child abuse, Chris
Langham's crime pales into insignificance.
the editor of
the Sun newspaper has done far more to promote paedophilia and other types
of child abuse than has Chris Langham.
For example, the
editor of the Sun newspaper has done far more to promote paedophilia and other
types of child abuse than has Chris Langham.
Here are some
examples of how she does this.
If you look at the Sun's website,
one of the first things that you will notice is that 'young women dressing and
behaving sexily' figures very largely indeed.
Bearing in mind that this newspaper has the
widest circulation in the UK (some 3 million readers, I think) and that copies
of it will be lying around a significant number of households, the Sun is
sending out a very strong message to young girls that 'dressing and behaving
sexily' is something that will win them attention, admiration and, possibly, much
money and fame. And, indeed, hundreds of thousands of young girls have taken
this message on board - because, as is typical of youngsters, they want to grow
up as soon as possible. And whatever 16-year olds are trying to emulate, 14-year
olds, and then 12-year olds, right down the age groups, will follow suit.
here, for example, is the woman who, for the past decade or so, has probably
been one of the most influential role models for young women in the UK.
the near see-through top?
Sun newspaper not only promotes young sexuality by the way in
which it portrays 'celebrities', it also encourages ordinary young women to take up 'dressing
and behaving sexily' - as can be seen in all the photographs on its page entitled Ibiza
(Ibiza is a Spanish holiday resort to which
thousands of UK youngsters flock every year. It is renowned for heavy drinking
And the only point that I am
trying to make here is that when it comes to promoting child
sexual abuse, the Sun's editor is far more culpable than Chris Langham - by a
very long way.
The Sun will be encouraging millions of youngsters
- on a daily basis - to become sexual.
Here is another example of the Sun
newspaper promoting child abuse - in this case by encouraging youngsters to take
cocaine - a highly-addictive drug which, for example, has led to many underage girls taking up
prostitution to pay for their addiction.
Notice how this short
piece goes out of its way to glamourise the taking of cocaine in young minds
Notice how this short
piece goes out of its way to glamourise the taking of cocaine in young minds - Naomi, coke & lesbo romp
- and how it associates fame, excitement, sexuality and wealth with the drug.
(The Sun appears now to have removed this piece from its website - but the text
- without the associated pictures - can be seen below.)
yet the Sun newspaper is forever claiming to be vehemently anti-drugs -
protesting loudly, for example, whenever there are calls to tone down the 'war
And so, once again, as in the case of
paedophilia, what we see going on here is another example of this newspaper
claiming that it is very concerned about something (in this case, the taking of
drugs) while at the very same time it actually promotes it.
And so readers need to ask
themselves why it is that the public seems unconcerned about what the Sun's editor is
doing. Why is
there no outrage over her promotion of child sex abuse? - given that, apparently, the public is so concerned about
And, in my view, the answer to this question is as
the public - and the Sun's editor - is not really very concerned about child
abuse at all. As Mick Hume so often says, the hysteria over child abuse is more to do
with, "Look at me, and see what a good person I am, as demonstrated by my publicly-exhibited
'outrage'," and less to do with any real concern for children.
the public's attention toward those factors that really are conducive to child
abuse (fatherlessness, family breakdown, teenage pregnancies etc) is continually
being diverted - by the feminist-dominated media - towards the perpetrators
themselves - men mostly. In other words, as is absolutely typical inside today's
feminist-induced climate of man-hatred, the environment is suddenly disappeared
from view, and the problems (in this case, paedophilia) are deemed to stem entirely
from the evilness of men - with, of course, the Sun bearing no
And so, for example, it seems that if
the Sun prints on Page One that it is hotly opposed to 'illicit' sex and hotly
opposed to drugs etc, then it can get away with actually promoting
both of these things on Page Two!
(The same sort of tactic is
engaged in by many other groups that fuel 'abuse hysteria'. For example, the
NSPCC professes to be very concerned about
child abuse, but its activities actually promote it very strongly.)
Further evidence that the Sun's editor cares very little about children
comes from her heavy promotion of gambling
evidence that the Sun's editor cares very little about children comes from her heavy promotion of gambling. Indeed, there are four links on
the Sun's front page
to its own gambling pages Bingo, Casino, Poker, Betting.
yet, here in the UK, it is well-known that gambling has become a serious problem
for many families - with close to one million adults professing to being
addicted to gambling. Furthermore, gambling addiction is responsible for a
significant amount of family unhappiness and breakdown, domestic violence, child abuse, loss of
family property and drug and alcohol abuse.
Well, I could
probably go on, and find many other ways in which the highly-influential
Sun newspaper undoubtedly
contributes very significantly to the harm that is caused to children (such as
its campaign against speed cameras - despite the fact that some 300 children are
killed and many thousands of children are seriously injured
on the roads every
year in the UK) but I think that the point is made. The Sun newspaper - and, of course,
others like it - has promoted serious child 'abuse' in one way or
another to an extent that makes Chris Langham's promotion of child abuse almost
As such, while it is true that Chris Langham
did, indeed, in some small way contribute to the promotion of child abuse by
downloading those images, it is also true that anybody who hands money over to
the Sun newspaper promotes child abuse far and wide, and on a
scale that dwarfs what Chris Langham did.
