https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/donald-trump-qanon-town-hall
“Let me ask you about QAnon,” Guthrie said, referring conspiracy theory that a cabal of Democratic politicians, liberal Hollywood actors, and high-ranking government officials, who worship Satan, are running a child-sex-trafficking ring and simultaneously plotting against Trump, who is planning a day of reckoning in which thousands of members of the cult will be arrested. “It is this theory that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are the savior of that. Now, can you just, once and for all, state that that is completely not true and disavow QAnon in its entirety?” To reiterate, the thing Guthrie was asking the president of the United States to reject was the completely insane, entirely baseless claim that his political enemies and other liberals are running a satanic child-sex-trafficking cult. Which is not hard to denounce, unless you (1) believe it and/or (2) are counting on these deeply disturbed individuals to vote for you. And yet:
Trump: Can I be honest? [Sasse] may be right. I just don’t know about QAnon.
Guthrie: You do know.
Trump: I don’t know. No, I don’t know. I don’t know. You tell me all about it.Guthrie: Let me ask you another thing.
Trump: Let’s waste the whole show. You start off with white supremacy. I denounce it. You start off with something else. Let’s go. Keep asking me these questions. But let me just tell you, what I do hear about it is they are very strongly against pedophilia. And I agree with that. I mean, I do agree with that, and I agree with it very strongly.
Guthrie: But there’s not a Satanic pedophile cult being run by—
Trump: I have no idea. I know nothing about them.
Guthrie: You don’t know that? Okay.
I didn't review the article. But just going by the excerpt above, I will comment.
ReplyDeleteI eschew them term White Supremacy. I prefer a term like White activists, although that term also lacks descriptive power. "Supremacy" implies a hierarchy, and that's what I'm trying to avoid. Some of the Whites I associate with identify as Whites, not unlike someone from another racial group would identify themselves by a racial or regional group name.
Whites, while not monolithic, have certain things in common. There is even an acronym SWPL associated with one of the White sub-groups that is most assuredly not supremacist: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuff_White_People_Like
The problem is that liberal, leftist members of the media seem to deny that Whites collectively are a distinct group. But indeed Whites can be conceptualized that way. It's evident from the (for want of a better term) Far Right White social media I participate in that Whites on the Far Right of the political spectrum constitute a group with characteristics that can be delineated and I gain a lot from the discussions that take place through that media because many of the points the contributors make are thought through and well articulated.
I am known as Joe the Jew there and made to feel welcome. Sometimes my perspective as a Jew is solicited, but most of the time I am a passive participant.
In particular, I feel comfortable when an issue like LGBT comes up. Certainly I seem to have more in common with these Whites in some ways then with Jews, say, in Eretz Yisrael who put on gay parades in Tel Aviv. The same can be said for my liking the Palestinian Authority's clear stance against LGBT activities.
Now, to the topic at hand.
The nexxt logical step after normalizing homosexual behavior is for the political elites to normalize pedophilia. So while the "liberals" may not be running a "satanic child-sex-trafficking cult", President Trump was correct in his assessment that the Far Right "are very strongly against pedophilia."
Be honest: you'd have criticized any response. If he flat out came out and condemned them, you'd say "Yeah, he was just saying that but really..."
ReplyDeleteWow!
ReplyDeleteA true prophet who nonetheless is mistaken.
I'm sorry to be negative, truly, but...
ReplyDeleteThat is a ludicrously stupid conclusion to have drawn from the above piece.
The next logical step after normalizing homosexual behavior is for the political elites to normalize pedophilia.
ReplyDeleteLook, I have nothing against you personally, nor any stake in any fight for gay rights or whatever, when I offer this major FYI: The above exists entirely & solely in your imagination.
The current culture for about the past 10-20yrs -- basically, since passage "Megan's law", but especially so in the decade after -- has been becoming progressively more conscious of & less tolerant of paedophiles and of the social tendency to turn a blind eye to them & their grooming activities. Meanwhile, to state the plainly obvious here, homosexuality has become ever progressively more mainstreamed & homophobia less tolerated.
