A discussion with a friend about “Q” dovetailed perfectly with my awareness that we have lately been inundated by reports about pedophiles.
It’s not just Jeffrey Epstein. Long before Jeffrey Epstein, I’ve been aware of a rising tide of stories about pedophiles. I’ve had all sorts of questions. Is this because there’s more pedophilia? Is this because open borders mean more child trafficking? Is this because once you’re aware of something you start seeing it? Is this because law enforcement is more actively pursuing pedophiles? Is this because the internet makes pedophilia easier? I’d actually started several times to write a post about my rising awareness of pedophilia, but then realized I had nowhere to go with it.
Those readers who have stuck with me over the years know that I like to say a conspiracy theory is imaginary dots connected by invisible lines. In this case, I knew that the dots were not imaginary — they’re real stories, every one, from Epstein on down — but I couldn’t find the lines make a picture. I also am always scared to swerve into conspiracy theory territory which, while a fun intellectual game, is never a good look long-term.
The other day, though, I got a phone call from a friend who wanted to talk about Q. I’ve never followed Q or, frankly, paid much attention to Q. I kind of assumed that Q was either a clever con artist, like an oracle or medium who says vague things to which people later attach meaning or was a good hoaxer. My friend, however, thinks Q is real and that Q is working to expose a very disturbing world-wide syndicate of evil.
Today, American Thinker published my friend’s article explaining her take on the Q phenomenon. Here’s what she thinks Q is:
Q’s followers believe that Q is a military intelligence operation, the first of its kind, whose goal is to provide the public with secret information. Many Q followers think the Q team was founded by Admiral Michael Rogers, the former Director of the National Security Agency and former Commander of US Cyber Command. Some suspect that Dan Scavino, White House Director of Social Media, is part of the team, because the high quality of Q’s writing has the luster of a communications expert.
Q is a new weapon in the game of information warfare, bypassing a hostile media and corrupt government to communicate directly with the public. Think of Q as a companion to Trump’s twitter. Whereas Trump communicates bluntly and directly, Q is cryptic, sly and subtle, offering only clues that beg for context and connection.
As we talked on the phone, and “Deborah” began mentioning how people were being exposed for criminal conduct after Q dropped remarks leading to them, I suddenly realized at least one direction in which our conversation was heading: pedophiles. Not just Epstein, but lots and lots of pedophiles.
I should say here that, despite respecting my friend’s intelligence and acumen more than I can say, I still have reservations about Q. I had the same reservations when another truly brilliant friend (and she knows who she is) also told me that Q is a high-level operation trickling intelligence out that’s aimed at removing corrupt actors around the world. Despite the fact that I write anonymously, I’m just giving my opinion here at my blog. However, when it comes to anonymous people who drip out cryptic factual sound bytes, I’m just suspicious. All of which is to say, I’m not discounting the messages Q is sending; I’m just cautious about assigning to Q some high-level government/military position.
Anyway, back to my point about the pedophiles. Let’s go way back to the beginning, which is an article I wrote long ago for American Thinker. In it, I noted how the 1960s’ radicals sought to align pedophilia with their political agenda. This comment was part of a larger post I wrote about the way in which both Islam and Leftism sexualizes children because, if one can alienate children from their own bodies, the only thing over which they ought to have total control, one can train them out of the habit of individual liberty and into the mindset of being a cog:
The practical problem for the Left when it tries to attack individuality as expressed through sexuality is the fact that a person’s sense of an inviolate physical self develops quite early, during childhood:
Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self. … The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership. (Emphasis mine.)
The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.
Once upon a time, the radical Leftists were quite open about their agenda. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, German Leftists explicitly sought childhood “sexual liberation” as a political goal. In practice, this meant exposing children to adult sexual practices, focusing obsessively on the children’s external sexual organs, speaking about sexual matters in the crudest terms, and, unsurprisingly, engaging in actual sexual molestation. The Leftists advocating this liberation framed it as a way to break free of stifling bourgeois notions of morality that enslaved people and prevented them from realizing full sexual pleasure.
