PERVERTOCRATIC PERVOCRACY: THE POLITICAL SCIENCE OF CHILD ABUSE
The clouds have parted again and suddenly, out of nowhere, it is revealed that a dossier is missing that details paedophilic activity at Westminster and Whitehall during the 1980s. We know only a fragment of the history, in that the so-called ‘dossier’ was handed to then-Cabinet minister, the Jew Leon Brittan, in 1984 by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens – at which point, a black hole emerges in the story. Brittan says he ‘passed it on’ to civil servants. Brittan is also being questioned by police over, as yet unproven, rape allegations involving a 19-year old – the alleged rape took place on a blind date, of all things. Mr. Brittan, who has the most appropriate surname possible for a Jew, given the racial strategy of that group, seems to be plagued by the most unfortunate bad luck.
Mysteriously, this dossier has not been made a fuss about previously in the media, but it surfaces now – after having been ‘lost’ by Brittan or his civil servants, fittingly in the year 1984, as if – just for japes – they were acting out a scene from George Orwell’s famous [infamous?] novel. Civil servants are famed for their educated wit, if not a sense of humour, and I am half-expecting one of them to appear in the media and solipsistically claim that the dossier is not ‘is’ and therefore ‘is’ not ‘was’. Don’t worry – it’s the sort of thing that requires a classical education, and is above us proles. The dossier emerges, but doesn’t. It is, but isn’t. It’s as if out of the clear blue sky an alternate dimension has been revealed to us, from where truth is briefly glimpsed before the inter-dimensional door is frustratingly snapped shut.
What is the dossier? What’s in it? What’s its provenance? Why haven’t the media given it such a high profile previously? Why is all this being discussed now? Why didn’t the police initiate criminal investigations when Geoffrey Dickens was alive? Did Geoffrey Dickens go to the police? If not, why not? And if he didn’t, does that cast doubt on the very existence of the dossier? Or to put it a different way – is the dossier just another diversionary tactic, a fiction? Is there only one dossier? Was there other correspondence with the Home Office during the tenure of Brittan and other Home Secretaries before and since?
The whole affair has a sense of hyper-reality about it, like an improbable plot from one of those bad novels written in the 1980s that you now find in charity shops. There is talk of a Westminster paedophile ring; Brittan himself is being questioned over the historic rape allegations; Simon Danczuk, a Labour MP, claims he was warned-off questioning Brittan about the dossier by a current Conservative Cabinet Minister; and there are also current allegations involving ‘horrific’ child abuse by an as-yet unnamed Labour peer and former Cabinet Minister. No doubt there will have been stories and hints of stories in the London media that have now disappeared down the memory hole, but why the sudden melodrama in the media over something they must have known about for decades?
As any successful gangster or organised criminal will tell you, answers to awkward questions like this need to be fronted-up by someone reassuring and credible: sometimes this might be a ‘business’ Face, other times it might be a grandfatherly figure. It depends on the scam, but all repressive, authoritarian social systems have such apparatchiks, and one of ours is ‘Lord’ Tebbit – a delusional psychotic and Tory ratchet man who, nevertheless, gives off the necessary air of senescence and kindliness for the benefit of ‘dumb’ whites who can’t think for themselves.
Once again the clouds part, and ‘Lord’ Tebbit appears out of nowhere to dispense his pearls of wisdom. The usual tactic is the Big Lie. That’s the tactic adopted by Mellor, who went on the radio and more or less denied there was even a dossier in the sense that has been alleged. That won’t work this time – the scandal is too big. So Tebbit tried to ‘lie by telling the truth’: he admits there may well have been a cover-up. However…the 1980s, he tells us, was an era of official paranoia…need to protect the system….best intentions….no-one knew the seriousness of it…..different attitudes back then, etc., etc., blah, blah. Note the admission by Tebbit that the allegation of one or more cover-ups may be true. That is the crucial part which the media, to its credit, has focused on. Even so, my cynicism about the media heightens at times like this, and tangentially, I think of that famous, apt quote of 19th. century historian Thomas Macauley: “We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality.” There can be merit in the observation in so far as it applies to the British public, but the model of ‘moral panic’ can also be applied to the media. We are living in an era of manufactured media panics. To the lazy observer it might appear that, for once, the media is doing its job and adopting a relentless focus on truth-finding. The headlines talk of ‘Westminster paedophile rings’, yes, but it is also clear that the media are part of the cover-up. They must have known about all this for some time and so they are as much liars as the politicians, and they are taking us for fools, just like the politicians are.
