25 February 2014

Harriet Harman - Paedophile Apologist

It appears that the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has her back against the wall - she now has to face allegations head on if her career is to remain salvageable. Her time as legal officer for the NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties), from 1978 to 1982, has been exposed as a time when she tried to water down paedophilia laws, in an attempt to gradually normalise this predatory behaviour. She also refuses to fully explain the NCCL’s link to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a pro-paedophile activist group. The Daily Mail is behind this campaign to expose Harman, alongside her husband Jack Dromey, and former Labour cabinet member Patricia Hewitt, both also accused of links to PIE. Until now there has been a media blackout from the leftist establishment in relation to this issue, though it has become impossible to ignore it any longer due to the Daily Mail’s persistence.

This turn of events has highlighted a problem that I keep uncovering time and again; the perpetual push by leftist groups to normalise all deviant behaviour as a type of “sexuality”. Although people have grown to tolerate other attempts to do this, such as same-sex attraction, paedophilia is one of the last taboos in the push towards what can ultimately be defined as pansexuality.

Pansexuality can best be described as the belief that sexuality is not only a fluid concept of attraction, that constantly changes throughout the life of an individual, but can encompass a whole variety of desires, from animals to children. In this sense it’s very similar to queer theory, and totally flies in the face of any binary definition of sex. There is an attempt by some to water this theory down by suggesting that the lynchpin of pansexuality is an attraction to humanoid or anthropomorphic characteristics. Regardless, when you put this all together it’s simply an attempt combine all deviant behaviour under one label, eradicating any attempt to distinguish between reproductive instinct and fetishism. This is a typical postmodern strategy; control language by destroying certain words, creating others in their place, and pushing people towards a desired outcome. It’s all very Hegelian, but what do you expect from leftist ideology?

I find it deeply saddening, and indeed disturbing, how so many wilfully enable this push for pansexuality, and yet are determined to come across as libertarians or liberals. In reality they amount to libertines who don’t like any boundaries in life, other than those based on ‘consent’, a very shaky definition of morality indeed. These people clearly have their own agendas in mind, and don’t make distinctions based on any kind of objective morality. The mask of tolerance they wear is an appeal to emotion, hiding their own perverted hedonism.

I’ve argued in the past that consent based morality can be used to reclassify paedophilia as just another form of sexuality. The NCCL has done just that, filing a submission to parliament claiming that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage”. This is part of the case brought against Harman’s affiliation with the NCCL - she even tried to convince parliament to water down child pornography laws by reducing sentences, also suggesting that pictures of naked children should not be considered indecent if the child had consented and had not suffered.

Harman is a known radical feminist that has helped to alienate fathers from their children in her time in politics. She has also undermined the nuclear family in every way possible – a more wicked, or culturally Marxist woman, you would truly struggle to find. As for the NCCL, it has even provided lawyers for PIE members who were questioned by police.

Now the pressure is on Harman, arguably for the first time in her career, and it appears her liberal demeanour is starting to wane. The 60’s free love perspective that her values hail from is losing its potential to detract negative attention, even in a culture that tries to present acceptance of any perversion as tolerant. If Fabians like Harman have their way, it will be people such as Aleister Crowley that we look up to, with no regard for the rational decency that makes civilisation possible. In radical feminist ideology, you can carry out any depraved act. As long as it doesn't involve sexual consent between a man and a woman, radical feminists have no concern for sexual morality, often framing male and female sex as rape, and doing everything in their power to turn conventional morality upside down.

Attempts by these radicals to normalise incest or zoophilia might not be enough to shake people from their slumber, but maybe paedophilia is one step too far. Let’s hope it is, because if that line is crossed there really is nothing civil left in civilisation - not for me anyway. This culture already murders babies, keeps fathers from their children, steals people’s property, and generally defines all virtue via emotion and desire, instead of a rational respect for natural rights and responsibilities. If Harman finally faces some form of justice for her part in this degradation, by losing her job, then maybe there’s still time to pull this culture back from the brink of social and economic collapse.


  1. Well she has'nt apologised as such but then she said she has "nothing to apologise for" since she was no part of this and "regrets" that the civil liberties group had ties to PIE. Anywaz, i have heard a lot about Cultural Marxism and watched many of your videos. Though i don't know if i agree necessarily with everything you say, i do agree with much and like to think of myself as an open minded individual who uses reason and logic when coming to conclusions and believing things. As such, i don't normally feel comfortable using the terms "leftist" or "rightist" when describing my political views.

