Margo Kaplan: Pedophilia Is Biological and Not a Choice



…by Jonas E. Alexis


Pedophilia is no longer a choice, says Margo Kaplan of Rutgers University. It is simply a mental illness and seems to be biological. Kaplan proceeds to say that pedophilia has

“neurological origins. Pedophilia could result from a failure in the brain to identify which environmental stimuli should provoke a sexual response. M.R.I.s of sex offenders with pedophilia show fewer of the neural pathways known as white matter in their brains.

“Men with pedophilia are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous, a finding that strongly suggests a neurological cause. Some findings also suggest that disturbances in neurodevelopment in utero or early childhood increase the risk of pedophilia.

“Studies have also shown that men with pedophilia have, on average, lower scores on tests of visual-spatial ability and verbal memory.”[1]

I certainly would love to see those studies and how those researchers arrive at those conclusions. As we shall see in a moment, Kaplan was quick to formulate a morally deficient idea but quickly stay away from its implications in the political and historical world. It is like Einstein postulating that “I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him.”[2]

I simply could not hold my laugher after I read Einstein’s hysterical statement here. Didn’t Einstein left Germany on the eve of the Third Reich? Didn’t he say that “Because of Hitler, I don’t dare step on German soil”?[3] Didn’t Einstein view Hitler as a “cold, barbaric, animalistic resoluteness”?[4]

If Hitler was not responsible, why do the Dreadful Few hate him so much? Why can’t they understand people like Ernst Zundel who happen to admire Hitler?

Kaplan locks herself in the same kind of argument, which is intellectually vacuous and morally repugnant. She argues that pedophiles “remain responsible for their conduct.”[5] Yet in the same paragraph—yes, same paragraph!—Kaplan moves on to say that people “do not choose to be pedophiles.”[6]

How in the world can they be held accountable for their actions? And doesn’t responsibility entail the power to choose?

Here Kaplan and genetic theorists (those who believe that Jewish behavior is genetic and not moral) run into the same moral and philosophical problem. They both end up saying indirectly that the mistake of the typist is not the typist’s mistake—a logically impossible and impressively incoherent argument from which moral death inexorably flows.

To be fair, I contacted Kaplan to get her response, and it was pretty obvious that she was running away from the implications of her article. She quickly admitted that she did not write the title of the article, but the principles which flow from the essay are right in line with the title itself. In one particular response, she brought up a point which indirectly and subtly destroys the Holocaust project:

“You are confusing pedophilia (the attraction) with child abuse (the act)…Pedophilia is not the act. It is the attraction. The attraction is not chosen. The act is chosen. You are not morally responsible for your attraction. You are morally responsible for your act.”

Kaplan, of course, did not deal with other definitions of pedophilia, which include: “Sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.”

In any event, I would grant her premise, which goes like this: “One can live with pedophilia and not act on it.”[7] But the real question which I pointed out to her is this:  “Why do we begin and end at pedophilia?” Why don’t we explore this idea in other possible worlds?

Kaplan’s logic was that since pedophilia is an attraction, it cannot be a crime if the attraction remains a thought. Kaplan did not know that she was undermining her own mines.

What about people who have “illicit” and “perverse” thoughts on the so-called Holocaust and express those thoughts out loud without acting upon them? Why are they being persecuted when they have not acted upon their thoughts?

Why have Jewish thought police such as Alan Dershowitz literally stripped people like Norman Finkelstein of their livelihood for having “illicit” thoughts on Dershowitz and the whole Zionist project?

Again, why has my good friend Fredrick Toben been literally humiliated and imprisoned for just thinking that the Holocaust establishment has hijacked serious history and scholarship? Why has he been punished for simply asking historical questions and making rational points such as,

“Show me the evidence and I’ll believe you completely—my philosophical training does not allow me to accept extraordinary claims without rigorous testing and irrefutable evidence”?

How did the Dreadful Few end up holding the Germans by the balls and criminalizing anyone who even probes serious questions about the Holocaust narrative?

Why did Steven Salaita get fired from his academic position? Why did Denis Rancourt get fired after teaching at the University of Ottawa for more 25 years as a physicist? Why has Bishop Williamson been charged for saying that no Jew was gassed in a gas chamber?