Regardless of one's own personal feelings or opinions on either matter, it strains facts entirely to join these arm-in-arm as social movements.
So while the "liberals" may not be running a "satanic child-sex-trafficking cult"...
What a concession to throw in as an aside! OMG.... LOL hahaha....
Seriously, could anyone ever have foreseen such a sentence ever being penned with straight face? What would it be like to hear that at an actual debate, I wonder? "While it may technically be true, ladies & gentlemen, that my worthy opponent is not some conniving Nazi child rapist & wanton sadist, nevertheless... I do condemn those activities and espouse an honest democracy that compassionately embraces a healthy upbringing for children. Thank you. ... what what's the problem? I said he wasn't those things, hello?!"
President Trump was correct in his assessment that the Far Right "are very strongly against pedophilia."
Is that, like, meant to be some brave stance? LOL. Gosh, there really does need to be a name for this fallacy, which would seem to go to the very heart of what politics is: "Paedophilia is terrible. If you think so too, then you agree with us. So, vote Republican."
Maybe term it 'strategic misattribution'? Some brand of ecological fallacy, maybe...?
https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/unicef-report-dismissing-pornographys-harms-to-children-removed/
ReplyDeletehttps://t.co/dSHoayDL7X#8v1tTMHb5OVZCmiOdW9Dgq
ReplyDeleteStrange would-be reply. Are you identifying sex ed with paedophilia? You know these are very different phenomena, yes?
ReplyDeleteThe school sex ed movement regards classroom (i.e., basically public) cultural activity, and has been at work in this nation for the past 50-some years. In principle, it hearkens back to the perpetual tug-of-war between parents & schools for control of children's minds that has existed maybe since time immemorial. Paedophilia is the private (secluded & often in secret) sexual preying on children by adults who typically will exploit some power over the child to do so.
How smoothly you jorlow such matters....! That's another fallacy, one I just took the initiative to name:
ReplyDeleteJorlow, verb: to respond to obvious counter-evidence to one's theory by repeating the theory, as if the reply were somehow merited.
Is the time of the tide to move towards acceptance of consensual relations between parent/child and between siblings? Or only the kind of consensual relations the homosexual lobby cares for?
ReplyDelete(Cont'd....)
ReplyDeleteIn fact, now that I think about it, arguably the most anti-homosexuality institution on global record, in terms of institutional size, doctrine, & political influence -- namely, the Catholic Church -- has been in recent years openly unmasked, if not already long before that informally unmasked, as the most actively paedophiliac institution imaginable, trafficking priests across the globe whom they actively harbored & helped, for whatever institutional reasons. Factual counter-examples don't get more blatant than that, fella....
Doctrines re sexual mores like sex ed & LGBT rights, etc., and active social practices like paedophilia tolerance or promotion, have nothing to do with each other, and in fact may well prove upon examination to be a bit negatively correlated, even.
Maybe my sentence was misleading. I was not expressing an implicit preference or advocating anything. Meant just to describe the historical fact that the tide is moving that way.
ReplyDeleteFrom where are you deriving causation that their strong anti-pedophilic doctrinal stance resulted in their pedophilic operations?
ReplyDeleteOr that their anti-homosexuality doctrinal stance resulted in their pedophilic operations? None of these may have anything to do with each other.
And by your logic it could then be argued too that their strong anti-homosexuality stance must have also produced a massive clandestine homosexual operation within the institution. If so, that wouldn't dispute Joseph's point at all. But I'm not seeing how any of it is causative. That institution is doctrinally aligned against the Pedo agenda (supposedly, anyway. Possibly they pretend), and also aligned against the homosexual agenda (supposedly).
Whether the overall LGBTQ+ agenda/movement and its leaders and organizations are aligned (and to what extent) with the pedo agenda is a question that must be addressed in its own right.
