November 2, 2017
Optics debates aren’t exclusive to the Alt-Right. The case of Kevin Spacey has caused a split in the LGBTP community on whether to support molesting boys, or pretend to oppose it when breeders are looking.
As MILO remarked, touching minors against their will is the homosexual version of the 14 words. By traumatizing yet another generation of young men, fags are able to spawn more and younger sex partners.
Certain forces in the homo-pedo community like George Takei have thrown Spacey under the bus, but the hard core of Jewish and faggot intellectuals sees this as an opportunity to double-down and punch through one of the last remaining sexual taboos.
Eight months ago the Jew Gabrielle Rosenberg and Joseph Fischel defended MILO when he got in hot water. Most Goyim since the 90s have been trained to think there is some clear, impenetrable delineation between homosexuality and touching underage boys against their will, but this is Jewish disinformation to move the needle towards the inevitable in the sexual revolution.
Now Mr. Fischel has decided to condemn LGBTPs policing optics through feigned attacks Kevin Spacey with a new term you better start getting used to: “intergenerational sex.”
Everyone loves to hate a pedophile, even if they’ve made him up.
Immediately after Kevin Spacey tweeted an apology on Sunday night for allegedly making sexual advances toward a then-teenaged Anthony Rapp in 1986, he was “Milo-ed”—demonized and outcast under the banner of pedophilia—mostly by gay leaders, but also by everyone else (even here at Slate and by Milo himself).
Eight months ago, my colleague Gabriel Rosenberg and I, responding to the outrage around Milo Yiannoupolis’ comments on gay intergenerational sex, explored how gender and sexuality may complicate the ethics of sex across age difference. Let me be as clear as possible that Spacey’s alleged conduct, imposing himself unwanted on a 14-year-old boy, is in no way defensible, nor is closeted queerness an excuse that authorizes bad behavior. (Spacey’s statement doesn’t dispute either of these points.) However, we can condemn the alleged events of Rapp’s story without falling into the trap of fueling moral panic around the specter of the pedophile. And in its pitchfork-and-torches response, that’s exactly what the gay community is doing. It used to be straights who “pedophiled” gays to deny them civil rights and social inclusion. Now we apparently pedophile our own for moral purification and self-satisfaction.
The scary thing, in the eyes of the mainstream movement, is that Spacey used his apology as an opportunity to come out, to announce that he “live[s] as a gay man.” Braiding queerness into his apology sent gay pundits into a sanctimonious tizzy. Some lambasted him for coming out to deflect attention from his abusive conduct. Gay actors George Takei and Zachary Quinto decried Spacey’s coming out as manipulative and conniving, Frank Underwood-style. Others snarkily rejected his application for membership into the LGBTQ community. Critics likewise accused Spacey of dangerously equating homosexuality with pedophilia, reinforcing one of the most damaging arguments leveled at gays and lesbians in earlier decades. The dread that Spacey’s case might revivify that tactic seems to be many gays’ greatest fear.
Of course, had Spacey not come out, he would have been skewered by the same folks skewering him now: for irresponsibly remaining in the closet as a celebrity, for allowing self-hating homophobia to cloud his twentysomething judgment, for casting doubt on Rapp’s allegation by tacitly insisting on his heterosexuality. And that brings me to my first point: Spacey’s apology, while not displaying the total acceptance of a victim’s story that some might like, is not the manipulative mess many claim.
And thus, my second point: Gay pundits’ overblown protests of disgust at Spacey support the very structure of pedophile sex panic—the hyperventilating reduction of queerness to child abuse—that they are trying to fend off. To be clear, under no clinical diagnostic I know of does a drunken, aggressive, and deeply stupid pass at a teenager qualify as pedophilia. Indeed, one working definition of pedophilia is “ongoing sexual attraction to prepubertal children … who are generally age 13 years or younger.” From the perspective of helping children and pedophilic men both, pedophilia is best understood as a mental and public health problem requiring treatment and supervision rather than as a crime. (As a technical matter, there is no “crime” of pedophilia, which is a structure of desire; there are crimes of child molestation, abuse, etc.)
No, based on the evidence available at this point, Kevin Spacey is not a pedophile. But calling him one only helps to bolster the homophobic fantasy that gay men in general might be. This is why gay commentators’ defensiveness against the stain of pedophilia is, while understandable, deeply misguided.
With more people coming out to accuse Kevin Spacey of touching them when they were a kid every day, it’s laughable to think this was a one off “drunken pass.” Spacey has done more and worse.
There is a semantic argument the homosexual activist writer can make here, but what is his motive? It’s generally considered unacceptable for adult men to sexually attack 13 and 14-year-old boys. Fischel wants to “start a conversation” to make it acceptable. In a couple of decades they will muster the nerve to start talking about how sexy babies are.
Now that the lid has been blown off of Hollywood – composed almost exclusively of Jews and fags who love to rape people and touch kids – this may be the direction the powers that be take our media in.
They’ve got the platform, money and power, all they need is to get everyone on message. Soon that NAMBLA Antifa banner will be real.
Say it loud and say it clear:
NO PLATFORM FOR JEWS AND PEDO QUEERS