To push the envelope even further, why has Ernst Zundel been literally crushed by the Dreadful Few for his thoughts on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust? If Zundel and others suffer from some kind of “mental disorder,” should not Kaplan make a case arguing that we ought to protect them and not burn down their houses or harass them?

Zundel lived in Canada for more than 40 years, but the government refused to give him citizenship because he had committed one of the most horrible crimes in history: he denied the Holocaust narrative.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Zundel incited “racial hatred” in Canada. Let us suppose that this was true. If we use Kaplan’s logic, Zundel never acted on that thought and he has not committed any crime. So, he needs protection. Will Kaplan help?

Perhaps what angered the SPLC was that Zundel had some “perverse” thoughts on the Jews:

“The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers.”

Once again, suppose we place this thought in the category of “mental disorder.” Where, then, is Kaplan? Isn’t she supposed to defend people who have “mental disorders”?

Zundel would not be the only person on the planet to suffer from this kind of disease. Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine does have the same “mental disorder” when he postulates in the first paragraph and on the first page of his study The Jewish Century that

“The modern age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century…Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish.”[8]

In the same vein, Jewish propagandist Edward Bernays, known as “the father of public relations”[9] and whose uncle was none other than Sigmund Freud, declares that “we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.”

America, according to Bernays, is like a scientific lab, where people are being experimented like animals. Who are “the scientists”? Bernays moves on to say that they are “invisible governors” who covertly “pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.”[10]

Bernays took the Jewish cat out of the bag when he said:

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.”[11]

The war in Iraq proved that Bernays was right. The Dreadful Few used propaganda to sell the poison to the American people—and this will cost us all at least six trillion dollars.

So, the twentieth century alone proves that Bernays’ theory was true: the rich and the powerful, namely the Dreadful Few, began to control and manipulate the masses for their diabolical end.

Slezkine, who is a Russian Jew, got great accolades for publishing The Jewish Century (Princeton University). Bernays’ book is still in circulation. Zundel, however, has been imprisoned, harassed, and beaten for basically saying almost the same thing that Slezkine and Bernays have articulated. Zundel said,

“I was incarcerated in six different prisons on two continents in three countries—the USA, Canada, and Germany—without relief of any kind. Throughout my imprisonment, basic human rights principles were trampled underfoot repeatedly and with impunity.

“The worst prisons were the Canadian detention centers at Thorold, Ontario and at Toronto West, where I was held for two long years in isolation cells, ice-cold in the winter, no shoes or socks allowed. The electric light in these cells, bright enough to be able to read, was kept on 24 hours a day.

“Through a glass slot in the door I was checked every 20 minutes, and my activities were meticulously noted by the guards: one sheet for every day.  No dignity, no privacy.

“My toothbrush was kept in a plastic bin in a hall. I was not allowed to speak to other prisoners. Bed sheets were changed only after three months. No pillows. No chairs.

“When I wrote to my wife or to my attorneys, I had to sit on a makeshift pile of my court transcripts. No radio, no television, not even an electrical outlet to sharpen my pencils. No ball point pens, only pencil stubs, cut in half with a saw. No spoons, forks, or knives were permitted; only a white plastic spoon with a fork called a “spork” that had to be returned every time at the end of the meal.

“With very few exceptions when furtive guards showed me some kindness away from the surveillance cameras, I was treated as though I was the worst of criminals. That’s Canada for you, where I have lived and worked without a criminal record for more than 40 years.”[12]

The SPLC has a section on their website entitled, Zundel’s “Criminal History,” which includes “‘knowingly publishing false news’ in connection with his pro-Nazi propaganda.” The ADL declares that people like Zundel are “poisoning the web.” Again, will Kaplan write an article defending those people?

As it turns out, Kaplan does not seem to lack moral sophistication to address those important issues. She is a law professor and was certainly trained in logic. But her weltanschauung, which is Jewish and essentially Talmudic, does not allow her to see the obvious. It is no surprise that she never tackled those issues in our correspondence.

