“Thou shalt not recognize patterns.” It’s one of the core commandments of modern leftism. But that’s only the short version. In full, the commandment runs: “Thou shalt not recognize patterns — except when they’re not there.” For example, you’ll be severely punished if you recognize any genuine pattern involving misbehavior by a favored minority like Blacks or Jews or homosexuals. But you’ll be showered with funding and praise if, for example, you recognize patterns of “systemic racism” that force naturally virtuous and intelligent Blacks into poverty, crime and academic failure.
In short, realists are flogged, fantasists are rewarded. In the mainstream, at least. Fortunately for those of us who believe in reality, there are still hate-sites like the Occidental Observer and Unz Review where we can describe and discuss patterns of misbehavior among favored minorities. Take two big scandals about pedophilia that have erupted in Britain recently. Nobody in the mainstream media dared to connect the dots and identify some obvious patterns. The first scandal involved one Karl Andersson, a Swedish PhD student of Japanese culture at the University of Manchester. Like many other people, I would call cultural studies and other branches of post-modern academia a load of wank, which is a crude British expression meaning “load of rubbish.” Well, Karl Andersson brought that crude expression to life, because his “ethnographic method” involved literal masturbation over Japanese comics portraying “young boy characters” in a “sexually explicit way.”
And not only was he being funded to fiddle with himself: he explicitly described his masturbatory methodology in an academic journal called Qualitative Research. And before he’d been approved for his PhD he’d self-published a “Magazine Full of Half-Naked Little Boys,” as the headline at Vice put it. Even leftists professed to be shocked and disturbed by all this, but they didn’t point out some obvious things. For a start, Andersson had obviously enjoyed homosexual privilege: his pedophilia had not merely been ignored by his academic supervisors but actually condoned or even approved. After all, his article about wanking over gay pedo-porn wasn’t sent to the police by the editors of Qualitative Research, but accepted and published.
Pensions for pedophiles
But no mainstream commentator talked about “gay privilege” and connected this scandal with a much worse scandal at Islington council in London back in the 1980s. Under the leadership of the obnoxious Jewish leftist Margaret Hodge, homosexual pedophiles had been allowed to abuse boys in children’s homes without being challenged and, in the end, without being prosecuted. Hodge and her council protected men like Peter Righton, the gay founder of the gay Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which campaigned for pederasty to be made legal. Like Karl Andersson, Righton made no secret of his sexual preferences: “Every Islington care home manager knows I like boys from 12.” But if Hodge and the Labour council she headed did nothing to stop the abuse, it worked hard in other ways: “Staff who raised concerns were accused of racism and homophobia, and often hounded out of their jobs. Some … received death threats. Almost 30 council employees accused of child sex crimes were allowed to take early retirement (on generous pensions) instead of being subjected to formal investigations or referred to the police.”
That was gay privilege at work back in the 1980s. Now it’s been at work in the 2020s, allowing Karl Andersson to be funded for fiddling with himself and to have his wank-work published in Qualitative Research. But unlike the non-existent “white privilege” and “male privilege,” gay privilege isn’t recognized in the mainstream. It’s a pattern that really exists, so it can’t be mentioned. Nobody asked how many more Anderssons there are in Western academia, using gay privilege to conduct worthless or immoral “research.” I would predict that there are many, but I didn’t expect another one to emerge so quickly. I was wrong: meet Dr Jacob Breslow, another gay academic in the worthless field of “cultural studies.” Except that it’s not worthless for Breslow any more than it was for Andersson. Breslow has also been funded to pursue his sexual interest in boys and was the center of the second scandal about pedophilia to hit the British media this year. The transgender organization Mermaids, which campaigns for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children and teenagers, had appointed Breslow as one of its “trustees.” Then unfortunate details emerged of how he had been using his gay privilege. The homosexual website Pink News reported the news like this:
Mermaids has apologised and said it will review its recruitment processes after it emerged that a former trustee participated in a conference organised by a paedophile support group. The trans youth charity’s chair of trustees, Belinda Bell, confirmed it became aware of Jacob Breslow’s involvement in the conference, which “would have disqualified him from becoming a trustee”, on Monday (3 October ), and that it “immediately launched an investigation”.
Breslow resigned the same day. An associate professor of gender and sexuality at the London School of Economics (LSE), Breslow gave a presentation at a 2011 symposium held by US group B4U-ACT. The organisation provides “compassionate assistance” to paedophiles, who it calls “minor-attracted people”. It was founded in 2003 by convicted sex offender Michael Melsheimer.
In a description of his 2011 presentation, Breslow wrote: “Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it potentially creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can begin to better understand minor-attracted persons. This understanding may displace the stigma, fear and abjection that is naturalised as being attached to minor-attracted persons and may alter the terms by which non-normative sexualities are known.”
Bell offered an apology on behalf of Mermaids, saying: “We want to apologise for the distress and concern this news has caused. It is clear that Dr Breslow should never have been appointed to the board, and as chair of the trustee board I am horrified that he was.”
