Rightwing "Boylovers"

One of those things that's always irritated me about NAMBLA, apart from their trying to hitch their political cart to mainstream gay rights, has been their dyed-in-the-wool, sanctimonious leftism. Perhaps it's time to give rightwing American "boylovers" a chance - especially as the new Obomination Administration will be specifically targetting just such people.

Jeffrey Ray Nielsen (pictured) from Orange Co., Calif., who had sex on several occasions with a 14-year-old boy

Jeffrey Kyle Randall, former mayor of Clarkfield, Minn., sentenced to nine months in jail and six years on probation on charges that he molested two boys from 1997 to 2003

Bobby Stumbo, Floyd County Republican leader, charged with having sex with a 6-year-old boy

John Curtin, who had sex with a 17-year-old boy

Howard L. Brooks, who was arrested for molesting a 12-year-old boy

Reverend Stephen White, who solicited sex from a teenage boy

Andrew Buhr, indicted for having sex with a 14-year-old boy

Probably loads of others as well!

I wish they'd just get it together to making a "conservative" (i.e. sensible) stand in favour of more humane ways of dealing with the problem of paedophilia.

They should start by accepting themselves and their feelings for what they are (i.e. fundamentally positive) and then concentrate on conservative legislative programs, such as putting an end to family breakdown and restoring spiritual values, that will genuinely lift the hearts and minds of the boys they naturally care for.

You do have a choice

A remark on rightwing pundit Peter Hitchens's blog recently really annoyed me.

Black is equivalent to homosexual in that neither is a choice. Hence, if this article had been written in such a way about black people, or any other ethnic group, no doubt there would be chants of "bigot" in a similar way.

Posted by: Daniel Gray 03 February 2009 at 02:22 PM

The reason why it annoyed me was that it's simply not true. And that's because homosexuality is a matter of choice, and just about anyone reading this blog should know that. As in the excellent film Minority Report, real choice is possible.

There is a natural attraction that exists between men. Unfortunately there can also be such a thing as sexual frustration, or the repression of a man's natural sexual feelings. Normally this is to do with a sense of personal inadequacy, arrested personal development, or moral immaturity. Boys can "go through phases" of homosexuality - that is until they come to a proper appreciation of themselves as sexual beings. Some such boys of course never make the transition from dirty jokes and (possibly) even sex-games with each other to proper sexual relations with members of the opposite sex. (And at this point I might say it's hard to see how using the criminal law to crack down on prepubescent boys playing with each other can really help them to make that transition - but perhaps that's a subject for another post!)

The reasons why men might choose, consciously or unconscioulsy, not to have sex with women and to fool around with each other instead, may include:

(i) there are no women around, or, for some reason, the men in question are unable to make adequate social contact with the women who are around - possibly for social reasons, possibly for psychological ones (e.g. because the men perceive themselves to be inadequate in some way - and often, as it happens, physical disability, whether genetic or otherwise, may well be a factor in this - or because they have some sort of ingrained taboo or phobia about women, such as misogyny or "gynophobia"*);

(ii) for reasons similar to those for (i), or for other reasons, these men may not wish to take on the responsibilities of proper marital relations and reproduction.

It is worth bearing in mind that there is a basic dichotomy here between these two types of homosexuals. Nor, just as importantly, do these types apply merely to homosexuals. There are indeed plenty of (i) misogynistic heterosexuals and, conversely, plenty of (ii) homosexuals who like children. Also, although these two types may broadly correspond in homosexuality to "queens" and "butches", or to "tops" and "bottoms" - though which is which I couldn't say - I personally prefer to divide gays into simply those that are pro- and anti-children - the paedophobic minority and the majority that is, whatever they may themselves claim, still thankfully paedophilic.

The first example I thought of by way of illustration was, somewhat unsurprisingly, Oscar Wilde. He is of course a problem for my thesis here because he wasn't actually a homosexual. He certainly wasn't according to the strict theological definition of the term (i.e. given that he enjoyed marital relations with his dear wife). In modern parlance, moreover, he was a "bi" rather than a "gay". He did, however, clearly have paedophilic tendencies, and as such he was very much in the modern homosexual mainstream.