For Kaplan, pedophilia is not a moral choice but a “mental illness,” which she says is compatible with the definition of “mental disabilities.” Kaplan continues, “Our currently law is inconsistent and irrational.”[13]


Well, in order to understand Kaplan’s weltanschauung better, one needs to go back to what she has written in the past. In 2013, she declared in the Washington Post:

“[O]ur courts and legislatures are still strangely squeamish about sexual pleasure, tending to treat it as a topic to be avoided or an immoral indulgence the state should prevent.

“When they address sex, they often reveal their embarrassment by using Victorian-sounding euphemisms such as ‘an intimate relation of husband and wife’ or awkwardly clinical terms such as ‘the physical act.’ Other times, they express outright disgust.”[14]

The courts are “squeamish about sexual pleasure”? Kaplan is trying to be clumsy here because no court denies sexual pleasure. What she meant by “sexual pleasure” was same-sex marriage or “the criminalization of sadomasochistic activities.”[15]

Kaplan concludes her Washington Post article by saying, “I’d like to think that courts, legislatures and voters are up to the challenge. So, let’s talk about sex.”[16]

Again, why doesn’t she move that “free speech” argument elsewhere? Do the Dreadful Few allow free speech when it comes to examining the Holocaust, Zionism, Israel’s extermination of the Palestinians? Why have Jewish Neocons and others equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism?[17] Why has the Israeli-run NSA been snooping on virtually much of the entire world? Will Kaplan ever address those issues in a future article?

Kaplan concludes her New York Times article by saying,

“Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children from harm.”[18]

Kaplan, whether she likes it or not, is indirectly proposing an idea that can only work for her Jewish brethren. If pedophilia and its offshoots are not crimes, then people like Dominique Strauss-Kahn,[19] Brian Singer,[20] Woody Allen,[21] and perhaps even Alan Dershowitz[22] can get away with their immoral acts.

Harvey Weinstein for example (thanks to a reader who pointed this out) has been accused of groping a 22-year old Italian model in his office. But if this behavior has a biological origin, how are we going to hold him accountable? It gets worse. Listen to this:

Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg—who is 63 with a long, graying beard—recently sat down with me to explain what he described as a ‘child-rape assembly line’ among sects of fundamentalist Jews. He cleared his throat. ‘I’m going to be graphic,’ he said…

“‘I opened a door that entered into a schvitz,’ he told me. ‘Vapors everywhere, I can barely see. My eyes adjust, and I see an old man, my age, long white beard, a holy-looking man, sitting in the vapors. On his lap, facing away from him, is a boy, maybe seven years old. And the old man is having anal sex with this boy.’Rabbi Rosenberg paused, gathered himself, and went on:

“‘This boy was speared on the man like an animal, like a pig, and the boy was saying nothing. But on his face—fear. The old man [looked at me] without any fear, as if this was common practice. He didn’t stop.

“I was so angry, I confronted him. He removed the boy from his penis, and I took the boy aside. I told this man, ‘It’s a sin before God, a mishkovzucher. What are you doing to this boy’s soul? You’re destroying this boy!’

“‘He had a sponge on a stick to clean his back, and he hit me across the face with it. ‘How dare you interrupt me!’ he said. I had heard of these things for a long time, but now I had seen.”

One rabbi even

“forced his victims to eat feces, claiming that this cruelty was necessary to ‘purify’ the children he abused.”

Rosenberg continues to be graphic:

“I have children come to me with their parents, and the blood is coming out of the anus. These are zombies for life.”

We know that pedophilia is a big issue among ultra-Orthodox Jews. Back in 2008, the Jewish Daily Forward reported,

“Sexual abuse of children has periodically arisen in the ultra-Orthodox community through high-profile cases like that of Yehuda Kolko and Avrohom Mondrowitz, a teacher and a youth counselor, respectively, who were accused of abusing their students.

“Leaders in the community told the Forward that they generally treated those cases as isolated incidents. But both the Kolko and Mondrowitz cases have bubbled back up, and in the past few months a number of community leaders have forcefully taken the issue to a new plane.