    Though i was raised in a Labour family and one of my friends who i went to school with has now become a "revolutionary socialist" who is Vice President of Strathclyde University Student association in Glasgow, i started to notice things when i heard people claiming things such as "the media is dominated by the right wing" etc as i found out that if anything, most newspapers in Britain for example(except for the Sun perhaps, the DM, and the DE) are slanted to the left and that the Morning Star is even found in some shops as if it were a mainstream paper(not that i advocate banning papers but let's face it, how likely is it they would sell a pro-fascist or BNP paper?). I know for a fact that, as you say in some of your vids, that the state education establishment, especially the social sciences and humanities depts are strongly dominated by leftist thinking, One of my sociology lecturers in college even said to me that he found this himself when doing the subject that "there was this kind of in-your-face left wing bias about things, and thats not what it should be about"

    The thing is when my friend tried to get me to join all his mad groups that he has been involved in, i found that not only were many of the people naive and often quite emotional, with a chip on their shoulder, perpetual peddlers of victimhood, but they often had all these bizzare or frankly absurd ideas not only around class, but about race, sex, religion, sexuality and always seemed to think or act as if every problem in the world was somehow the fault of America, the west, Israel or the IMF. For example, they seemed so concerned about human rights etc around the world, yet they seemed to have a double standard when it came to criticising regimes and certain ideologies etc. Instead, focusing upon "American imperialism" etc. Is this what cultural Marxism, distinct from classical Marxism consists of?

    1. I agree with your breakdown of emotional and irrational leftists.

      As for Harman, it's been shown that she was directly involved in trying to water down age of consent laws, and that the NCCL was also involved in this. See the linked article, which has camera shots of documented evidence.

    2. It does'nt really surprise me about Harman though, i always thought of her as a hardcore feminist crackpot but i did'nt think she would have connections to things such as this. What i cannot understand about cultural Marxists is that many of them fancy themselves as academics and "revolutionaries" yet believing in such nonsense. For people who are supposedly all about "critical thinking" they seem to be completely delusional about many things. I do agree with some of their claims when it comes to the causes for the economy collapsing, but i would hate to see these people having any power. They just seem quite nuts to me. Any idea why this is?

    3. See my post "Emotional Leftists".

      As for them having any credence in relation to "economic collapse", that's not true. They create bubbles in the economy via central planning such as Keynesianism. It's called the knowledge problem. Look up praxeology to learn more about this. Self interest also makes it impossible to centrally plan to any significant degree.

    4. Hello, I have been watching some of your videos and its eye opening. I did not realize how dominant Marxist dogma was in academia...when I was doing A level sociology it was all about Marx and Engels and very little about philosophers like Adam Smith. I find that interesting since Marx's theory has virtually no predictive power...none of what he said would happen happened. And correct me if I am wrong but isn't Keynesianism a form of Marxist economics?
      But what is really up with this pedophile thing? What do they seek to gain practically or is that the wrong question to ask? Is it all ideology?

    5. Keynesianism is really form of socialism/collectivism, rather than Marxism itself.

      As I said in the article, it's a pansexual agenda, and it's rather perverted, to be honest. These people want to "do what thou wilt", so to speak. They are too arrogant to respect reproductive instincts and parental roles. All they want is hedonistic freedom, with no respect for natural rights and responsibilities.

    6. Is this similar to the anti family agenda that the Soviets tried to institute with no fault divorce....

      The earliest precedent in no-fault divorce laws was originally enacted in Russia shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. They were legislated in the series of decrees that issued in early 1918. The decrees included nonjudicial dissolution of marriage by either party and mandatory provision of child-support.[4] The purpose of the Soviet no-fault divorce laws was ideological, intended to revolutionize society at every level.[5] They were the subject of significant revisional efforts from World War II to the 1960s. Major revisions were concluded in 1968. The Soviet 1968 and California 1969 no-fault divorce laws bore many detailed similarities of terminology, substance, and procedure.[6]

      In the 1925 Soviet conference to draft the Family Law of 1926, people debated whether marriages should even be registered. Nikolai Krylenko, a chief architect of the Soviet law of marriage and leading theorist of "socialist legality" in the 1920s and 1930s, described the purpose of divorce without restraint as a step toward the ultimate goal of the abolition of marriage, thereby establishing the socialist transformation of society.

      "Of course, if living together and not registration is taken as the test of a married state, polygamy and polyandry may exist; but the State can't put up any barriers against this. Free love is the ultimate aim of a socialist State; in that State marriage will be free from any kind of obligation, including economic, and will turn into an absolutely free union of two beings. Meanwhile, though our aim is the free union, we must recognize that marriage involves certain economic responsibilities, and that's why the law takes upon itself the defense of the weaker partner, from the economic standpoint." from Wikipedia

    7. It's no secret that communists/socialists are anti-marriage, and they support policies that undermine and destroy established behaviours and traditions.

      Which Wikipedia entry did you refer to? I'd be interested to see it for future reference.

    8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

      Its interesting that the Bolshevik view on marriage is virtually identical to radical feminism. The MRM is increasingly going down this road. Barbarossa is full on trans-humanist eugenicist now.

    9. Radical Feminism and Marxism have always come together like a hand in a glove.

      Barbarossaa is a postmodernist lunatic, and I've noted his leftist ideological values numerous times.

  2. http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/?s=Harriet+harman&submit=Search