The British public seem strangely mute about the whole matter. One explanation for this could be that they have, frankly, already had enough of Westminster politicians and their lying, fraud, thieving and promise-breaking. What’s a grubby sex scandal? It’s really come to something when our politicians are so venal, dishonest, seedy and corrupt that the public are actually bored by a potential child abuse scandal, having ‘seen it all before’: a sort of absurdist situation that would befit high-end satire. However, should any concrete evidence of organised paedophilia come to light, then the implications for public opinion and for any further public acquiesce in this fraudulent charade called democracy are unclear. Personally I would advocate the ‘pitchforks and torches’ approach: moral panics are a little abstract for my liking, and I think it’s time to take matters in hand.
What is clear to anyone with multiple functioning brain cells is that we live in a kind of pervocracy – that is to say, a society that is governed by a social and political class who have subverted the normal, functioning institutions that keep a civilisation going – such as marriage – in favour of destructively permissive attitudes and lifestyles. It is now considered normal for men to have sex with men and even for men to live with other men in a state of matrimony or long-term partnership. How this squares with the need for society to continue through procreation is unclear, but then, what we are dealing with here is the propagation of official fictions, which all authoritarian societies – past and present – need as part of a machinery of formal ‘consent’. Everyone knows the official fiction – that a society can be based on anything other than heterosexual relationships – is complete nonsense, but most people, understandably, dare not actually say as much, for fear of the official consequences: social ostracism, financial ruin, even criminal prosecution. That is the ‘consent’ that democracy relies on. Ignorance Is Strength, Authoritarianism Is Democracy, Fear Is Consent.
What most will not have not realised is the extent to which this pervocracy is also pervertocratic: which is to say, the elite classes seem to have been infiltrated to a significant extent by actual sexual perverts. Not only do we have perverted rule, we have rule by perverts too. The full scale of the infiltration can be ascertained by simply researching how many outed or suspected homosexuals exist in powerful or influential positions in Britain: across the media, business and corporate world, and especially in politics. The number represents a significant minority far out of proportion to the general population. Add to this the number of Jews and other ethnic minorities in key positions, and we begin to build up a picture of an elite class that no longer mirrors the indigenous white British whom it is meant to serve. Such facts provide a useful hint as to why so much legislation is now being passed that is actively interventionist and harmful in the private sphere of the family. The common explanation is that people who have ‘interesting lifestyles’ are pliable and susceptible to blackmail. Reference is made to the repressive agenda of Leveson Inquiry: the notion being that perverted politicians and celebrities want their behaviour concealed from public notice. There is certainly truth in these explanations, but where they are limited is that they provide only a keyhole to the larger truths that we need to understand. What the ‘blackmail thesis’ does not fully explain is the rapid and fundamental retreat of the British elite over the last five decades from its traditional institutions, and to understand that we need to shift our focus away from individuals to society at large, and even to a systemic analysis.
