Nothing happens by accident. So I ask why, after 17-years, was the Jerry Sandusky pedophile ring exposed only now?
I submit we are being groomed to accept pedophilia. Since children will also have “sexual rights,” things will be very convenient for pedophiles.
Moral outrage is one of the devils favorite tools. Arising after the exposure of some evil, it usually dissipates in inaction and the illusion that something has been done.
But what the Jerry Sandusky case, instead of banishing pedophiles, actually protected them?
As a sports nut, I fall asleep to one of the three all-night sports shows in my town. In the case of Sandusky, I heard how this story unfolded many times:
The official version limited it to one pedophile and one absent-minded coach (Joe Paterno) who made an “error of judgment.”
Everyone was shocked, evidence to the strength of the humanity remaining in all of us.
Some time is allowed to go by as the media limits the story and directs the energy towards sanctions, the great history of Penn State etc etc. After these early groomers, slowly the chosen groomers arrive.
Alumni are interviewed about Paterno and all praise his character and inspiration he was in their lives. So now a man who knowingly let children be destroyed, is praised.
The talk show hosts, several ex-Penn alumni, while being outraged seem to end their thoughts with personal anecdotes of good old Joe and the character he built in so many young men. Ex-Alumni confess to inner conflict (cognitive dissonance in its highest mind control format), and wonder, how can someone I built my life upon be so evil?
Callers and hosts say thing like.
I believe that the NCAA overstepped its’ powers. The subject has now been shifted to the level of penalty. The crime, victims and perpetrators being quietly pushed out of sight and out of mind. Accepting that statement that the ruling authority NCAA, over stepped is power, implies that this is a Penn state issue and should be handled in house This cast a moral “ok-ness” on the whole event
(l. Sandusky bio)
The head of the NCAA stated we “embrace” Penn State. Such an unfortunate choice of words, the contextual message being let’s forget about this pedophile ring and move on.
"Move on" are the same words Sandusky used when he left messages to his victims. We need to move on. Of course in life everyone needs to move forward, but the implication here is lets forget about it.
Finally another host Mike Greenberg of Mike and Mike in the morning on ESPN stated this is unprecedented in sports history. There’s plenty of precedent. Harold Ballard and the Toronto Maple Leafs had a pedophile ring running and one poor victim jumped off the Don Valley Bridge. Saying things that are un factual but express a higher degree of outrage i.e. this is unprecedented, helps dissipate moral outrage.
OFFICIAL PEDERASTY DISGUISED AS PHILANTHROPY
The official story of one loose cannon is false. These children were being sold to alumni, other pedophile rings and to boosters. SOLD. Their humanity and ours was destroyed.
As usual, this took place under the veil of philanthropy; i.e. the “help the inner city programs” that Penn State supported and ran. And of course it was done under the name of Penn State considered by many in the “not know” to be sacred.
Graham Spanier, the Penn State President who was sacked, claimed he was beaten and abused as a child. That may be a confession that his family were Satanists, i.e. what’s good in the day is bad at night. However it does beg the question: how high up did this go?
Stories abound about all-day parties in a sports building in the centre of facilities where boosters and alumni were invited to abuse the children.
Evidence, while thin, still suggests Sandusky had some involvement with the boy’s town pedophile ring run by Larry King, former big wig of the Republican party. One has to question Joe Paterno’s involvement as more than turning a blind eye. Put yourself in that position. Wouldn’t you do something fast?
You can now read between the lines and see that “building character” is code for grooming.
One can assume what is hidden here far outweighs what is seen.
Finding a sacrificial lamb is always the way to end moral outrage. That is Sandusky.
The early financial settlements have nothing for the victims. Again this points to an overall lack of remorse. Rather fines, lost TV revenue, bronze statues (idols?) of Paterno, cover-ups, codes of silence (another pedophile technique), poor people at Penn who will lose their football chance, and on and on, dominate the news
The cesspool will not be drained because the pedophile rings run too deeply into the Illuminati establishment. Why do you think Graham James, the pedophile hockey coach was able to abuse for so long?
Letting the Sandusky devil out slowly and in a timed subconsciously, subliminal way, will be used by Satanists to advance pedophiles rights under the EU and Canada of course via NAFTA and TPP.
I conclude with the moral outrage timeline as I see it.
