The Last Taboo

I am reading a book about Alan Turing at the moment. There are some interesting things about blackmail and taboos.

If you have a secret that is a social taboo, then you can be easily blackmailed into something in order to keep your secret.

In the 1950s, homosexuality was a crime and taboo. All homosexuals, including Alan Turing, were barred from positions in sensitive government security areas. It was an almost certainty that homosexuals would be blackmailed to give away government secrets to foreign powers, rather than risk their OWN secret being given away.

It seems as if all current government leaders have some sort of sexual secret that can be used to blackmail them, and therefore they will obey orders rather than have their secret come out.

This is a useful control device isn’t it ? Wouldn’t it be handy for the powers that be if everyone has a secret ? The trouble is that these taboos are a moving target over generations, the taboos keep changing…

It seems to me that the taboo sexuality is slowly shifting from homosexuality to paedophilia. Homosexuality is not so much use any more for blackmailing because it’s becoming socially acceptable.

There is a new film about Alan Turing called “The Imitation Game”, with big name actors, designed to pull in a younger audience. My understanding is that viewers are led to be shocked that homosexuality was once a crime, and only 60 years ago. It seems the film is doing a good propaganda job of demonstrating how ADVANCED our society now is. Haven’t we come a long way ?

The paedophiles argue that paedophilia is not a crime, it is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality, and one day we will all accept it as normal. I think the Turing story is being used to ADVANCE the paedophile agenda. That is what “advancing” society is about.

It seems that many of our most powerful leaders and other celebrities turn out to be paedophiles. Is it an essential requirement for the job? Otherwise how can you be blackmailed ?

If our blackmailable leaders are all practitioners of whatever the current sexual taboo is, then it seems inevitable that society will follow its leaders in due course. And when the taboo becomes commonplace and normal, it forces itself into acceptance, as homosexuality now has.

I am struggling to think of what sort of taboo could be used next, once paedophilia has become socially acceptable in maybe another 60 years time. Have we reached the LAST TABOO, the final frontier?

We could become so socially liberated, that we have no more social taboos, all behaviour is acceptable. Then our leaders cannot be blackmailed. But then we just get paedophilia as our normal way of life instead. How liberated we will be. Is that what the Statue of Liberty stands for?

Or we could stop paying any attention to the “leaders”, and lead our own life.

A taboo is a NO GO area. I think we need them, and I think we can create taboos just as easily as they can be knocked down. The only question is which ones shall we have ? And as we will not all agree, you have to build your own taboos for yourself. I think there is a LOST TABOO that has led to this LAST TABOO that we are approaching.

If homosexuality was the previous taboo, what was the one before that, and the one before that? Was having an affair once taboo, like Bill Clinton did (no longer taboo) ? What happens if we go right back in time to the Garden of Eden… was the FIRST TABOO having heterosexual sex ? Was that how it all started ? Can we rewind the story, instead of advancing ? Can we retreat instead of invade ?

Why does the Pope want us all copulating and populating ? Was copulation itself once a taboo, a NO GO area ? Christianity is run by the Roman Catholics in the Vatican, who have a preference for promoting paedophilia behind the scenes in secret. Meanwhile, Christianity’s public face promotes the goodness of man-woman sex as God’s will. But maybe there was a time before that when adult sex wasn’t socially acceptable, a time long enough ago that history has been rewritten for us. Soon paedophilia will be promoted as God’s will, and the Commandments will mysteriously change, but we will be dead and gone, and there will be a whole load of new kids around with no memory that paedophilia was ever once taboo. Just as we have no memory that heterosex may have once been taboo.

A sexual taboo is broken bit by bit. First some popular people have to be caught at it. This confuses the population who admire the person but not their evil deed. Before long the deed becomes overlooked, maybe forgiven, because people still like the person or their music or whatever. The deed then becomes decriminalised. Then it is allowed only as long as it is not seen, in a private place, out of sight out of mind. Eventually it creeps out into the open. That is the sequence.

So homosex is now acceptable and legal, but currently still private. Paedophilia is still unacceptable and illegal. Heterosex seems to be creeping out into the open, it is all over Hollywood films, TV and newspapers, even showing live on family TV as part of the Big Brother program. We can count on Big Brother to lead us the wrong way.