Bell also addressed concerns over how it was possible that Breslow was ever appointed, especially as a Google search of his name quickly brings up articles from 2021 mentioning his troubling work around paedophilia. She said: “All trustees and staff are subject to background checks including enhanced DBS searches, social media reviews and other due diligence. On this occasion, we also placed weight on the fact his employer is a globally renowned institution that would have carried out its own checks.” (“Mermaids says trustee who quit over paedophile group links ‘should never have been appointed,” Pink News, 6th October 2022)
Belinda Bell of Mermaids is using a disingenuous excuse: the London School of Economics (LSE) is a “globally renowned” leftist institution, which means that it isn’t particularly careful about child welfare. On the contrary, like leftist Islington Council and leftist Rotherham Council, it places child welfare far below minority-worship. That’s why Islington Council allowed homosexual pedophiles to operate with impunity and why Rotherham Council allowed (and still allows) Muslim rape-gangs to operate with impunity. It’s also why the “globally renowned” London School of Economics employed Dr Jacob Breslow as he pursued his sexual interest in boys and sought to “displace the stigma, fear and abjection that is naturalised as being attached to minor-attracted persons.”
Jacob the Jew? Dr Jacob Breslow of the London School of Economics
It was gay privilege at work again. It was also an example of how homosexuals seem both more likely to be pedophiles and more brazen about pursuing their pedophilia. But another forbidden pattern may be apparent in Dr Jacob Breslow: that of the over-representation of Jews in the promotion and practice of sexual perversion. I suspect Dr Breslow is Jewish. He looks Jewish and, according to the leftist Wiktionary, his surname is a “[v]ariant of German Breslau, a Jewish Ashkenazi surname.” His politics are also typically Jewish: he has written that his work “interrogates and thinks with … anti-deportation movements.”
A noxious Nazi narrative: a Jewish pedophile offers candy to two gentile children
But is his pedophilia also Jewish in some way? Well, allegations of a close association between Jews and pedophilia go back many years. For example, one of the noxious narratives in an anti-Semitic Nazi publication called Der Giftpilz (The Poisonous Mushroom) (1938) involves a Jewish pedophile trying to kidnap two gentile children by offering them candy. As the Jewish anti-racist Liz Fekete has complained, that kind of vicious stereotyping wasn’t confined to Nazi Germany: “There is, as you will know, a long history of racialising sex crimes in this country [Britain] — Jews being associated with paedophilia in the 1930s, West Indians with pimping in the 1950s and now the focus has shifted to Muslim ‘groomers’.”
Drinkers of Jewish blood
I’d suggest that all those “associations” are correct: Jews are indeed over-represented as pedophiles and Blacks and Muslims as pimps and rapists. By making such a claim about Jews, I am of course being anti-Semitic and exposing myself to the withering criticism levelled by the Jewish mother Laura Rosen Cohen at Mark Steyn’s website: “I’ve never seen a truly joyful antisemite. They are all scowling, angry losers who see Jews in their sandwiches or want to drink our blood.” Well, yes, I am a scowling, angry loser, but I don’t know where Laura gets the idea that anti-Semites want to drink Jewish blood. I certainly don’t. However, I do know of people who regularly drink Jewish blood. Trigger-warning for the easily (and not-so-easily) repulsed: those drinkers of Jewish blood are the Orthodox rabbis who suck clean the bleeding penises of the Jewish babies they have just circumcized. That’s part of traditional Judaism, but I don’t think it’s a healthy part or a good way to break the association between Jews and pedophilia.
I also know of someone who criticizes Jews as an “Idiot People” because they so consistently support and promote the most lunatic forms of leftism. That someone is Laura Rose Cohen herself, who regularly refers to Jews as “My Idiot People” in her columns for Mark Steyn and elsewhere. Finally, I know of someone who has written an article arguing that “It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film.” The article says that the theme of the film, that of “an outsider battling against the social order,” is “typically Jewish” and has “Jewish appeal.” The article doesn’t explicitly say that Jews and pedophiles are natural allies, but that seems to be the subtext.
And where did this vile piece of anti-Semitism appear? It was in a widely read British newspaper, in fact, but no-one is going to be prosecuted and jailed for it. That’s because the newspaper was the Jewish Chronicle and the author of the article was the Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams, Professor of Film Studies at Bangor University:
It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film
The story’s theme of an outsider battling against the social order is — despite the troubling subject matter — typically Jewish
How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?” was the question posed by the posters advertising the film version of Vladimir Nabokov’s notoriously scandalous novel, released in the UK on 6 September, 1962. The “they” in question were two Jewish boys from New York: the famous director Stanley Kubrick and his then producing partner James B Harris.
Fresh from the big-budget success of Spartacus in 1960, Kubrick and Harris wanted to carve out their niche in the film industry, and what better way to do this, they thought, in the newly liberalising 1960s than to adapt a novel about rival paedophiles vying for the affections of a teenage girl? Their adaptation became filled with Jewishness. Nabokov himself had put Jews in his novel possibly through the influence of his Jewish wife, Vera, who we now know played an instrumental role in his career in general and this novel in particular, even saving it from being burned by its author.