“Perhaps the most influential voice has been of Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who over the past year — and, particularly, over the past two months — has started a somewhat personal campaign and argued that the ultra-Orthodox community has become a haven for child molesters…

“The largely Brooklyn-based ultra-Orthodox community, which spans many different sects, has seen a handful of explosive cases, beginning with that of Mondrowitz, who was indicted in Brooklyn on five counts of sodomy and six counts of sexual abuse in 1985, but fled to Israel during the scrutiny.”[23]

 In short, pedophilia is a not a crime for the Dreadful Few, but it is a crime for Catholic priests. Listen very carefully to the words of Jewish medical doctor Gustav Schonfeld,

“When these priestly misbehaviors, which in fact are punishable crimes, were brought to the attention of their priestly supervisors, the bishops either did nothing, counseled the priests in house, or sent them to friendly psychologists or psychiatrists for treatment, and forgave them their sins.

“Then, the Church transferred the priests to other parishes or schools where they had continuing access to children for abuse.  The crimes were not reported to the police.  Somehow the stories leaked out and created a media storm. Hundreds of children reported having been abused…

“Recently, similar reports have emanated from Europe.  One particularly disturbing set of news stories reported that the current pope permitted more than one pedophile priest to continue contact with children.  The size of the legal costs in Europe for the Church is not yet known.”[24]

Isn’t that lovely? Here is a man who keeps pointing out that Catholic pedophilia is wrong but has written zero articles on Jewish pedophilia. And he wants us to take him seriously! Moreover, he forgot to tell his readers that the Dreadful Few were very influential in the sexualiztion of the West and even Catholic priests.[25] As E. Michael Jones pointed out,

“the trouble started in the ‘60s with the sexualization of the culture in general and the culture of the Catholic clergy in particular. Carl Rogers set out to liberate the Immaculate Heart order in Los Angeles, and the result was Lesbian Nuns.  The same sort of thing happened at Notre Dame summer schools for the clergy during the ‘60s…

“When it comes to sexual abuse, the rich Jew is innocent until proven guilty, but the Catholic priest is guilty until proven innocent. The same legal system that is used to exonerate Woody Allen is used to destroy Catholic priests. The double standard is impossible to ignore.”[26]

Jones meticulously documents that Catholic priests largely got seduced by the sexual philosophy of Wilhelm Reich, who postulated that quite explicitly that masturbation and sexual corruption could be used to destroy the Catholic Church.

When Catholic priests began to mimic the sexual mores of their oppressors, it was an infallible sign that they were on the brink of prostrating before the enemies of all mankind and therefore lost their moral ground. Once that was done, a flood of sexual misbehavior came on the scene, which largely destroyed the effectiveness of the Church in the culture.[27] As Jones continues to point out,

“The next fatal step occurred when the Church substituted counseling for traditional Church discipline. This was a major source of the problem in Chicago.

“When ‘a 13-year-old boy reported in 1979 that a priest raped him and later threatened him at gunpoint to keep quiet,’ the Archdiocese of Chicago did not investigate the matter and punish the perpetrator.

“Instead, they ‘assured the boy’s parents that . . .  the cleric would receive treatment and have no further contact with minors.’”[28]

Put simply, Kaplan is implicitly treading on Wilhelm Reich’s philosophy with a slightly different spin. But the end result is always the same. Reich wanted to change the sexual milieu and even entitled one of his books The Sexual Revolution. Kaplan is now asking for “sexual pleasure.” In other words, the West had to wait for thousands of years to learn about sexual pleasure from Kaplan.

Didn’t we learn our lesson from Oscar Wilde, Michel Foucault, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, Guy de Maupassant, Gustave Flaubert, Jean Paul Sartre, and even Franz Shubert[29]?

[1] Margo Kaplan, “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime,” NY Times, October 5, 2014. Thanks to Laura Lee Solomon for sending me Kaplan’s article.

[2] Quoted in Walter Isaacson, Enstein: His Life and Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), 393.

[3] Ibid., 404.

[4] Quoted in Jurgen Neffe, Einstein: A Biography (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2005), 287.

[5] Quoted in Victor Fiorillo, “Q&A: Rutgers Law Professor Who Says Pedophilia Is Not a Crime,” Philadelphia Magazine, October 6, 2014.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Margo Kaplan, “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime,” NY Times, October 5, 2014.

[8] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 1.

[9] “Edward Bernays, ‘Father of Public Relations’ And Leader in Opinion Making, Dies at 103,” NY Times, March 10, 1995.

[10] Edward Bernays, Propaganda (New York: Ig Publishing, 1928), 38; For cultural history on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).