The ambivalent attitude of the Sexual Revolutionaries to the idea of "choice" is one of those great mysteries of our age. On the one hand choice is lauded to the skies, especially where it's used as a sickening euphemism for killing unborn children. On the other hand, the idea that an individual may be able to choose, or at any rate indirectly form, at least a large part of his or her sexuality, is anathema to the overwhelming majority of moden, "liberated" people.

*OK, I'm not sure that that's actually a word, but if you can have "paedo-philes" then why not?

Boy-on-Jewboy Action!

Holocaust Memorial Day is of course one of those special days when antiwar pricks try to pretend that the Jews were and/or are really just as bad as the Nazis. I thought I'd celebrate kind by going all broad-minded and tolerant and linking to the story of Aryan beauty Matt Damon sticking it to that no-good Jewish schmuck Bill Kristol. Apparently they're going to have a debate - which should be fun.

Of course it could be even more fun if they just skipped the debate, and we could watch Matt whup Kristol's ass the same way he did with stoopid kike Brendan Fraser in that really cool movie.

Der Held und seine Kinder

[H/T: Tribunus]

Before it's too late?

Gay paedophiles are targeting primary schools now. The Daily Male broke the news this week, but a short trip to the organisation's own website (here and here) confirms their analysis of what's going on.

Sex before eight? Indeed!

UPDATE: The Telegraph is just one 'paper amongst others carrying news of children who were taken away from their grandparents, who were "too old" (i.e. too old-fashioned), by social workers and placed with gay paedophiles.

Disgusting isn't the word for it, so much as deeply, deeply depressing.

'How can the light that burned so brightly suddenly burn so pale?'

Was it Simon or was it Garfunkel that did the original for Watership Down back in the 1970s?

Either way, this vid rather supports my maxim that anything a man can do a boy can do better.

Selfishness

'Self-love, my liege, is not so vile a sin, as self-neglecting.'

[The Dauphin, in Shakespeare, Henry V, II.iii]

I went black this morning and now I'm blue. I was feeling gloomy and depressed, but now it's the weekend, and now I'm really just wondering what I want to do with this blog next. In reality I'm probably going to need feedback from other interesting people if I'm going to be able to go on writing. I need controversy and argument. I also need approval and people saying nice things. And I can't really run on porn alone.

Yes, I've been masturbating in the last few days. Not a lot - maybe just four times in two days, and not at all since. But it's still a manifestation of the old vicious circle - depression and self-abuse chasing each round and round in a horrific dance between cause and effect. And here of course, like the classic masturbator (as C S Lewis describes him, for example) I'm turning in on myself, cutting myself off from the outside world.

For me, it has to be said, a good day is a day when I see a boy smile (and, maybe, I get an erection). A bad day is a day when I end up alone and morally constricted, full of fear and guilt and, in a word, "stress". One thing I've noticed about myself recently is the way my jaws often seem to be jammed together, even when I'm sleeping. Perhaps it's trying to maintain "self-control"!

Or is it all just selfishness?

Back in the Black!

I've just changed the template for this blog back to the old minima dark format. It reflects my general feelings of gloom and despondency at the moment. What with the black spastic now in charge in Washington, family illness and breakdown, global economic crisis (which is worse in Britain than almost anywhere else, thanks to eleven years of crazy-kid Socialism), not to mention the sodding rain...

Thank God it's Friday!

Perhaps not undeserved, but certainly unjust!

OK, I know, as an Englishman I do still sort of think of Oz as being one giant prison-island. At the same time though, even the lurid media descriptions of this man's "crimes" (below) make it hard really to understand why he's now going to be cooling his heels in some antipodean slammer for 10 months.

Child-porn downloader 'didn't realise it was a crime'

Christine Flatley
January 19, 2009 02:15pm

A FATHER who downloaded 30,000 child pornography images and videos did not realise it was against the law, a court has been told.

