WHY ARE SO MANY UTOPIANISTS PAEDOPHILES?

THE HORROR THAT LURKS BEHIND IDEOLOGIES

I fully accept that’s a provocative title. I’m aware how emotive the word ‘paedophile’ is and how often it’s misused - not least amongst pupils. Still, one shouldn’t be restricted from open discussion when we face the nightmare of rampant ideological conformity and the banning of free speech in our institutions - particularly schools. Not to mention the ubiquity of paedophiles in our politics, especially on the left.

Here’s another clip of an excellent pupil fighting an utterly hopeless buffoon, barely capable of doing anything except shout that he is the authority and what he says is the truth. I’m not saying this example has anything remotely to do with paedophilia. But the teacher is coercively bullying and could - with little exaggeration - be straight out of 1984:

STUDENT KICKED OUT OF CLASS FOR SAYING THERE ARE TWO GENDERS

Time to address my main concern. The awkward thing remains, there does seem to be some link between utopian progressive ideologies and child abuse. Obviously, the bizarre and dangerous John Money is on my mind. But it’s well-known that - for example - Gandhi was a paedophile. And it’s unarguable this was true for the founders of many religions, one in particular. Ditto for numerous dictators, especially in Communist and quasi-socialist regimes, most notably Gaddafi, from the recent crop.

‘Now then, now then!’ This may seem a more banal example, but what institution was that most famous of modern paedophiles, Jimmy Savile, created by?

The BBC. The flagship of progressive ideology, an exemplar for utopian thinking and preaching. His personal politics (supposedly Tory) are irrelevant - he was uncritically invented and used by ‘Auntie’. And note how he hid behind charities and their fund-raising - the modern-day version of buying indulgences from a Pardoner, to absolve one’s sins.

The very obvious point is that power and sex are closely linked. More specifically, power over children - in the form of ideological indoctrination - is itself a type of abuse. Not sexual, per se, but without doubt highly coercive. Surely it’s then an obvious elision?

Today, power is exerted through a totalising progressive ideology, taught unrestrained in our schools and dominating all our institutions. Many years in teaching have shown me this. I knew no teacher in English, History, PSHE or Geography who attempted to be even-handed, on anything vaguely political (dare I say myself excluded?). The most they’d do was acknowledge that other points of views existed, all of them dismissed as incorrect.

Nor have I ever seen a school assembly (and I’ve seen way too many) without obvious left-liberal bias. Just as a fish doesn’t notice that water exists, these biases go unseen - particularly by those who claim to be even-handed.

Of course the very field of ‘sexology’ is - truth be told - bound to attract paedophiles. Not exclusively, but not insignificantly. Just as many with mental peculiarities are attracted to psychology and psychiatry. Simplistic no doubt but true nonetheless. Read up on Freud and his extraordinary drug taking, his endless neuroses or phobias.

The common rejoinder to what I’m saying (but only when defending figures on ‘the progressive side’) is that I’m attacking ad-hominem and that ideas can rise above failings. True, but I’m not just playing the man; the ball (the idea) is the issue.

Look again at John Money: how can one distinguish the two? His transgender ideas were promoted worldwide through his prolonged sexual exploitation of twin boys, albeit hidden at the time, yet now (shamefully) well known.

To make a leap into poetry: ‘How can we know the dancer from the dance?’

I do that deliberately, since the best exploration of what I’m discussing is literary and by the greatest of novelists, Dostoevsky, in Devils. The horrific but compelling character of Stavrogin - a maniacal revolutionary student, devoured by ideology - is guilty of a prolonged and terrifying act of child-abuse, detailed in a confessional chapter which is very often censored. It leads to the heart-rending suicide of an 11-year old girl.

Dostoevsky’s entire body of work is a wonderful resource, as an artistic exploration of how totalising ideologies and obsessions capture and corrupt individuals, then entire societies. Written prophetically in the mid to late-19th century yet foreshadowing the horrors of the 20th-century, in Russia and worldwide. His warnings are just as applicable to the insane excesses of ‘Progressivism’ we’re now mired in. He was especially farsighted in his suspicion of credentialism and the folly of uncritically following ‘intellectuals’.

Devils should be required reading for anyone dismayed by where we are. This greatest of writers could see how intellectualism, elite arrogance and hatred of the ‘masses’ - exerted through lofty claims of the opposite - would play out. Just as with Dickens (from whom he otherwise much differs) the individual is everything. They must never be sacrificed for ‘the greater good’ or any other airy ideological claim.

Dickens’ novels overflow with preachy ‘liberal’ figures who are in truth selfish authoritarian hypocrites, exploiting the vulnerable - especially children. His message is that ‘progress’ counts for nothing when it ignores the sanctity of individual life. And many who claim to be progressive are in fact callous, selfish and dangerous frauds. That doesn’t in the least imply progress is impossible or undesirable, it means to be endlessly wary of those who claim they and their beliefs embody it, thus demanding others accept their moral authority.

Because all ideologies abuse power and ideologues are often attracted by this, whatever the cause. The focus on indoctrinating children, combined with the bludgeoning moral sanctity provided by the ideology, provide perfect cover for paedophiles.

It’s children who always suffer the worst, under any ideology. They’re the first and easiest targets, the most in need of defending - whatever the cost.