So you see, wherever we are going with Heterosex, Homosex will follow. Then Paedophilia will follow after that. And for anyone who likes to blame homosexuals for paedophilia, can you see that heterosex is linked into the chain too ? Heterosex seems to be the leader, and Homosex a stepping stone to bridge the gap to the Last Taboo.

How did we get from Heterosex to Homosex, I wonder ? If I think about the differences, I find there are two. Firstly we have accepted the use of the MANHOLE for sex, which heterosex people are also encouraged to use as normal. Secondly, we have accepted that sex is RECREATIONAL. Recreational has been redefined. Recreate means to reproduce. But the new meaning is cunningly sneaked past us with “Recreation” grounds for sport and fun. So you see that recreation now has a double meaning that has allowed us to shift our understanding of what is acceptable in sex.

So our current understanding of sex is that : (1) it is ok between consenting adults (2) it is sporty and recreational, keeps you fit, it is good for you, like the Olympics (3) it is joyful, you are faulty if you don’t like it. Sex as a means to re-create a new baby is on the decline, it is being replaced by hospitals and test tubes.

Do you think we are being programmed ? I do.

Homosex is now acceptable because it now ticks all the boxes that match our current understanding of sex. We have advanced quite a way.

There is only one more barrier to cross before Paedosex becomes acceptable. That’s the one of age. We still insist on “consenting adults” for sex to be acceptable. The age barrier is lowering all the time by various trickery, and will continue to do so until people start reversing out of this. For example, in the UK, the Gillick Principle allows any child of 12 or over to make their own decisions. Sex ed in schools is getting younger, and merged into sport.

To reverse out of it, I think we need to revert to No Sex, the Lost Taboo. Social acceptance of paedophile sex is an inevitable progression from breaking the first taboo of heterosex in the Garden of Eden. The only way out is to slowly unwind the story and unpick the mistake.

(See also earlier posts : The Paedophile Agenda, The Homosexual Agenda, Normalising Paedophilia, Centre for Exploiting Missing Children, Karma Acceptance, Fraudian Slip, Burn the Bra, Popule Copule, I Want One, Ab Use of Sex, A Dam and A Dyke, Poison Apple, Babies for Sale, BBC Wildlife Programming, Sex Pack, Program Me, Go Back)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Last Taboo

  1. Dominic Jacobson says:

    This is interesting. I have been thinking the same thing a lot lately, how it seems acceptable for film stars, directors etc like Tilda Swinton, The Weinsteins, Terry Gilliam and Ethan Coen to sign a petition demanding the release of Roman Polanski, a convicted child rapist. It’s not a good look. That coupled with the culture of ‘the open secret’ of Jimmy Saville’s reprehensible conduct at ‘ the Beeb’. My boss as Sony ,10 years ago, said it was common knowledge when he worked as a gaffer on ‘Only Fools And Horses’ that you would never leave your teenage daughters alone with Saville. The whole Peeches Geldof and Paula Yates affair also seems particularly suspect and I think there was collusion on Bob Geldof’s part.I think you’re right about it being the last taboo and I think there’s more moral degradation to come.

  2. Dominic Jacobson says:

    I’ve been thinking about this sort of stuff a lot lately. I was quite upset about various Hollywood big wigs like Martin Scorcese, Tilda Swinton, Luc Besson, Harvey Weinstein and Ethan Coen signing a petition demanding the release of Roman Polanski a couple of years ago, a man who was convicted but never sentenced (due to his fleeing the U.S) for drugging and having sex with a 13 year old girl. I do feel there is an agenda here. The ‘open secret’ of Jimmy Saville’s inclinations at the Beeb was such that a former boss of mine when I worked at Sony told me that during his time as a gaffer on ‘Only Fools and Horses’ it was common knowledge to anybody working at the BBC that you would never let your teenage daughters be alone with Saville. The whole Hughie Green/Paula Yates/ Peeches Geldof scenario also reeks to high heavens, especially in light of the recent accusations against Cliff Richard and how it connects to the Jill Dando murder/BBC VIP paedophile ring. We’re living in times of great degradation and decadence and it doesn’t look like things are going to get better anytime soon!