[11] Bernays, Propaganda, 71.

[12] Kourosh Ziabari, “Testing the Limits of Freedom of Speech: Ernst Zundel Speaks Out,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 30, 2010.

[13] Kaplan, “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime,” NY Times, October 5, 2014

[14] Margo Kaplan, “Why the Law Should Recognize the Joy of Sex,” Washington Post, November 22, 2013.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Sam Sokol, “Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitism, Says TAU Director,” Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2014; Robert Wistrich, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism,” Jewish Political Studies Review, Fall 2004; Emanuele Ottolenghi, “Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitism,” Guardian, November 29, 2003; Judea Pearl, “Is Anti-Zionism Hate?,” LA Times, March 15, 2009; Eylon Aslan-Levy, “Why Anti-Zionism Is Inherently Anti-Semitic,” Times of Israel, December 8, 2013.

[18] Kaplan, “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime,” NY Times, October 5, 2014

[19] “Dominique Strauss-Kahn DNA ‘linked to maid,’” BBC, May 24, 2011; Philippe Sotto, “Strauss-Kahn Denies He Knew The Women At His Orgies Were Prostitutes,” Huffington Post, February 10, 2015; Dan Bilefsky, “Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s Defense: He Didn’t Know Prostitutes Were at the Orgies,” NY Times, February 10, 2015.

[20] Ted Johnson, “‘X-Men’ Director Bryan Singer Accused of Sexually Abusing Teenage Boy,” Variety Magazine, April 16, 2014; Anthony McCartney, “Bryan Singer Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Underage Boy,” Huffington Post, April 17, 2014.

[21] See for example E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 996-1003; 1007-1010; E. Michael Jones, “Woody Allen and the Double Standard,” Culture Wars, March 2014.

[22] “Alan Dershowitz Denies Sexual Assault Allegations As ‘A Complete And Total Lie,’” Huffington Post, January 3, 2015; Ann Oldenburg, “Dershowitz on sex slave case: ‘I’m hiding nothing,’” USA Today, January 23, 2015.

[23] See for example Lana Gersten, “Haredim Begin Confronting Pedophilia,” Jewish Daily Forward, October 2, 2008.

[24] Gustav Schonfeld, “Pedophilia, the Pope and the Jews,” History News Network, April 26, 2010.

[25] For a cultural history on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).

[26] E. Michael Jones, “Woody Allen and the Double Standard,” Culture Wars, March 2014.

[27] See for example Patrick Guinan, “Modern Psychology and Priest Sex Abuse,” Culture Wars, May 2004.

[28] E. Michael Jones, “Woody Allen and the Double Standard,” Culture Wars, March 2014.

[29] See for example Franz Schubert, The Music and the Man (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999).

All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. “When Catholic priests began to mimic the sexual mores of their oppressors, it was an infallible sign that they were on the brink of prostrating before the enemies of all mankind and therefore lost their moral ground. Once that was done, a flood of sexual misbehavior came on the scene, which largely destroyed the effectiveness of the Church in the culture.”

    This is nothing more than a symptom of a much larger delima in the catholic church. The priests used the scripture to highlight important and very illuminating facts of how zionism has incorporated sin into every nuance of our lives. The New Testament isnt a program of just for highlighting Jesus but his work to identify the threats to stability, peace, and community. The Muslim faith is a threat to zionism because the imams educate their masses like the Catholic Priests did during vatican I. Im guessing the Muslims knew this the whole time while we just accepted it as modernization. One down, one to go.

    Kagan’s mental illness can be summed up in this youtube video/interview. Kagan is a law professor who’s hobby is practicing sex law by introducing “Sex positive law” which completely manipulates the traditional concept of christian morals and substitutes them with…..something else. In my professional opinion as a Geologist she has a fetish for law sex.

  3. Jonas–No, we have never discussed this topic or any other that I am aware of. I have occasionally commented after one of your articles. [ I avoid using the word genetic as it is largely now a pop science term!] The matter is simple: we do not accuse Down’s Syndrome persons or those suffering from autism of deliberately choosing to make trouble for people. You seem to think that most people are even capable of making a genuine moral or ethical choice. Some people out of fear or the desire for a reward are able to follow a set of rules. I do not consider this a genuine ethical choice. So for me most people are neither moral nor immoral as that level of development has not been reached. This is possibly a weakness in Christianity that it fails to see the very different levels of development in the human world. Also the desire of Christians to have an absolute evil. Thus someone or something to really hate.