Capture and discovery = High Moral outrage
Look to Leaders = Inaction, moral outrage dissipates
Weeks later, delay = Economic crisis makes you forget
Months later = Sandusky painted as benign, misguided loving old man
Increasingly men are disinterested in marriage. The media has responded with a widespread “Man-Up” crusade advocating guys grow up, act responsible and become husbands. Yet at the same time, anti husband…
Once upon a time journalism was about investigating and reporting on an issue in a balanced way from all perspectives of an argument. Recent times have seen a proliferation of self-indulgent feminist writers who spout misandric nonsense and infuse feminist propaganda into the mainstream media as though it were orthodox truth.
Chloe Angyal is an Australian novice feminist writer, who has moved to the US to cross-pollinate dogma with her American Radfem sisters. The Australian Fem-fax media group recently published an opinion piece of hers titled Thank feminism for an ever-improving line of fathers.”
Line of fathers? What an unusual turn of phrase. For me the title conjured up images of fathers lined up outside family courts, outside Child Support Agency offices; lines of fathers alienated from their children, falsely accused of child abuse or domestic violence; lines of mourners at the funeral processions of fathers who commit suicide. I imagined lines at paternity testing centers, in the debtor’s prisons; even lines struck though the fathers names on birth certificates, legally replaced with the mother’s lesbian partners name.
I also thought about the people who will line up at the forthcoming Fatherless games in the London, and the earlier lines of fatherless rioting youth in that city. Yes the rise of feminism is arguably responsible for the greatest epidemic of fatherlessness ever, yet Miss Chloe considers this “ever-improving” and mentions not one of these issues in her article.
The feminism that burst into being when my father was in his early 20s declared that women had the right to have careers. And, it insisted that, for women to have careers and children, men would have to shoulder more of the work of parenting.
Well not exactly, Chloe, You see, women’s innate drive toward hypergamy ensures that they still want all the resources that a husband can provide. So rather than increasing the effective parenting of children by greater involvement of both parents, infants as young as 6 weeks old are pushed en masse into the emotionally empty environment of the feminist/Marxist inspired day care industry.
Feminism created an economic milieu in which the previous ability of a family to live in comfort on one wage was replaced by an economic imperative for many families to require 2 wages, just to survive. Furthermore, any couples that exercised their choice and elected for the wife to be a stay at home mum (even if just through their children’s, preschool years), found the wife denigrated and ostracized by rabid feminists, as indeed they still are.
This passage from Maggie Hamilton’s 2007 book, What Men Don’t Talk About, sums up the situation in Australia.
There’s no conflict about this: Australian women don’t like it when their men work part-time,’ says Jan van Ours, an international researcher… from Australia’s HILDA (Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia) survey. ‘Australian women want their men in full-time jobs. They are least satisfied when they, themselves, have a job of more than 50 hours, and most satisfied when they are working part-time, or not at all.’ Happily, Australian men are in lockstep: they too prefer to work full-time – although, unlike women, they don’t mind if their partners work full-time, part-time, or not at all.
Rather than feminism, I suggest that it is the easygoing nature of men, their adaptability and desire to please women – whatever women’s choices be – that has facilitated much of women’s progress into the workforce, as well as their option to avoid professional life altogether.
Australian labor force statistics confirm, however, that fathers continue to have little choice. Part time and stay at home dads remain a rarity, regardless of how many men would jump at the chance of being one.
Fathers working away from family and children are historically a relatively recent occurrence, commencing with industrialization. Traditionally fathers were intimately connected with family and children and had well defined roles in the upbringing of both boys and girls but especially the initiation of young men into manhood. This fact ofrecent history if conveniently forgotten by feminists whose memory however for any instance of perceived injustice against women stretches back to prehistory.
Statistics indicate that decades later parents in two-career families have yet to figure out how to split that work equally.
Not surprisingly the “statistics” she is referring to are not referenced. However when feminists speak of division of domestic labor they refer only to tasks traditionally performed by women and exclude from their calculations tasks traditionally performed by men. Excluded items include chores such as yard, house and vehicle maintenance. When researchers do consider these things the conclusions are quite different:
However, if we consider the full range of domestic tasks, including the outdoor activities that are the traditional tasks that men do, then we ￼see a more equal division of labor.
The focus of feminists remains on childcare activities and indoors housework as though these were the only tasks needed to finance and run a household. Additional factors such as travelling times for fathers who generally have to travel longer distances to work are not considered, nor is adjustment made for higher incomes generally earned by men for the good of the household even when most spending decisions regarding that income are made by the woman.