I want now to try to home in on the point that the
child-abuse hysteria is no different from all the other forms of 'abuse' hysteria that
are forever being generated these days. In other words, the child-abuse hysteria is, by and large, simply
one aspect of the attempt - by various groups - to profit by demonising men, and it
has precious little to do with any concern for children.
noticed a heavily pregnant woman of about 25 smoking.
days ago, as I was walking along the high street in my neighbourhood, I noticed
a heavily pregnant woman of about 25 smoking. She looked like a cheerful soul,
and she was chatting away quite merrily to another mother who was pushing a
Clearly, she had no concern that members of the public
would start shouting words of abuse at her.
Well, why not?
we all know by now that the chances are that this woman was actively harming
her yet unborn child. And so if the public is so concerned about 'child
abuse', then why is there no public outrage directed at this woman?
And then I
asked myself this rather strange question.
If it was men
who became pregnant, would they, nowadays, be able to smoke in public if
they were pregnant
If it was men
who became pregnant, would they, nowadays, be able to smoke in public if they
were pregnant, without being assaulted and verbally abused hither and thither?
I think that the answer is, No. They would not be allowed to smoke. And men
would probably be arrested if they smoked while pregnant.
reason for this is that the 'outrages' over child abuse are largely manufactured
in order to demonise men - not to
And, hence, this is why this young woman can
happily smoke in the street without fear of any public rebuke.
simply, she is not a man.
And if all this sounds rather far-fetched, then let us
recall that the Sun newspaper can, seemingly, promote as much child abuse as it
likes - through various avenues - and yet there is no outrage.
Well, why not?
the outrage expressed over Chris Langham's crime is phony.
None of this makes any sense; until, that is, you
realise that the outrage expressed over Chris Langham's crime is phony.
when it comes to the promotion of smoking, it is surely the case
that all children might, some day, be adversely affected by it.
(It is true that they will mostly be adults should this happen; but, even as
adults, they will still remain your children.) And so why is it
that those who, for example, sell cigarettes are not hotly abused by members of
the public - particularly those who hate smoking? After all, millions of the public's children might, one day, end up facing truly horrible consequences from taking up smoking.
same types of argument can be made when it comes to alcohol. Indeed, the
consumption of alcohol is known to have hugely detrimental effects on society.
It causes a large number of serious road accidents, a great deal of violence and
inter-personal disharmony -
domestic and otherwise - and it also lowers the likelihood that people will refrain
from doing inappropriate sexual things - and this includes inappropriate sexual things
with youngsters. In short, alcohol consumption increases very
significantly the amount of harm done to children throughout the nation
in many different ways.
But where is the outrage?
people not saying that, "Every time that you buy a drink you increase the demand for a
product that leads to more child abuse"? - just as they say with regard to Chris
with regard to gambling and alcohol, Tony Blair's Labour government has actually
attempted to increase their availability and their consumption through the
relaxation of various restricting laws. And given that this government also
seems to have continued to do its very best to encourage family breakdown and
fatherlessness - factors that increase hugely the amount of harm experienced by
children - one has again to ask the question; Where is the outrage to all this?
- given that, apparently, those people who are so outraged over Chris Langham's
crime profess to be so concerned about the welfare of
Their 'outrage' is a sham. And they manufacture it
simply in order to profit themselves in some way.
And my answer to this question is, basically,
that there is no outrage because, quite simply, those people who are 'outraged'
by Chris Langham's crime are not concerned about the welfare of children at all.
Their 'outrage' is a sham. And they manufacture it simply in order to profit
themselves in some way.
Perhaps they work in the abuse industry
and they want to justify more funding. Perhaps they are feminists who will
always seek to demonise men in order to grow their empires. Perhaps they are
wanting to say, "Look at how wonderful I am. I am outraged by Chris Langham."
Perhaps they want to sell newspapers.
But the point is this.
only seem to be 'outraged' when they can successfully - and specifically -
target and demonise 'men'.
Here is another
image above is of the singing group that was the UK's entry into last year's
Eurovision Song Contest; a contest that was watched by about 200 million
people throughout Europe.
The young women
were all dressed like schoolgirls
young women were all dressed like schoolgirls, and the various dance manouvres
that they performed throughout their routine was, as might be expected from the
above image, 'cheeky' and mildly 'provocative'.
Where was the
There was none at all.
And what about
Parents will be denied the right to know if their child is having under-age sex under controversial guidelines for doctors unveiled
Doctors were told they should not tell parents if children up to three years below the age of consent approach them
for contraceptives or an abortion.
On and on it goes.
For example, here is how pharmacists contribute to child abuse ... Girls as young as 12 are being given the morning-after pill without their parents' knowledge at chemist
people, in general, only care about child abuse
provided that their various freedoms ... are not infringed upon.