All it is going to take is one Supreme Court decision that children have a Constitutionally protected right to consent.
ReplyDeleteBizarre? Today, yes. Tomorrow, maybe not.
Fifty years ago someone claiming that the Consitution has within it a right for men to marry men and women to marry women would not have been taken seriously either.
Well, whether true or not, that argument is self-refuting.
ReplyDeleteFor you wrote above,
It's only a matter of time [that paedophilia will be normalized] if we don't fight back.
But if it's true that it only takes "one Supreme Court decision" to lose that battle, well that's always true no matter who is in power, so there's nothing to "fight back" electorally against....
No one can dictate what comes before the courts, save the courts. And you can bet that even if the largest mob riots outside the SCOTUS courtroom, it won't sway their mind one bit; maybe the opposite, in fact. So what is there you imagine there is to do by way of "fighting back"?
The Supreme Court justices who ruled that same-sex marriage is a right found in the U.S. Constitution did not rule that way strictly based on the wording in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThey were influenced by the fact that States were legalizing same-sex marriage.
Check out the timeline.
https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201
Interesting. You fit my model just perfectly. Straight up, transparent fear-mongering in order to sway yourself & any listener to the Right....
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I just love how naturally the assumption lies about your thinking that "we" can direct the course of popular developments via conscious control. It's like you're channeling every foolish tyrant & every happily naive parent that's ever been. Cute. And all happily combined with the notion that a Court composed of nine life-tenured elites will obey popular will. OK, that's not so cute as straight up dense.
Back here on firm ground, of course, it's a blessing that we don't have such power; for, however foolhardy the Obergefell SCOTUS decision was (as four distinguished dissenters noted so very forcefully), and however wildly stupid the electorate can be, if we weren't living in a Democratic Republic that cedes such decisions as the age of marriage to the populace and checks that electoral authority with the incontestable judgment of the courts, then the same fear-mongering you're attempting now against "the Left" (that scary boogyman!) would already many times over have come against this nation's Jewry... no doubt far more effectively. b"H!!
I think you and I are using different definitions of pedopghilia (as well as different spellings.)
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia:
"In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors."
I am not arguing that homosexuality and preying on children are necessarily correlated. Rather, I am saying that the same legal logic that affords homosexuals the Constitutional right to legally marry can and will be applied to legalizing the marriage of adults to young children in those cases where the children legally consent.
The lynchpin of the plan to stop this is not having courts rule that children can consent. In contrast to the purist approach you take when analyzing Supreme Court decisions, I think that it's possible some justices are advancing a social agenda under the guise of exquisitely craftly legal rulings.
I began this whole thread warning that what you took to be "logical" was a chimerical boogeyman conjured out of your imagination. And then you go and post this last comment (strangely dead center of an already existing thread, though responding implicitly to points made already further down it) laying forth so much more imaginings, as if to act out my original point as manifestly as possible.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Justices are 'really' doing (insight which somehow requires no traceable legal understanding or analysis); how that supposed liberalizing eventuality can be curbed or undermined: how to influence children; what sexual education means vis-à-vis sexually preying on, or courting, or just plain sexually enjoying - to the paedophilia you've now triply(!) defined (and quite vaguely)...
Just recognize all that for what it is: entirely summoned forth from your own fancy. ...Ok, ok, and granting that those paranoiac "thoughts" get refracted off angry talking heads foretelling doom on various media, which reinforce & fuel them
To unravel this web in the clouds, it might help to note that neither definition of paedophilia you appeal to in Wikipedia has anything to do with talking to kids in classrooms about what sex means to adults, how it takes place, and what kids should expect to experience or hear spoken about. However terrible an idea that may strike some, to say that it forewarns of a future where sexual interest in children is mainstreamed not only strains logic but much of what we do know about our society.
The answer to discovering a hole in one's logic is not -- newsflash here! -- to muddy your thinking yet further so as to obscure the hole.