Reading the Leftists’ contemporaneous literature, however, reveals a more comprehensive aim than merely breaking those much-derided bourgeois sexual chains. The Leftists also intended to destroy the traditional nuclear family, with its bright lines between parent and child, and to bring down the capitalist system, which is dependent on a competitive, and therefore individualized, workforce:
For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation — as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.” (Emphasis mine.)
Nor can the above ranting be excused as the thoughts of a radical fringe. For example, these same European Leftists infiltrated the Catholic Diocese in Mechelen-Brussels, in Belgium, creating a sickening environment that actively promoted pedophilia. In other words, this particular church’s forays into perversion were not the secretive gropings of individual priests. Instead, there was a concerted effort, led by a liberal Belgian church hierarchy, to make pedophilia a routine practice within the Church.
Incidentally, Frank Marshall Davis, a radical Leftist who was Obama’s surrogate father and mentor during his childhood years in Hawaii, fully supported this politically-driven hyper-sexualization, including sex with children. He engaged in and wrote about disturbing sexual practices such as bondage, simulated rape, undinism, and pedophilia (or, at the very least, pederasty). Since Obama’s political ascendancy, both his poetic forays and his peculiar disassociative behavior have supported speculation that Davis, giving free rein to his personal preferences and his commitment to preventing the child from gaining ownership of his own body, may have practiced what he preached on the fatherless young boy given so unthinkingly into his care.
I wrote that in 2010, almost a decade ago. This past weekend, word broke outside of France that Gabriel Matzneff, an 83-year-old celebrated French intellectual, is a pedophile. What made this story different is that the French have always known that about him and didn’t care. Matzneff has openly celebrated pedophilia for decades, and even written bestsellers about the wonders of preying on children. It was only because one of the children upon whom he preyed wrote a book that he became headline news. Here’s how the New York Times describes the burgeoning scandal:
The French writer Gabriel Matzneff never hid the fact that he engaged in sex with girls and boys in their early teens or even younger. He wrote countless books detailing his insatiable pursuits and appeared on television boasting about them. “Under 16 Years Old,” was the title of an early book that left no ambiguity.
Still, he never spent a day in jail for his actions or suffered any repercussion. Instead, he won acclaim again and again. Much of France’s literary and journalism elite celebrated him and his work for decades. Now 83, Mr. Matzneff was awarded a major literary prize in 2013 and, just two months ago, one of France’s most prestigious publishing houses published his latest work.
Jonah Goldberg, who’s very good at tracking 20th century Leftist trends, ties Matzneff into something bigger than France’s lax sexual culture, which is the same societal control I wrote about in my American Thinker article. That is, aside from Matzneff’s own twisted predilections, he was accepted because the 1960s’ culture as a whole pushed pedophilia as a path to Leftist liberation:
The answer stems in part from the fact that Matzneff was a “Child of ’68” — i.e., a product of the left-wing “May 68” movement that shook France in the 1960s. These radicals subscribed to the idea that anything smacking of traditionalism or bourgeois morality was backward.
Conventional sexual morality was part of the same rotten edifice as imperialism and racism. True liberation meant not just freedom from, say, capitalism, but also from the old-fashioned view that sex with kids was wrong. “It’s forbidden to forbid” was a rallying cry.
Some argued, Onishi writes, “for abolishing age-of-consent laws, saying that doing so would liberate children from the domination of their parents and allow them to be full, sexual beings.”
A few years ago, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the famous former radical and leader of the European Green movement, got in hot water for his earlier writings and statements about “erotic” encounters with 5-year-olds. He dodged major consequences by disavowing his own words, saying they were merely intended to provoke.
Matzneff can’t make such claims. His whole identity was invested in the seduction of children and teenagers.
Sociologist Pierre Verdrager, the author of “L’Enfant Interdit,” or “Forbidden Child,” which chronicled the politics of pedophilia in 1970s France, told Onishi: “There was an aristocracy of sexuality, an elite that was united in putting forth new attitudes and behavior toward sex. And they were also grounded in an extreme prejudice toward ordinary people, whom they regarded as idiots and fools.”