    • William,

      I think it was a different individual by the name of Terry Williams.

      In any event, you continue to undermine your own mines by saying that “most people are neither moral nor immoral as that level of development has not been reached.” So, how do you plan to reason with them? Suppose a Ted Bundy literally rapes your precious little child in front of you. Would your wife be satisfied if you happen to conclude that “most people are neither moral nor immoral”? And how did you arrive at such an extraordinary statement which obviously demands extraordinary evidence?

      Honestly, you are playing into the hands of the enemy. You sound like a man who told me a few months ago that “reason does not prove anything” and wrote a lengthy paragraph using reason to build his case! I simply could not stop laughing. As I told him, “In order to say that ‘logic and reason prove nothing,’ one obviously has to use logic and reason–an impressively and fantastically incoherent argument. In fact, if ‘logic and reason prove nothing,’ why should we listen to [Mr. X] here? Are you telling us to ignore your point? If this is so, then you shall have his wish.”

      You mentioned in your previous presentation that I seem to misrepresent Kaplan. Can you do what she failed to do? That is, can you answer Zundel’s puzzle? Furthermore, since you have already thrown out a number of points which deal with the mind, body and moral responsibility, I’d like to ask this question: is there a difference between the mind and the body? I’d like to understand your position a little better: are you a reductionist? Since the conversation is virtually going nowhere, I will cease to respond if a serious argument is not carefully formulated.

  4. Kaplan uses the tools of deception nowadays so prevalent, sold as science, though it has nothing in common with science. These stupid idiots are using statistical analysis to come to their conclusions that the displayed behaviour is determined bioligical, however when applying statistics there will be outliers and therefore the conclusion drawn from the statistical material is FALSE ! If they were honest they could only say that probably a certain percentage may show this behaviour because of the postulated reason (eg. bilogical, genetical). Moreover the more complex the statistical analysis is, the less general are the results obtained from it, eg. one has to apply a long list of if – statements which are to be met in order to cover the resulting population. If however the analysis is based on very general statistics the results are as good as useless because they apply almost randomly to the resultant population eg. for instance if > 50 years & if > 90 kg weight. One could certainly extract then the finding that for instance peadophiles are mostly of age x – y and weight a – b, STUPIDITY in purity !
    They are manipulators of the worst order ! We hear that crap every day on all channels ! It’s part of the manipulation toolset, you can ‘prove’ anything with it. A whole industry relies on this crap !

  5. The treatment or exposure of Jews vrs Catholics regarding pedophilia here has a very simple answer that has nothing at all to do with pedophilia. We hear more about wrongs within the Catholic church because the media is Jewish owned. Also pedophile’s gravitate towards professions that will allow them access to children priest’s, coaches, teachers, tutors, etc… Pedophile’s may indeed have been born that way, but much research shows that many were abused themselves. On that note however I was beaten as a child and never laid a hand on my son. So if a pedophile acts on their thought then I think there is not a punishment severe enough for the damage they have done. I would like to see a law “one and done” abuse a child you never walk free. I don’t think pedophiles can be cured or reformed. Year after year there is some pedophile that gets let out and then you hear that within a relatively short amount of time they abuse again, many times moving on to murder the child so there is no witness.

  6. Well your argument is with Christ. After the Resurrection “He breathed on them and said “receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained.” Forgiveness and the measly penance usually given do not satisfy the debt which is due, which must be purified, purged in Purgatory. Purgatory is no picnic. Do you seriously believe that Protestants sin less because they’re NOT expected to go to confession?

  7. Since the condition of the physical body does influence behavior we prohibit people with too much alcohol in their system from driving a car. We do not claim that a person with Down’s Syndrome made that choice. Etc. Claims about genetics are largely misleading pop science. But injury to certain areas of the brain can leave an engineer fully capable of doing his work–but socially so primitive he can not be allowed in meetings. Since we come with these brains and their potential growth and changes it is very reasonable to consider some people as having one sort or another of handicap. Surely most reasonable people would agree that finding children very sexually attractive a great handicap socially. Likewise someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic has a terribly time adjusting–and we can be sure he did not chose to be that way which is a great misery. Brain impairment can lead to murder, suicide, and other negative behaviors. That is all too obvious. Time for compassion.