Brian Raymond Bowden, 44, was surprised when police charged him with using a carriage service to access child pornography and knowingly possessing child pornographic material, the Brisbane District Court was told today

Prosecutor Anthony Gett said Bowden told police he knew it was a crime to abuse children, but did not realise he was breaking the law by possessing images of such abuse.

The court was told police found almost 28,000 images of children being abused on Bowden's computer when they searched his home at Carina in Brisbane in July 2007.

Bowden also had more than 4700 videos stored on the computer's hard drive.

Mr Gett said some of the videos and images featured babies being abused, and others featured sadistic acts and bestiality.

The court was told Bowden had downloaded the files between March 2005 and July 2007.

The father of two pleaded guilty today to the charges and was sentenced to two and a half years' jail.

He will serve 10 months behind bars before being released on a good behaviour bond.

[heraldsun.com.au]

In my opinion, either pornography and sodomy should be completely legal or they should be completely illegal. Personally, as it happens, I'd be more than happy to go along with banning all of it. But there is genuinely something horrifically unjust about the way that such things are currently completely legal for some people but not at all legal, and with stiff penalties attached, for others.

And both sides of any debate over morality and "free speech" ought to be able to agree on that.

Brent Corrigan

Brent Corrigan is a beautiful young man [H/T: Shini], and he's one of the best gay porn stars ever. Men have killed (literally) to get hold of him.

He was still a child when he appeared in his first porn feature Every Poolboy's Dream. It's now a gay classic, but its distribution was pulled when it was found that Brent had lied about his age. So it's now doubly precious, in that not only does it feature Brent being sodomised when he was still a beautiful kid by man wearing a condom but it's also now extremely rare.

Would I like to see it? (Would I?)

The Corruption of Language

One of those things I find genuinely very hard to understand about the way that paedophilia is dealt with in our culture is the common inference throughout the mainstream media that paedophiles hurt and harm children. I don't say 'sexually abuse' children, but 'hurt and harm'. There is in fact quite an obvious difference. The deeper inference seems to be that paedophiles don't actually like children at all, and the implication from that is that deadbeat dads up and down the country (and deadbeat mums, for that matter) can demonstrate their love and commitment for the children they hardly ever see by going on protest marches orchestrated by pornographic magazines such as The News of the World, screaming "Pedo scum!", and calling for the restoration of the death penalty for anyone who, er, actually likes children.

Because the truth of course is that paedophiles do like children. (The clue is in the term itself - that is if you have even a passing familiarity with Greek.) Yes, paedophiles like children a bit too much, and they like them in the wrong way. But the general way that 'paedophile' is used in the media to mean 'scary pervert who wants to kidnap, rape and murder your 10-year-old' is quite simply a corruption of our language by a media-Establishment that is itself both sick and twisted. In fact, off the top of my head, of all the lurid and sensationalised media accounts of paedophiles who have had sex with children and then gone on to murder them I'd be surprised if I couldn't count the actual number, on both sides of the Atlantic, on the fingers of one hand.

Not that gay paedophiles are the only group of men who are often portrayed by the media as hating what they actually quite like. To take another example, how about, er, heterosexual men - or "gynophiles", as we should perhaps call them? Last year a spoof beauty pageant held at the prestigious London School of Economics led to bitter accusations from all the ugly unpopular girls at the college feminists on the campus of 'misogyny' on the part of the organisers. I mean, Huh? OK, maybe beauty pageants aren't really my thing (although even I thought the girls in the photos looked very nice). But don't men go to beauty pageants because they like women? How on earth does liking beautiful women make you a misogynist?