Leftism is inextricably intertwined with child sex. Whether one ascribes this to a vast conspiracy of the type Q implies, or to the fact that powerful people are given a reason to justify indulging their baser instincts, or to what happens when you do away with traditional morality, the reality is that you end up in the same spot. And so we have all sorts of interesting stories in the last five years.
The top one, of course, is Jeffrey Epstein and all the rich and famous people associated with him, from Bill Clinton, to Prince Andrew, to Hollywood, to every Leftist institution that cheerfully wined and dined Epstein and took his money, long after they knew about his pedophile history. In a comment on an earlier post, someone suggested that Prince Andrew might not have been the only one to partake of Epstein’s poisoned fruit:
In two months three high ranking royals decide to step back. Nothing unusual to see here folks, move along. This is perfectly normal, except that it’s completely unprecedented. First Andrew, now Harry and Megan. Andrew had to because of his association with Epstein. Harry and Megan have given reasons that make absolutely no sense at all, None, nada, zip. Which indicates their story is a BS cover for the real reason. I suspect we will be learning soon that they were deeply involved in Epstein’s business. Wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Megan was a recruiter for him. Harry did pull her out of the human garbage pit known as Hollywood. I suspect this is all show to allow them to be distanced from the rest of the royals before the news comes out.
Once, I might have discounted that suggestion by saying, “Oh, it can’t possibly be true.” Now, though, knowing what we do about the way the rich and famous have too often yielded to the attraction of very young flesh, I’m not so sure.
Moving away from the Epstein cabal, one still has confirmed stories about the rich and powerful preying on children. If you don’t know about the Jimmy Saville sex scandal, the short story is that Saville was a famous British entertainment figure — so famous that he was actually knighted. He was also a grotesque pedophile, a story that didn’t emerge until after his death.
Once the story about Saville’s disgusting habits came out, it turned out that other political and entertainment figures were right there with him. A few pleaded, “It was the 1960s, I was on drugs, and I don’t know I did, but I’m very sorry.” Others, though (mostly the ones conveniently already dead), were up to their necks in it. You can read a bit about it here. And of course there are the claims that Prince Charles was in on it . . . or he might just have found himself in the same company as Saville, a monster who certainly could put a clean face on himself to hide the muck in his soul.
Closer to home, nobody has missed the fact that Democrat and Clinton godfather John Podesta has a thing for sick art. His fondness for glammed up child porn led to Podesta being implicated in the whole Pizzagate conspiracy theory (which is discussed in the immediately preceding link). That theory led to a lot of dots and lines connecting them.
To this date, I have no idea whether Pizzagate was a real criminal conspiracy or just an imaginative conspiracy theory. If you’d like to make up your own mind, here’s an article to get you started. (And here’s another one.) Be careful when following the links. Some are disturbing.
I only note here that the theory exists and that Podesta’s taste in art integrated well with the theory. Edgar Welch, incidentally, took the theory so seriously he tried to shoot up the infamous Ping Pong Pizza place at the heart of the conspiracy.
Just yesterday, one of the people behind Russiagate, who helped provide information for Mueller report) was convicted (again) on pedophilia charges.
I’ve also written at length before, and won’t do so again here, about the non-stop claim that Hollywood’s real scandal isn’t adult women having to decide between forced sex and their careers but is, instead, pedophilia. The rich and powerful like young things.
There’s also the whole open borders thing. One of the things that open borders makes easy is sex trafficking, and a lot of that sex trafficking is, in fact, child sex trafficking. I thought of that when I watched Tucker Carlson’s American Dystopia series about my native city, San Francisco. In the segment about the City’s radical District Attorney, he notes that San Francisco, which has gone to the extreme edges of Leftist rule, is America’s leading city for . . . wait for it . . . sex trafficking (at 1:55):
I’d noticed all these things and my friend had noticed Q. She says they’re related and now I have to wonder. Your opinions, please?
UPDATE: One more dot that I forgot to connect: I don’t know whether it’s a coincidence or not but in the hugely successful Joker movie, when Joaquin Phoenix dances on that stairway, the music played is Gary Glitter’s Rock ‘n Roll (Part 2). Gary Glitter is a convicted pedophile:
Image credit: Brendan Dolan-Gavitts’ Instructions for Pedophiles (cropped); Creative Commons.