  8. I did not refer in my comment to genetics. It is simply the case that some persons are born with what may be regarded as brain or nervous system defects. A pretty good case has been made now for brain malformation in the case of psychopaths. I doubt seriously that some homosexuals actually do any choosing when it comes to whom they find sexually attractive. I have no recollection of deciding to be heterosexual, to be a good student, to love reading or to find the women I did find attractive, attractive. These all seem have been givens.
    Unfortunately Christianity decided to jettison reincarnation which hypothesis accounts for many mysterious things. I think in this article you really are unfair to Kaplan. If a man or woman does find children attractive in a sexual way, but never pursues that desire, where is the problem? I think you want to condemn certain kinds of people and to do this you must assume they made a choice to be say a pedophile. Where is your evidence for that?

    • With all do respect Mr. George I believe conditioning and background have a great influence on individual habits and lifestyles. Luckily I was raised in a generation were the best decisions regarding relationships as held by traditional standards was upheld in a positive environment at home, school, work, and social circles. Where deviation became apparent, (wild parties and loose women), the only desire I had was to leave. I believe the problems occur when these standards are questioned for the sake of allowing less than appropriate behavior. This is happening too much these days. There should be no reason to defend a high moral compass and every reason to question bad behaviour. Kagan doesnt bother looking at environmental aspects of a mental disorder which makes her a quake. Shes not even a doctor.

  9. I only chose freely when I act on an ethical intuition. When I follow a rule out of a sense of duty or am compelled by some external pressure my act is not free. In neither case do I act as an individual but rather as a member of a group–a religious group perhaps or a job.
    In his books Oliver Sachs provides a multitude of examples of strange and bizarre behaviour due to brain injuries and diseases–some congenital. We might just as well add paedophilia!

  10. Murder is a worse crime than assaulting sexually a child though neither are at all a good idea. Simply writing what you have written is unwise! What if some reader here with a loose screw went out and killed someone he thought was a paedophile? and listed you as his ally?

  11. I do not entirely agree with your analysis. Firstly the expression “mental illness” though widely used is really misleading and ambiguous. Probably homosexuals as well as paedophiles are in many instances born with some neurological circumstances that predispose them to find erotic attraction in the socially wrong places. In the case of homosexuals there does not seem to be any crime involved when two consenting adults do what they do. In the case of paedophiles provided they do not molest children or do things such as encouraging someone else to assault children, I do not see any problem. It is not illegal to imagine assassinating the President but problems arise if someone begins writing or speaking this in public. So writing and speaking are actions that may be punishable by law. Thus our paedophile must also not buy child pornography, etc. as that creates a market for child molestation. But does it help to call it a mental illness? Better to regard it as a congenital defect resulting potentially in destructive behaviour. Deeply contemplating the desire might actually illuminate the paedophile as to the seed of this attraction. It might well turn out to be a false concept in his mind such that he believes some great benefit would exist for him if he could have sexual relations with a child.

    • “Probably homosexuals as well as paedophiles are in many instances born with some neurological circumstances that predispose them to find erotic attraction in the socially wrong places.”

      Where is the evidence for that? Geneticists for years have been trying to come up with the evidence with no success so far. Some scientists, like the head of the genome project, have even admitted that there is no gene that is responsible for behavior.

      The issue again is morality. Some people–you can put Aldous Huxley in that category–do not want to submit their appetite to morality. Huxley was quite blunt when he explicitly declared in Ends and Means that
      “For myself, as for no doubt most of my contemporaries, the essence of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation…We objected to morality because it interferes with our sexual freedom.”

      This has been at the heart of this whole debate. Morality has to go, and anything which purports to destroy it, no matter how wild and irrational, will do.

    • We’ve always had a certain % of “butch women” and effeminate men. Only the hedonistic, publicly amoral modern age has succeeded in normalizing such perverse, self destructive behaviors.

    • “Since the condition of the physical body does influence behavior we prohibit people with too much alcohol in their system from driving a car.”