    • suliwebster says:

      Thanks Dominic, sometimes I write these posts and think i must be the ONLY person thinking this way and nearly don’t publish them.That’s how they get away with it though isnt it ? They make us think we are the ONLY one having these sorts of thoughts. (See Majority Rule).
      That petition is news to me, I didnt realise that paedophilia is already seeping out in acceptable form, endorsed by celebs.
      I recently heard some people discussing a current TV program drama very excitedly, it includes a paedophile and child abuse, and it sounds very confusing with viewers never knowing quite who is involved in the crimes. It sounds like addictive viewing, and the viewers aren’t upset about it, they are excited and want more. It also includes chemical castration of paedophiles, which seems perfectly timed with the Turing film.
      Paedophilia is definitely outing itself, how we deal with the outing is up to us. It can either become acceptable or become a NO GO area, wiped out. It is almost like a vote. Personally I think your vote is wrapped up in your everyday thoughts and actions, and it is not just the paedophiles to blame, we are all part of creating the culture in which they thrive.

    • suliwebster says:

      Sorry for delay in comments appearing, new users go through the Approve system to avoid scam and trolls, and I am not online much at present. If you use same details next time, it should go straight through.

  3. People may not be able to help their sexual orientation, and what they do in private, as consenting adults is their own affair – but any adult who knowingly sets about harming or corrupting a child, deserves to be punished. The recent revelations have been sickening, but I am glad that the evil perpetrators have been named, shamed and publicly pilloried.

    • suliwebster says:

      I am glad you made that point about Maureen, and I am not on a witch hunt against homosexuals, which I hope was clear in the post.

      The definition of “child” is hard to pin down, and it is blurring rapidly. For example, two 15 year olds having sex is technically illegal, but is not seen as a crime, the law turns a blind eye. The definition of “consent” is equally blurred… there are many public rape court cases that argue over what “consent” is which shows to me that there is no clear cut line. I think the age of consent for homosex has been lowered fairly recently. These are the two key issues. AGE and CONSENT. But there is no clear line, and it varies from country to country anyway. (Alan Turing went abroad for his homosexual activity, just as paedophiles now go abroad for their child sex).

      What you say about the “evil perpetrators” of paedophilia is exactly what was said 60 years ago about the evil perpetrators of homosexuality.

      I agree people have a certain programming that sets their sexual preferences, I think this applies to paedophiles and heterosexuals too. I think the programming is often the result of our training from birth, and the environment we are exposed to. (See Holy See Over Bath). It is not uncommon for (male) homosexuals to have been raped as children or to have been exposed to that sort of environment. I am pretty sure this was the case with Alan Turing, it certainly was with a homosexual friend of mine. Similarly paedophiles are often repeating what was done to them. Heterosexuals will have been exposed to a sexual environment that was heterosexual, for example their parents very visible (and audible) marital bed in the next room. And as i write this, I am aware that the boundaries are blurring yet again.

      We live in a sex cult, sex culture society. If we want to live in a sex cult, it is inevitable that children will get involved in the prevailing culture. That is why I can only conclude that we have to say no to all sex in order to stop paedophilia. We have to take sex completely out of the culture, whether it be in private or public.

  4. Noonoo says:

    We also have academics aiding and abetting the process of making paedophilia normal and acceptable. Helen Reece of the LSE (who I seem to remember arguing for the age of consent to be lowered some time ago) has told Theresa May that sex offenders, including paedophiles, should be allowed to care for children, foster and adopt, since reoffending rates among sex offenders are not high (really?) and numbers of child sex murders are very low (gosh, what a relief, so that’s all right then).

    • suliwebster says:

      It sounds like it is all done on a statistical basis. They say it is worth the risk because only a few children will get abused or killed. To me this is some sort of “child sacrifice”. Some children sacrificed for the “greater good”, all calculated by computer. The computer says YES. To my mind, there should be ZERO child abuse in the world. I agree with you NooNoo I am pretty sure sex offenders have very high reoffending rates.

      It is like a game of chess though isn’t it? Because this sort of press announcement is also provoking us to demand all sorts of checks on child carers. That then paves the way for them to announce some sort of CRB checks on biological parents, who are carers just the same as adoptive parents, and statistically could abuse their own kids too. Soon you will have to prove you are safe before you are permitted to care for your own baby, and if you fail the routine checks, the State keeps the baby.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s