One complaint: Why did you feel the need to post this here? Most of what you cite is the SCOTUS stuff, which discussion takes place 4-6 comments further down the thread. Seems vandalizing....
You wrote in a comment:
ReplyDelete" Paedophilia, by contrast, refers to the private -- secluded & often in secret -- sexual preying...."
I hit "Reply" and posted an alternative definition.
...and then went on to say substantially more than that.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, it was all irrelevant anyway, as you were just equivocating on "sexualizing children". By "sexual interest in children" that is not predatory, Wikipedia was referring to stuff like watching kiddy porn -- i.e., prurient interest for self-titillation, not clinical interest in questions of how sexually mature pre-pubescents are or ought to be.
Go back up to my second comment which includes a link to an article about a school teaching things to kids that are, in my estimation, unnecessary unless perhaps the goal is to move forward a pedophile agenda.
ReplyDeleteSo your hypothesis is that the creators of the sex ed video cited there are conspiring with school faculty or administration -- whoever's in charge of curriculum -- actively to groom children all together so as to make them into readier fodder for their own paedophiliac activity?
ReplyDeleteYou seriously can't think of any other reason -- any far likelier, altogether more terrestrial reason -- why progressives would think it wise or well advised to initiate making bodily functions, including nascent sexual functions, mentionable for children? Just that it's obviously a prelude to making them ripe for sexual activity?
We've arrived at a very good point. You get me. Thoroughly enjoyed our exchange here.
ReplyDeleteUm, ok. I was actually belittling you some with sarcasm I'd presumed was entirely apparent. But rather, in the process, I've managed to give voice to the view from your tinfoil-hatted existence.
ReplyDeleteSo we're back where we started: you subscribe, in a spirit of happy paranoia, to what I've already described as "a 'logic' that exists entirely & solely in your imagination." While you feel no need to apologize for this eccentric solipsism, clearly at least you're upfront about it....
“Donald Trump Insists It’s Entirely Possible Democrats Are Running a Satanic Pedophile Cult” Let’s talk about the pleasures and delights from the proper observance of the Sabbath:
ReplyDeleteישעיהו פרק נח פסוק יג - יד
(יג) אִם תָּשִׁיב מִשַּׁבָּת רַגְלֶךָ עֲשׂוֹת חֲפָצֶיךָ בְּיוֹם קָדְשִׁי וְקָרָאתָ לַשַּׁבָּת עֹנֶג לִקְדוֹשׁ יְקֹוָק מְכֻבָּד וְכִבַּדְתּוֹ מֵעֲשׂוֹת דְּרָכֶיךָ מִמְּצוֹא חֶפְצְךָ וְדַבֵּר דָּבָר:
(יד) אָז תִּתְעַנַּג עַל יְקֹוָק וְהִרְכַּבְתִּיךָ עַל בָּמֳתֵי אָרֶץ וְהַאֲכַלְתִּיךָ נַחֲלַת יַעֲקֹב אָבִיךָ כִּי פִּי יְקֹוָק דִּבֵּר:
“They speak words, They swear falsely, they make covenants; Thus judgment springeth up as hemlock In the furrows of the field.” (Hosea 10:4).
“And there was set food before him to eat; but he said: I will not eat, until I have told mine errand. And he said: Speak on.” (Genesis 24:33).
“He made him ride on the high places of the earth, And he did eat the fruitage of the field; And He made him to suck honey out of the crag, And oil out of the flinty rock;” (Deuteronomy 32:13).
“And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. And in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 28:14).
Beautiful. We must follow “If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath, From pursuing thy business on My holy day; And call the sabbath a delight, And the holy of the Lord honorable; And shalt honor it, not doing your own ways, Nor pursuing thy business, nor speaking thereof; Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, And I will make thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, And I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. not doing your own ways, nor pursuing your own business, nor speaking of vain matters;” (Isaiah 58:13-14).
This blog is Daattorah. Can we stay on topic? I like what you’re saying JoeOrlow. DT blocks me from making upticks.