And so it goes on. The latest warped reversal of moral polarities I've noticed comes from the BBC (second only to The Times when it comes to reproducing the Establishment "line" on any subject!) in one of its crime drama series, in which that august bastion of fairness and tolerance attempts to demonise pro-life campaigners. Apparently if you're opposed to murdering unborn babies you're also into kidnapping and torturing them, not to mention a spot of murdering of your own! And yes, I know, we actually saw this sort of thing six years ago, when Auntie turned the very first episode of her disgusting (and embarrassingly pro-Establishment) spy-series Spooks into a crack-brained propaganda video in which pro-lifers were depicted as terrorists. (Not that their weren't real terrorists running aroung the UK in 2002, but this was before the 7/7 attacks, when MI5 was still pursuing its famously successful "softly, softly approach"! Let's be grateful that so much has changed since then!*)

Basically, it's not just sexuality that the media (in my view deliberately) just do not get. It's procreation in general. The reasons for this I think are interesting, and they should certainly inform any true debate over what it means to love boys, and how and why. But the corruption of language and the corruption of the media (and language itself is the most important medium of all) are phenomena that we need to be aware of, just as we need to remember that those we rely on to maintain and defend the values of truthfulness and honesty, often whether they mean to or not, are very seldom on our side.

*And here's hoping some of my readers can spot irony when they read it!

'My name is James Tiberius Kirk'

Well, having fulminated against modern Hollywood, it's worth bearing in mind that there are still one or two things that the bastards sort of get right when they put their minds to it.

Bad Omens

I started watching the 2006 re-make of The Omen on TV, partly because I thought the boy was cute and partly because I couldn't believe it was anything like as bad as it was supposed to be. Well, the boy is nice. He's got blue eyes, at least. Apart from that though he's no great improvement on the boy in the original. For all that individually they do nothing but change, boys as a generality are essentially changeless and timeless.

Everything else, of course, does change - at least in the sense that things in general naturally decay and degenerate. And so the Omen franchise started out well, carried on being entertaining with its first sequel and then clearly lost its way. This evening indeed it wasn't long before I was longing for all the things, large and small, that made the original a classic. Where was Patrick Troughton as the priest? Where was Gerry Goldsmith's Oscar-winning score? Where was the deft, spooky direction of Richard Donner? Where was Gregory Peck, for that matter? Liev Schreiber (however his name is supposed to be pronounced) actually seems like a perfectly serious, competent actor, utterly baffled here by a director who doesn't have a clue. But what's with the bizarre, unfunny in-joke of having Mia Farrow as the evil nanny? In fact, what's with the unfunny in-joke of the whole sodding thing? At one point I was even pining for Guildford Cathedral. (Well, I do pass it every day on my way to work!)

At 10 o'clock then, I gave up and switched over to the News. (The new President of America is of course a good deal scarier than anything Hollywood could come up with nowadays.) So for all I know they might have changed the ending. But I don't really care. I mean, who did they expect to watch this rubbish? People who thought the original was so good that there really ought to be shit version just to balance things out? Perhaps you're supposed to watch this version first, so that all the gruesome accidental killings (which are all exactly the same in this one, except that they aren't actually frightening) won't be quite as exciting when you watch the old version!

The sad thing of course is that the original Omen is not that great. Yes, it's spooky enough to entertain, but it lacks the theological and political authenticity that it would have needed genuinely to get under the skin. Compared with this slick, modern, whole-heartedly fantastical version, the 1970s original has a kind of unnerving gritty realism - even the bits that are noticeably stagey and Pinewoody. (Was it actually filmed at Pinewood? Dunno!) The new version's problem is that follows the conventions of modern Hollywood to the letter, never deviating towards the real world in the slightest.

To take just a couple of examples, Patrick Troughton's priest in the original wore a clerical suit. Why? Well, that's how Roman Catholic priests in the 1970s dressed - or at least the more old-fashioned ones in the English-speaking world did. Similarly, of course, Guildford Cathedral back then was clearly considered a very normal modern church (i.e. normal for people who still went to church). In the new version, Pete Postlethwaite's hammy, not to say pantomime replacement wears a soutane and a Romano hat. Why? Because that's what proper Catholic priests wear in proper horror movies! (Don't you know anything?) And of course in an age when people only go to church to get married and buried, and when churches only appear on celluloid in gangster flicks and horror movies, you've got to have a proper gothic church with pointy bits and everything. That's how it goes.