Of course, one possible reason for the lack of outrage
over all those factors (mentioned above) which promote child abuse is that people, in general, only care about child abuse provided that
their various freedoms (to drink, to smoke, to gamble, to dress sexily, to ogle
at pictures of young women, to divorce, to drive without speed cameras, to buy
the Sun newspaper etc etc) are not infringed upon.
in a free society, one might justifiably think.
But then let us
not pretend that such people are particularly concerned about child abuse; because,
quite clearly, they are not.
Now, of course, what has been said
above does not apply to everybody.
After all, not everybody is
clamouring for Chris Langham's blood.
Far from it.
indeed, there are millions of people who are, in fact, genuinely concerned about
the negative effects on society and, hence, on children, that smoking, drinking,
gambling, speeding, and so on, bring about - particularly, perhaps, if they have
had the misfortune to be badly affected by such things.
for the most part, these particular people do not launch into verbal abuse,
open hostility and threats of violence against those whom they believe 'promote'
such things. And they do not tend to demonise them hotly.
example, they do not mostly threaten to lynch those who sell
tobacco or alcohol. They do not mostly terrorise those who promote
gambling, or those who buy the Sun newspaper.
Indeed, there are millions of
people who believe that abortion is the actual killing of children. But, yet again, no continual
publicly-expressed outrage, verbal abuse
or outright hostility is hurled towards those who are involved with abortions. Well,
why not? - if these particular people are really concerned about
the killing of children.
And I can only give you
the same answer.
People seem only to be 'outraged' when they can successfully - and specifically - target and demonise
And, of course, the same applies when it comes to car accidents.
Thousands of youngsters are killed or maimed every year.
And yet the
public moans about speed limits, speed cameras, speed bumps and anything
that interferes with their liberty to drive as they wish.
their concern for children suddenly gone?
the blame for many of society's various social ills has
simply been pinned instead on to the various alleged deficiencies in men
And what seems to have happened over the years since
the arrival of the feminists of the 60s and 70s and their left-wing friends in
government is that, through a process of what can only be described as very
strong indoctrination accompanied by heavy penalties for those who express
opposing (politically-incorrect) views, the public has been largely blinded
to the hugely negative effects on society - and on children - that arise from feminist-promoted
politically-correct rhetoric and policies - e.g. as per The Benefits of Feminism.
And the blame for many of society's various social ills has simply been pinned instead on to
alleged deficiencies in men - with, further, these deficiencies mostly being
proclaimed to be inherent to men, rather than arising from the situations
(environmental) in which society nowadays places men, and, of course, in which
it places everybody
else - including the children.
the notions being expressed are, "The kind of society that we have created
and continue to endorse does not promote child abuse. The inherently bad nature
of 'men' is, alone, responsible for
And this ludicrous, self-contradictory combination of
notions can, surely, only be pervasive throughout a society in which the people have
been well and truly suckered and brainwashed to the point of stupidity.
As we have seen, many others promote child abuse on a very wide scale
with regard to Chris Langham himself, I have no hesitation in confessing that I
feel very sorry for him. He has been sent to prison for ten months, he has been
vilified throughout the country, and his entire career is in tatters. And yet,
essentially, this has all happened because he looked at some illicit images, not
because of his alleged 'promotion' of child abuse. (As we have seen, many others
promote child abuse on a very wide scale, and yet barely a peep of protest is
heard about them.)
And for those of you who have watched Chris
Langham - appearing in various comedy programmes over the past three
decades or so - it must have been fairly obvious that here was a man who was
insecure, depressed, confused, not amazingly talented, whose career was rarely
getting anywhere - until recently - and who gave the distinct impression that he often did not
even know whether he was coming or going.
In other words,
psychologically, socially, emotionally and professionally, Chris Langham was always something
of a major shambles.
And, for some reason
or other, Chris Langham became fascinated by some images. He broke the law - a
law which we do need to have - but let us not pretend that he is
an evil demon of some sort.
Chris Langham looked at images. He
did not abuse anybody. But, unfortunately for him, we continue to live in a
feminist-dominated society. And in such a society, one psychological force is
continually being fomented and fuelled above all others.
every tiny malefaction or transgression by men that
can somehow be portrayed as being 'abusive' towards women or children is
exaggerated and amplified to a ridiculous degree
And every tiny malefaction or transgression by men that
can somehow be portrayed as being 'abusive' towards women or children is exaggerated and
amplified to a ridiculous degree by various people, simply in order to maintain and to promote this
hatred - and, further, to profit from this in some way.
Langham looked at pictures. He did not abuse anybody. And nor did he promote
child abuse to even a small fraction of the extent that is promoted by anyone who, for example, buys the
Sun newspaper or, indeed, by anyone who visits a doctor who prescribes
contraceptives to youngsters.
And, of course, anybody who endorses,
promotes or implements feminist policies that are conducive to family
break ups or single motherhood - which are, in fact, most of the main policies advocated
by feminists - clearly promotes child abuse on a truly vast scale.