The decline in official morality is a reflection of increased liberalism, individualism and autonomy in society, trends that conflict with communal duty. The Gladstonian liberal economics of Heath, then Thatcher, complemented aptly the agenda of the post-War social liberals, while sitting uneasily with Thatcher’s social moralism. Heath the homosexual (and suspected paedophile) would have found stifling the social communality of his post-War ‘affluent working class’ upbringing and would have been privately more at home in the emerging metropolitan climate of a liberal society, which was more welcoming to men like him who had lax sexual morals. Thatcher, by contrast the product of municipal lower-middle class respectability, would have been more uneasy and more ambivalent about this emerging new culture, hence the attempted retrenchment during the 1980s, during which the Conservatives introduced (among other things) the anti-homosexual Section 28, barring the promotion of homosexuality in schools. The retrenchment was destined to fail, not least because in common with the Labour Party, the Conservative Party boasted a considerable number of homosexuals and degenerate Jews. Whether Thatcher liked it or not, the metropolitan culture was here to stay. In an economy built on expansiveness, services and finance, libertine individualism was an important part of the cultural environment. People who are free of private restraints on their sexual behaviour, even if this is more perception than reality, make better consumers. It was this unintended ambivalence that marked the Thatcher era as fundamentally liberal in both the economic and social senses, so that whatever Thatcher’s real intentions, hers was a left-wing government.
There are other features of the pervocracy worthy of note, comment and analysis. Parliament has been hollowed-out. It is no longer the country’s substantive legislature: that role having been taken over by influential multi-nationals and an executive bureaucracy in Brussels. We should of course bear in mind that the Anglo-Saxon myth of popular sovereignty never existed. The present situation of Continental-style rule by technocrats based in Brussels who issue ‘directives’ [i.e. summary laws] is little different from the feudal rule to which Westminster had become accustomed before entry to the then-EEC. Careful observers should have little patience with pseudo-nationalists who pine romantically for a ‘Westminster system’ of ‘democracy’ that never in fact existed. Often the motive of such people is to replace one authoritarian system based in Brussels with another based back at Westminster, their only preference being that the people in charge be white British control freaks rather than white European control freaks. They hide this motive in fanciful rhetoric about how English constitutionalists respect liberty over democracy and how an unwritten constitution is the best type of system in the world, and other high-flown Burkean nonsense. Nevertheless, the power transference to Brussels served a purpose. The overt, official purpose was the modernisation of Britain as a country that looked more to a proximate, emerging powerful trading block: Heath and his contemporary rival, Wilson, shared this rhetorical obsession with turning Britain into a ‘modern country’, a theme that was to reoccur with Blair in the late 90s, save that the nature of Blair’s obsession was primarily sociological rather than technological. The subversive, unofficial (but not hidden) purpose of British membership of the EEC was to undermine, but not end, parliamentary sovereignty, so that the political class would be able to control the population through a weakened domestic legislature, with the mechanisms for oversight and accountability removed to the Continent.
In contrast to the traditional Westminster system, the Brussels system has no meaningful legislative superintendence. Even today, after several reforming treaties, law-makers still cannot realistically challenge legislation from the Brussels commission or the Council of Ministers. Indeed, contrary to popular belief, the so-called European Parliament is really more of a ‘consultative assembly’. The real legislature is the Council of Ministers. These arrangements reflect Continental political traditions, which emphasise a limited role for popular sentiment in law-making. Of course, none of this would necessarily be objectionable if the EU were a limited organisation concerned with only necessary areas of co-operation, rather than a federative state in the making. Personally, I have no particularly strong objection to a federal Europe, but that is only because I do not see it as relevant to the racial issues. The point here is that the Brussels system is entirely alien to the British, especially English, tradition of popular governance and common law, and whereas the Westminster system did not respect democracy, the Brussels system does not respect democracy at all and is quite open and unabashed about it.
The shift to technocratic, centralised decision-making serves a deliberate purpose: to reduce still further what little say the people across Europe have in government and law-making. There is nothing dishonest or criminal about this objective. It is the imperative, and prerogative of the elite. Romantic ethno-nationalists and naive conservatives who feign surprise at the idea of people with power wanting to keep the power to themselves really just deserve scorn and ridicule. Power is what people with power want – and more of it. That’s the way the world works and it’s the way people are. In this case, the trend manifests itself in increasingly interventionist legislation that allows government and officialdom a microscopic involvement in people’s lives. Countless new laws are passed which, due to their complicated nature and complex scope, are difficult for ordinary people to scrutinise and understand, thus alienating them further from the decisions that affect them. Most of the decisions taken are the result not of some sinister conspiracy among Euro-communists, but rather pressure from multi-nationals and various types of lobbyists, including corporate lobbyists who have an interest in loading business costs on to small businesses and ordinary people through increased regulation.