      You are conflating two issues: morality and physical injury or, as you would put it, “brain impairment”—a cardinal mistake. There is a vast literature on this issue, William, and it is impossible to discuss this issue here. If my memory is accurate, you and I talked about this in the past.

      I would recommend works such as The Irreducible Mind, by Edward Kelly; The Conscious Mind, by David J. Chalmers; Brain Wars, by Mario Beauregard; Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will, by Nancey Murphy and Warren S. Brown, etc.

      But let us assume that you are right. Aren’t you then building a case for the idea that Jewish behavior is genetic? If so, aren’t you implicitly supporting their machination of the West and much of the world? If you know that the lion has no choice but to eat the zebra, why would you be upset when it does eat the poor zebra? Didn’t Darwin say that this is part of nature? Doesn’t Richard Dawkins say the same thing in River Out of Eden?

      Furthermore, how would you answer Ernst Zundel’s puzzle? He just had an “impermissible” thought about the Dreadful Few, and for that he was cast out. Can you help?

  12. I maintain that people with a predisposition to this activity are attracted to positions of control inside institutions where they will find opportunity. Religions provide this with a cherry on top. Somehow, the Catholics seem to feel they are being singled out. Rather than looking at instances of cases that are prosecuted, we should be far beyond the blame game and teaching the young to come forward. Most cases like the ones Rosenberg is talking about, are never revealed because the tight knit cult does not allow for exposure of these abuses. Try to imagine the counseling between the parent and priest. It is the same type of self protective network that police have. If Catholics have been caught more, it is because of the high numbers and willingness of the victims to come forward. What are we up to with Cosby ? 3 dozen ? Victims come forward when they feel safe to do so. The “they did it too” defense is irrelevant.

  13. psycho’s sure CAN rationalize and justify anything. harming a child physically and psychologically, then trying to claim to be the victim with “oh hey I was born this way”, is outrageous. does not their “holy text” describe marriage and sex with 3 year olds? excuse me for not believing “religious freedom” should include protecting those harming others like that. it is criminal and any “religion” protecting them is guilty of aiding criminals, deserving of punishment too. they who claim adherence to Old Testament forget Sodom being destroyed?

    • Good point Cap regarding 3 yr olds being ready to ride according to Talmud.

      So it’s O.K. for the Dreadful Few to screw our goyim kids in the AZZ at 3 but how many of their kids get taken for the same ride? Are the representative numbers equal?

      I do believe that Catholic Priests have been targeted. The “Few” would certainly like to see a decline in the “Image/Status” of the Catholic religion and less money flowing into the coffers.

  14. Another meticulously well documented, incredibly outstanding article by Jonas Alexis. Once again he has laid bare the twisted Satanic mindset of the Babylonian Talmudists who comprise the mainstream support for the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (KM). The only evil that exists in the World is anything done to correct their aberrant, sociopathic group ways, bring them to justice, or confront them in any manner for their anti-social activities which they rationalize so well. If you criticize their incredibly evil, sociopathic, self-centric behaviors, they protest and scream you are an anti-Semite and are persecuting them, when they do not even carry any ancient Hebrew Blood, only Eastern European (Khazarian or Askanazi).

    These Babylonian Talmudists are history’s most evil, most sociopathic parasitical users and abusers of humanity and the worst filth peddlers that ever existed in history. Once the World is fully informed of their twisted evil efforts to destroy all societies and humanity itself while pretending to be protecting human rights and pushing for a big totalitarian USG they have hijacked, their game will be ended Worldwide. And it can’t happen soon enough because these “dreadful few” are destroyers of human society and mankind and will destroy all humanity and the whole World if they are allowed to run unrestricted.

  15. If punishment was very stiff even for the first offender, I would bet suddenly these sickos would find another choice and stop fondling anything but what is in their own pants.
    We go too easy on these predators while the life of child is altered. First time offenders gets a mandatory life imprisonment! Make it known to all these lunatics and sit and wait for the first one to be dragged in, and put their buttocks in the clink for life, and watch how suddenly they change their mind and make another “choice.” Our legal system needs to take a stand, and protect our children. I think this article is typical of today’s approach to contaminating our nation, and favoring the sickos. Children deserve to be protected.

Comments are closed.