Bearing such details in mind though, it quickly becomes clear why nothing in this film feels remotely realistic - let alone frightening. The first rule of any ghost story, let alone of a horror movie, is that there has to be at least the conceit that the events described or portrayed actually took place - or could actually take place. Both Frankenstein and Dracula, after all, were epistolary novels, purporting to relay real events, and the reason why the Francis Ford Coppola movie versions of the 1990s failed to thrill and chill was because they bore no relation whatsoever to the imaginary real worlds described in their source materials.

The problem with this new re-make of The Omen is that the only world it does resemble is the imaginary world that most modern movies are set in. For example there's one scene in the film that's set in a zoo: it may well, for all I can remember, have been in the original (my mind plays tricks), but here it feels curiously like an homage to the opening of the first Harry Potter film. And that imaginary Chris Columbus version of reality, in which English schoolboys all wear caps (and according to which American kids in the late 1980s still dressed in the same clothes their parents wore at their age in the 1950s) is about as near to reality as this movie-world gets.

Hollywood's big problem is that its movies are all about the Hollywood version of reality. Its horror movies aren't remotely frightening because they've got nothing to do with us, in the real world. Are we really to wonder that fewer and fewer people seem to want to watch any of Hollywood's modern output - with the exception of its out and out fantasty stuff, which (naturally enough) it actually does reasonably well?

And should we not worry that it is now the darlings and luvvies of Hollywood (led, apparently, by the clownish George Clooney) who, with their brainless puppet President now safely installed in Washington, will be calling the shots in the "real world" for the next four (possibly eight!) years?

'Far Away'

It's odd to think that the theme tune to an award-winning Japanese TV-drama miniseries has become the bestselling signature-song of a (real) boy band from South London. The Japanese, like the Russians (and in fact most of the rest of the World), are obviously less paedophobic than we are in this country, and the boys themselves have been a huge hit over there. (Back in Blighty most people have probably never heard of them.)

On the other hand 'Far Away' was written specifically for them and their voices. It's not actually in Japanese (it's in English and Latin). Arguably it belongs to them as much as to anyone. It's the first thing I ever knowingly heard them sing, so I think of it as their "breakthrough" piece.

It was also judged sufficiently good for them actually to sing it at a Papal Mass in New York last year. (Actually I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that, considering it was probably the only even vaguely tasteful thing on the menu.)

It is very sweet.

Gay Republicans for Prince Harry!

OK, I've always been slightly sweet on Prince Harry. As a boy he was a red-headed little angel and regular posh scamp. Normally of course men don't do much for me, but now that he's a bona fide hero as well - as well as being third in line to the throne - well, why not? Yes, I was a bit shocked about that costume. (The swastika! With the uniform of the Afrikakorps! Does the lad know nothing?) But I'm prepared to accept that it was just a bit of fun, and not intended to be historically accurate. (Much like Schindler's List, I suppose!)

Even before he came back from fighting the good fight in Afghanistan, Prince Harry was "Britain's Pin-Up Prince". The OMG blog a couple of years ago was just one blog that got excited by pics of him with his shirt off. Then after Afghanistan of course even the blogsphere's "liberal" elements (i.e. the same sorts of people who were into yummy little Tom Daley, although not literally, one hopes) all enjoyed at least some of the pics of the soldier prince on active service in far off lands. The blog When Only Hot Will Do had a nice post about him here. The blog AskaGayMan.com didn't even have to be asked. Even the Miami Herald took an interest.

And now comes the news that even homo-Nazi Peter Tatchell may have been, er, "turned" by this young man's charms.

Mr Tatchell, who is a gay rights campaigner and a leading member of Republic, heaped rare praise on our twenty-four-year-old Prince describing him as "liberated and enlightened" after Prince Harry was filmed kissing and licking a male Army friend. For in that video, obtained by The News Of The World newspaper, Prince Harry is caught on a night out with friends in which he mouths to one soldier: "I love you" before kissing him on the cheek and also licking his face. Another extract from the tape shows our Harry asking a colleague how he felt after an Army exercise, adding: "Gay, queer on the side?"

