What’s behind Hoaxteaders’ focus on ‘elite’ paedophiles?

One of the strangest features of those Hoaxtead mobsters who claim to be “child abuse crusaders” is their apparent willingness to protect—fiercely and loyally—various people who really have assaulted or sexually abused children. It seems that these aren’t the paedophiles Belinda, Sabine, and their ilk are trying to shut down; rather, they focus their wrath on what they call “elite paedophile rings”, as though only people who are somehow more privileged or important than the rest of us are capable of sexually abusing children.

Regular reader Justin Sanity shed some light on this yesterday, and we think it’s important to share his comments here, as they can help us make sense of some of what we hear from the Hoaxtead mob.

Commenting on yesterday’s post on convicted paedophile Peter Hofschröer, Justin asks, “Where did this obsessive fixation on alleged ELITE pedophile-child abusers come from?”

As it currently manifests, the “Elite pedo-child abusers” narrative is primarily political; it is populist sex-crime slander for political purposes—i.e., “pizzagate”. However, the true origin of this narrative was as a subtle, manipulative form of pedophile-pederast apologetics.

I’m NOT saying that everyone who is currently pushing the Elite pedophile conspiracy narrative are themselves secretly sexually attracted to children. Let me be clear about that.

What I am saying is that the obsessive focus on wealthy/powerful child abusers comes out of a deceptive meta-narrative promulgated by “working class” (albeit well-educated) pederasts—the idea that there are BAD pederasts, who are wealthy/powerful child abusers who heartlessly exploit poor children as sex slave “meat”, and GOOD pederasts who are more socialistic middle- or working-class men who genuinely care about the children’s humanity and LOVE them for who (not what) they are. (In other words, boy-LOVERS, which is what “pederast” literally translates to).

That meta-narrative is a crock of shit, of course, but it can be traced all the way back to pederast apologists such as John Henry Mackay:

Using the pseudonym Sagitta, Mackay wrote a series of works for pederastic emancipation, titled Die Bücher der namenlosen Liebe (Books of the Nameless Love). This series was conceived in 1905 and completed in 1913 and included the Fenny Skaller, a story of a pederast.[2] Under his real name he also published fiction, such as Der Schwimmer (1901) and, again as Sagitta, he published a pederastic novel of the Berlin boy-bars, Der Puppenjunge (literally “The Boy-Doll”, but published in English as The Hustler) (1926). In a note to the American publisher of this book, Christopher Isherwood said, “It gives a picture of the Berlin sexual underworld early in this century which I know, from my own experience, to be authentic.”

The very first modern-era claim to possessing a folio of information about “Elite pedophiles” came from a defendant in one of the Playland scandal trials of the mid-1970s. That fellow happened to be an unemployed labourer, accused of pimping (and sodomizing) runaway boys. He was certainly guilty of that, along with several others, but when released on appeal claimed to possess such a folio and offered (or threatened) to give it to police. His statements clearly demonstrate his belief in the false (“bad elites/good middle or working class pedophile”) meta-narrative—he was only “trying to help” these poor boys, (because he LOVED them, eh?), but these wealthy-powerful clients of his…they were evil sadistic monsters who deserved to rot in prison.

Everyone understands? If not, ask me to clarify.

Okay. Now let’s look at Tom Philpott again for an example of just how subtle and deceptive this meta-narrative can be. Remember, he’s the American history professor from that old pseudo-documentary on YouTube sometimes titled “Boys for Sale”. (I talked about the boy-lover apologist origin of the book that title was stolen from, before).

I was going through that video again recently, documenting Philpott’s references to the 1970s boy prostitution and pornography conspiracy run by subscribers to Better Life Monthly*—a FEW of whom really were millionaire black-sheep young men from very wealthy families, but MOST of whom were quite ordinary middle class and working class perverts. Philpott does refer to some of those cases, but he always does so without naming any of the persons involved. He discusses the whole subject as though it was all “top secret” information or can’t be discussed openly because of ongoing investigations—neither of which insinuations were really true at that time. Nothing about Better Life was “secret” by then, and Philpott certainly was not the only person to possess this info, nor the only person talking about it publicly, as he attempts to claim.

Tom Philpott describes an “organized crime” conspiracy (Better Life was that, you could say), not run by the Mafia but run by a “high-level” pederast conspiracy of social-political elites, who not only exploit but also routinely torture and murder young homeless and outcast boys. There have been a number of American serial killers who fit that description, but none of them were involved in any “organized” criminal child-trafficking conspiracy.

Okay, so that’s Philpott’s allegations about the BAD pedophile-pederast “Elite”.

Where is the “good” pederast in that narrative? Right under your nose, or in front of your face, of course.

Philpott is asked about his sources, where is he getting his information? He says: “blah and blah…and interviews…and blah…”

Interviews! Philpott was “interviewing” young boys,12–16 or so, who had been prostituting themselves in several cities in Texas. He is not a police investigator, he’s not a social worker or a youth worker, he’s not a juvenile probation officer, he’s not a journalist. He’s not even a sociologist or an anthropologist! He’s only a history professor.

A history professor, who “interviewed” young boy prostitutes in motel rooms in the middle of the night! And were there witnesses to these interviews? Apparently not.

Are there/ were there recordings of those interviews? Apparently not.

Are there/ were there transcriptions of these interviews? Supposedly, but they were “confidential”, of course so no one but Philpott was ever allowed to review them…

And why was Philpott doing all this work with these kids? Spending so much time, involved in so many clandestine phone calls, outings in the middle of the night, and other “secret” activity that his wife eventually freaked right out and separated from him? Was he “commissioned” or “appointed” by anyone, to do this? Was he doing this professionally, was he being paid to do this?

No. He was doing this, so he could help to “rescue” such boys, perhaps even by “bringing them into his home”, because he cared so much. Because he LOVED them, one must presume….

*(Better Life Monthly described itself thus: “The official newsletter of Better Life, an educational service organization serving the interests of pedophiles world-wide.”)

This myth of the “high-level” or “elite” pederast, in contrast to the “ordinary folk” pederast, reminds us of several of Belinda and Sabine’s friends—for example, Brian Pead, who was convicted in 2010 of having offered to pay a 14-year-old girl £300 for sex.

Brian Pead, 56, of Days Lane, Sidcup, was trapped in an online police sting by an undercover officer posing as a teenager.

The man, who worked as a therapist for a counselling agency for vulnerable youngsters, including victims of sexual abuse, in Hackney, East London, later claimed the chats were part of research for his job.

And sure enough, he has been rabidly defended by Belinda, Sabine, et al, who claim he’s not a paedophile at all, but a whistleblower! In other words, because “their” paedophiles and child abusers aren’t “elites”, they must be the good kind, the kind worthy of defending.

However, we suspect that their victims, if they were allowed to speak out, might beg to differ.