… Feeling that “the story offers a marvellous opportunity for humour”, Kubrick made sure Lolita retained as much of Nabokov’s smutty puns, innuendo, and double entendres as he could in an era when the production code still governed what could and could not appear in a movie.
And he cast the greatest British Jewish comic actor of his era, Peter Sellers. Jewish by birth through his “archetypal Jewish mother,” Sellers did not practice any religion. Nor was he bar mitzvahed. But he was circumcised and, as the only Jewish boy at a North London Catholic school, he was certainly aware of his ethnic and religious Otherness. …
The other key piece of casting was Shelley Winters as the unsympathetic and pseudo-intellectual suburban hausfrau Charlotte Haze. Winters was born Jewish, as Shirley Schrift, but took her mother’s family name. … The Holocaust was also much in the news and popular culture at the same time as Lolita was in pre-production. In 1960, Adolf Eichmann was captured in Argentina, kidnapped and transported to Israel where he was imprisoned while awaiting trial. Incidentally, at some point during his incarceration, one of Eichmann’s guards gave him a copy of the recently published German translation of Lolita, as German-Jewish émigré philosopher Hannah Arendt puts it, “for relaxation”. After two days Eichmann returned it, indignantly telling his guard it was “quite an unwholesome book”. Is it possible that Eichmann rejected Lolita not only because of its sexual content but also because he detected it as being somehow “Jewish”?
… Lolita was last adapted in 1997 with young Humbert Humbert played by Ben Silverstone. Other than that, it was wiped clean of any Jewish traces. Nevertheless, it remains a story that has attracted Jewish writers to adapt it: playwrights Harold Pinter and David Mamet both attempted and failed. Despite, or maybe because of, its controversial and troubling subject matter, Lolita has a Jewish appeal. As Kubrick put it, “It concerns the outsider who is passionately committed to action against the social order… fighting to do some impossible thing.” (“It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film,” The Jewish Chronicle, 2nd September 2022)
I think the noxious Nazi Adolf Eichmann was right: Lolita is indeed “an unwholesome book.” It has undoubtedly encouraged pedophiles to act and may often have corrupted them in the first place. Whatever its literary merits, the manuscript would have been better burnt as its gentile author Vladimir Nabokov intended it to be. But Nabokov’s Jewish wife Vera “rescued” it and enabled it to be first published by the half-Jewish pornographer Maurice Girodias and then filmed by the Jewish director Stanley Kubrick. The book is about an “outsider,” after all, and Jews sympathize with outsiders, not with the majority (except in Israel, where they are the majority themselves). That sympathy obviously doesn’t stop when the outsider is a pedophile. Perhaps Girodias and Kubrick should have considered this disturbing insight from the poet Alexander Pope (1688–1744):
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace. (Essay on Man, 1733)
Or perhaps Girodias and Kubrick were already aware of the psychology described by Pope and fully intended that pedophilia should be more widely endured, pitied, and embraced. A Jew called Noah Berlatsky certainly intends those three steps to apply to pedophilia in America. He appears at Jewish Currents as the author of Nazi Dreams: Films about Fascism, which promises to teach readers “how to identify Nazis and punch them in the snoot!” He has claimed that “sex offender registries are ‘racist’,” is currently attacking Kanye West for his “flirtation with white supremacy,” and, like Jacob Breslow, prefers to call pedophiles “minor-attracted persons.” Like Breslow again, he spent a long time promoting pedophilia before he provoked a scandal:
Noah Berlatsky is the Communications Director of an organisation that engages in the normalisation of pedophilia. The name of the organisation is the Prostasia Foundation and it does appear to endorse extremely problematic opinions. Prostasia calls pedophiles ‘minor attracted persons’ or MAPs, which is an undisguised attempt to rebrand pedophilia as a sexual orientation such as homosexuality. In the past, it has condemned Tumblr removing “MAPs’ and allies’ blogs”. In a post on its website, Prostasia went on to claim that removing such content would harm children.
The post claimed, “An entire community at the “ground zero” of child sexual abuse prevention is being censored, and it’s children who will ultimately suffer the most.” The foundation also claims that “stigma” against pedophilia is a consequence of “alt-right conspiracy theorists” and “sexual conservatives”. (“Meet Noah Berlatsky: The Rutgers University Press published author working hard to normalise pedophilia,” OpIndia, 30th August 2021)
Meet Noah Berlatsky, Jewish anti-racist, anti-fascist and pro-pedophile activist
That article appeared at a mainstream website, so no pattern-recognition took place. Berlatsky’s Jewishness wasn’t mentioned, even though he appears to be yet another example of the patterns of perversion that link Jews with pedophilia. Nobody in the mainstream dares to discuss these patterns. After all, when it comes to a choice between saving children from being raped and shielding favored minorities from criticism, no good leftist hesitates for even a second. As the scandals in Rotherham and many other British towns and cities prove, leftists consistently side with the child-rapists, not with the raped children.