In his press statement Mr Tatchell said he had no problem with Harry's use of the word "queer" and praised his show of affection. Mr Tatchell said: "For him to happily give his soldier friend a public kiss and lick his face strikes me as rather liberated and enlightened - for a straight man. If only more heterosexual men were relaxed about same-sex affection like Harry, the world would be a better place. The context and intention of words is crucial in deciding whether they are offensive or not. I don't find anything objectionable about the context in which Harry used the word queer."

In a statement Neil Welton, the leader of Monarchy Wales, said he was "delighted" that such a prominent member of Republic's team was now backing Prince Harry. He urged Republic's Campaign Manager, Graham Smith, to publicly state whether he agreed with Mr Tatchell's assessment of Prince Harry as "liberated and enlightened". Neil added: "Last Monday morning, Graham Smith of Republic was describing Prince Harry as a disgrace and unfit to be a possible future Head of State. By Wednesday afternoon, Peter Tatchell of Republic is describing Prince Harry as liberated and enlightened. Which is it? Are they having a laugh? They can't have it both ways."

[The Monarchist]

In the absence of any pics of Prince Harry "having it" both ways, here are his old Afghan pics again. Enjoy!

You'll never read the bitchfests about Chelsy Davey the same way again!

Ender's Game: Battle School #2

Some unlabelled examples of Ferry's superb artwork from the second installment of Ender!

Click to enlarge.

Ender's Game: Battle School #1

Well, I thought I might as well re-launch this blog with it's new Ender-theme in style. These are the opening pages of the new comic-book adaptation of Ender's Game, published by Marvel Comics. Obviously it's hugely truncated, but at the same time it's very competently done and, more importanly, it's exactly how I imagined it. Card's own oral puff for the series is here.

The artist is actually a Spaniard called Pasqual Ferry, and the standard is quite obviously a good deal higher than that of the average US comicbook in the tradition of Josh Kirby et al. (There are couple of his rough sketches here and here.)

It has to be said, there's something bittersweet about the fact that the aliens are now called "formics".

Click to enlarge!

Chaeronea Revisited

Whoah! Now that's freaky. The Order has just been refounded, seemingly by someone else keen to share with the world his fondness for "boys". (So far there've been a couple of pictures of men and an unfunny vid of a man sexually abusing himself, but I suppose it's early days hours yet.)

And all power to the elbow of the enterprising 46-year-old male from Blackburn who's taken over my old URL on blogspot. (Good to see the old can-do Lancastrian spirit isn't all gone - yet.) What exactly he thinks he's doing there though I don't know. (He even has an advert asking requesting material.)

I, of course, started this blog (which was then there) about two weeks ago, and if I'm honest I did so mainly because I didn't want to visit dodgy "boylove" websites anymore - and now that I look back on it I can honestly say "not that I ever did want to visit such sites" - although I do still like boys. So far I've been pleasantly surprised to find that I haven't been deleted and that there are even some bloggers out there who think the same way I do.

Which is nice!

Some brothers do 'ave 'em

Now Under New Management

Yes, rumours of this blog's death have been greatly exaggerated. On the other hand, I do rather feel as if Mary Whitehouse has been round, given that I've now been over the whole thing with a scrubbing brush. My attitudes and beliefs about my subject matter haven't changed much, but I really do hope that this way I'll be able to avoid deletion.

So, I've left Montague Summers and the Order of Chaeronea behind, not to mention Uncle Monty and his genteel Lake District sin bin. My new Internet ID is, er, myself, but with a touch of Orson Scott Card (whose books I am currently reading as a shield against some of the awfulness going on in the "real" world).

I do like the ending to 'The Selfish Giant' a lot, even if it was (bizarrely enough) used as a leitmotif for the gruesome Stephen Fry biopic of Wilde. I thought having it in the bar on the right might be a bit much, except that it does seem to fit the whole Ender mythos. The stupid giant and the kid who saves mankind are clearly both important Jungian archetypes. No great writer can ignore either of them for long.