This technocratic approach to government, which could be based as easily in Westminster as it is Brussels, lends itself more to a deeply commercial social environment: the bastardised result of post-War social liberalism and neo-thatcherism. A feature of this commercial culture is that private and familial relationships, and the morals and values that uphold them and traditionally provided a ballast for civic and family life, have become subsumed by transactional relationships between people. Increasingly we judge and value each other on the basis of money, physical appearance and financial worth. This is the environment in which perverted values – including extremes such as paedophilia – are fermented and begin to spread. Photoshopped models appear in magazines and on websites with flawless facial features, infantilising male sexual desires and creating unrealistic archetypes of feminine beauty. A random example of the phenomenon could be the Australian model, Miranda Kerr, who regularly appears on the Mail Online site – they have something of an obsession with her – and whose seemingly flawless but impish features give her a juvenile, almost prepubescent, appearance. Men who find that the flawless images do not translate into reality, and who develop a pictographic taste for the adolecentesque features of the contemporary female celebrity, may gradually turn to more exploitative, manipulative or predatory types of relational or sexual behaviour: especially as a way of releasing frustrated sexual avenues where the man cannot relate to women who are, perhaps, more assertive than they used to be.
The sexual abuse of children – the subject of the missing Westminster dossier – has to be the worst allegation that can be levelled at an individual. However terms such as ‘sexual abuse’, ‘exploitation’ and ‘paedophilia’, while certainly reflecting real, disgusting behaviour, are now also being bandied around without necessarily any relationship to their plain meaning. The relentless projection of these terms, the descent into cliché and empty moralising, in the tabloid media especially, and among unthinking people, is the hallmark of a society that is morally insecure and has lost its way and must run itself on fear as the necessary condition of consent: mainly fear, denigration and demonisation of white men. Actual wrong-doing was ignored or covered-up and is only now revealed when it is too late. What some naively thought were merely the misguided mores and norms of a strange, idealistic sexual revolution – a kind of historical oddity of a particular generation full of post-War angst – was in fact something altogether more sinister, and in fact criminal. Paedophiles and child benders, gangsterism, evidence destruction, lying and, probably, blackmail, all of it in high places, even in the so-called ‘Mother of Parliaments’. But worse than that, the perversions of this elite are the result of a mentality that could not care less about the white working class and that will use us as cattle, whether it is take away our birth right as the inheritors of these islands, or even to sexually exploit white children. That is why child abuse is more than a moral issue, a criticism of celebrity liberal whites with lax morals. It is fundamentally a political issue. The barbarism of men in the Asian community abusing white girls is one thing, and perhaps predictable, but when the same abuse is committed by a (mostly) white elite on its own children, then the political dimensions of the matter become clearer. This is a fight of white race conscious people against white traitors. The non-whites are just the more visible among our enemies, and therefore less dangerous. It is the traitorous whites who are the real obstacle to the restoration of a white society. They are the whites who are willing to betray us and debase us, whether through thought or deed. Child abuse is just one barbaric example of this white racial betrayal.
A rational observer, his consciousness raised by the strange, hyper-real events of the various child abuse scandals and the potential for more, might ask just what evil lies at the heart of our political system, even our society, and whether we need a different social system. He might ponder whether, in fact, it is time to burn not just the European treaties, but also the Magna Carta, the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ and the fraudulent system that is alienating and does not serve the interests of its people. The naive observer, by contrast, sentimentally seeks for individuals and groups to blame or looks to root out the corruption in the system. Perverts, nonces and paedos are a very effective scapegoat for the fundamental problems in society. His friend is the ‘Eurosceptic’ or the UKIP member, who with his feeble understanding, seeks the answer in the corrupt Westminster system rather than the corrupt Brussels system: the very same Westminster system that produced the mystery ‘dossier’. But the naive observer cares not about that. He asks us to affirm the system, to place our faith in the pervocracy, for it must be made to work properly.
Reproduced at www.win-white.org