Chloe then utters this absurd statement:
One of the greatest challenges feminism has faced is getting men on board.
How surprising, that an ideology founded on the hatred of men, that sees men as disposable sources of finance, sperm donors, that paints men as innately violent monsters from whom wimmen-and-children must be protected by gender biased laws and disregard for constitutional rights, that has declared destruction of the family as a central objective – how surprising that men are not flocking to get on board!
Well of course some men do flock to get on board and Angyal quotes one such male born feminist, Michael Kimmel and describes him as “a leading thinker in masculinity studies.” Nope sorry, calling bullshit on this one. Masculinities as a branch of gender studies, which is a branch of feminism, might be the breeding ground for white knights such as Kimmel and our very own Michael Flood, who wish to engineer modern men into servile androgynous drones of women but they know little about the realities and challenges facing ordinary modern men. It is only through the MRM and initiatives such as New Male Studies that these challenges will be addressed.
Other silliness from Chloe’s article:
Feminism is one of the best things that ever happened to fatherhood.
Sure it is Chloe; please see above for a few of the many reasons that feminism is actually the worst thing that ever happened to fatherhood.
Thanks to feminism, the men my friends and I marry will be engaged, emotionally present fathers.
Those men, some of whom are just meeting their future spouses, will feel the positive influence of feminism every day.
Sure they will, Chloe! Men all over the world are waking each morning and bowing down in thanks to the wonders of feminism. You are clearly well versed on social trends.
I wonder exactly how many feminist trollops are getting married these days? Are not marriage and family institutions of oppression rejected by feminism? Recent US data does not look good for their prospects as young men seeing the inherent dangers of involving themselves with the narcissistic and entitled female end products of feminist engineering, and facing a greater than 50% chance of divorce, financial ruin, and little if any access to their children are increasingly rejecting marriage and going their own way.
Aware of the trend for American men who do seek partners and family to look outside their own country, feminists aim to further control men though legislation, rather then looking inside their own hearts and acknowledging that they are a big part of the problem rather then part of the solution.
When I sign a letter or something at work I sometimes sit a few moments and just look at my signature all lovingly. I just love signatures in general though. I see a lot of signatures at my job and they are all so unique. Some are really intricate, others are brutally simple, some are legible others are like an abstract piece of art. I just love signatures so much!!
The Left is a negation of identity: “There’s no race but the human race.” To its proponents we are not a glorious people with a destiny but a “social construct.”
The Left is a negation of difference: they want everyone to be the same; they love uniformity and demand conformity. We can see it in their architecture: massive blocks of cement, rows upon rows of tiny little windows, dwellers crammed into uniform cells, gorging on junk food and hypnotized by lowbrow daytime television.
The Left is a negation of quality: in their world everything is standardized; it’s an appeal to the lowest common denominator.
That is why everything they produce is of low quality; that is why their art is a crucifix in a jar of urine; that is why they resent beauty and seek to destroy it, be it through their so-called art or through miscegenation. Beauty is elitist, discriminatory, non-democratic.
Therefore, the Left is also a negation of beauty.
The Left is a negation of excellence. Industry, ambition, and intelligence are penalized with predatory taxation. Laziness, mediocrity, and criminality are rewarded by the welfare state.
That the Left is big on the welfare state is no coincidence, because the Left is a negation of independence: think independently about race and immigration and you are fired!
The Left is a negation of spirituality: for them an enlightened man is a man without religion—a man in a boiler room, selling junk shares to the unsuspecting, out for himself, motivated by selfishness and ruthless calculation.
The Left is a negation of truth. Where science proves inconvenient it is denied. A finding is scientific only if it proves equality. When it does not prove it, it is not science—it is bias … hate … racism.
Ultimately the Left is a negation of life. For the Left society is not an organism. It is a machine. That is why they seek to engineer it; that is why there are pyramids of human skulls in Cambodia.
The world of the Left is a dead world—a world of dead matter and lifeless abstractions. It is an anti-human, anti-natural, anti-aristocratic, anti-freedom, anti-beauty, anti-metaphysical, anti-truth, anti-life, reductionist, immoral, hateful, genocidal, necrophiliac, mendacious, predatory ideology that has sown death everywhere it’s gone.