ACADEMIC ASSAULT on Michael Jackson. THE GUYS who recommended CARL TOM’S BOOK. Part 2
SPREAD THIS NEWS
Another Professor who recommended the book about Michael Jackson is Thomas O’Carroll’s friend #4:
This scholar is the most renowned of them all – the mere enumeration of his degrees will take your strength away: Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles and the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Criminology, Founder of the International Academy of Sex Research in 1975, so on and so forth…
However everything you remember while reading all that information it is his face which is really unforgettable… Okay, so what else do we have about him except the face?
Well, firstly – he was the one who invited Thomas O’Carroll to give his expert paedophile opinion at the International Academy of Sex and even recommended his “Paedophilia: The Radical Case” book to his students at Cambridge University.
Now he is recommending us to read Thomas O’Carroll’s second book which is evidently based on his personal experience (as if we have nothing else to do but read that filth).
In his review Richard Green says:
- “This very readable book is packed with extensive research on Michael Jackson’s ‘dangerous liaisons’” (Complete lie. NO research was made. I’ve checked the chapters on Jordan Chandler when the book was on public display in the web – Tom O’Carroll does not go further than the usual tabloid trash and does not replace the old lies with a single new proven fact) .
- “The author argues that such pairings need not be condemned. Many readers will be outraged. Their convictions about the evils of any boy-man sexuality will prevail. But whether or not one is convinced, shaken, or even stirred by the author, this is a recommended read. It isn’t just another book about “Wacko Jacko”. There won’t be anything written quite like it”.
Let me translate the main idea of his arguments in case you didn’t get it: “This paedophile speaks positively of “male-boy pairings”. It doesn’t matter if you support the idea or not. Thebook is an enjoyable read. You’ll surely like it – one way or the other (because of the general fun or other reasons). It’s only a small initial step which is needed on your part – we will do the rest….”
What does this eminent psychiatrist think of pedophilia? Does he consider it a mental illness, like we do?
No, Richard Green thinks that paedophilia is not a mental disorder – and thus can be considered a ‘normal’ state of mind (?)http://www.narth.com/docs/debate2.html
The reviewer of Richard Green’s article notes that he compares human behavior to that of animals which is not regarded as abnormal in similar circumstances:
- “Looking at normality from the perspective of our animal relatives, Dr. Green speaks of our close genetic relative, the pygmy chimp, or bonobo. Studies show that the bonobo has erotic contact with babies of its own species. And that behavior isn’t likely harmful to the babies, Green says, because it’s the babies themselves that often initiate the sex play”. In short “his findings converge on the conclusion that pedophilia is not a mental disorder – at least “not unless we declare a lot of people in many cultures and in much of the past to be mentally ill.”
Guys, we have great news about pedophiles now: all the people who committed those despicable crimes were completely normal! A renowned academic has just proved to us (by comparing humans to animals) that pedophiles are sane and normal people, and should not be locked up, at least in mental institutions….
Frankly speaking, if all these professors weren’t eminent scholars and weren’t above suspicion due to their rank you could really regard them as a pedophile ring conspiring against the society who should be immediately uncovered and turned in to the authorities.
The journalist Marcello Mega was evidently thinking along the same lines and tried to reach Richard Green in 2001 to talk about his relations with pedophile Thomas O’Carroll and his IPCE organization. Below is an article about his experience: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=165893
Here is a shortened version of it:
If No Rules Have Been Broken, Perhaps The Rulebook Requires Some Attention?
23 November 2001
An academic in Europe had infiltrated IPCE, an international paedophile organisation, and I was being sent their online correspondence each day. It was apparent that many members were academics, driven by a desire to persuade the rest of society that sex with children was acceptable and to influence legislators all over the world to lower the age of consent.
Intriguingly, there was a clear link to Glasgow University and a suggested link to Cambridge University.
IPCE, which was originally called International Paedophile and Child Emancipation, has a website carrying information and “academic” papers that most would find repugnant, but that fall short of illegality. However, the site, whose webmaster is Dutch academic and convicted paedophile Frans Gieles, links to about 100 other sites used by paedophiles, and many of these stray well over the legal boundaries. On one linked site I found a “paper” making the case for sex with infants. The writer claimed it was a “known fact” that babies of six months or even younger were capable of orgasm, so how could it be wrong to have sex with them?
Some members of IPCE were in regular contact under the banner IMO (IPCE Meets Online). Members discussed how they infiltrated academic conferences around Europe, promoting their views and challenging universal assumptions about the link between paedophilia and violence.
Tom O’Carroll, a prodigious correspondent, is one of the United Kingdom’s most notorious convicted paedophiles. I recognised the name instantly and was interested to read his claim that he had a “useful contact” at Cambridge University.
He said he met Claire Morris, a PhD student, through a television project. She had introduced him to her professor, Richard Green, in the department of criminology. As a result of that contact, Green had invited O’Carroll to speak at the International Academy of Sex Research conference in Paris and was recommending that his students read O’Carroll’s book, “Paedophilia: The Radical Case”, in which he advocates sex with children, including his own, as a “positive experience”.
I suspected O’Carroll was talking up his influence and contacted Nick Champion, the university’s press officer. He confirmed O’Carroll’s claims about Green.
The Glasgow University connection was more straightforward. Richard Yuill, a PhD student in sociology, was a member of IPCE and corresponded regularly with O’Carroll, Gieles and others. I believed he was abusing his research position. Yuill’s objective was to challenge the assumption of abuse in man-boy relationships. He described himself as a boy-lover, a phrase homosexual paedophiles use to make them seem less objectionable.
He had obtained access to adult survivors of child abuse through social work departments and care organisations. On the IPCE website, he claimed that many had been grateful for the abuse.
He posted a transcript of an interview with Ray Wyre, the UK’s leading expert on sex offenders, commenting: “It reveals the kind of thinking and cognitive distortions that such experts use to justify their existence and misrepresent the central issues surrounding intergenerational love and sexuality.”
Acting on behalf of a Sunday newspaper, I copied this material to Glasgow University and posed questions about Yuill’s research. Some 48 hours later, the university responded, saying Yuill had done nothing wrong.
His supervisor, David Evans, said academic research could look at any subject, no matter society’s view of it, and lectured me that it was wrong to impose our values on others, saying that in some cultures it was normal for boys to have sex with men.
I had expected that my inquiries to the press offices at Glasgow and Cambridge would be dealt with professionally. I was disappointed therefore to receive from a source another raft of intercepted emails last month that made it clear that IMO/IPCE knew all about my interest in Richard Green and Claire Morris and knew that I had been sent information from Amsterdam.
Unfortunately, I had not blacked out the number at the top of the faxed sheets. The code identified Amsterdam. One of the small group who had seen the documents had, presumably, passed this on to Yuill and I assume he alerted his friends. They then embarked on a witch hunt, threatening to pursue legal action over the breach of IPCE’s privacy.
Had I not been outed to IPCE, my source would have been able to continue to provide material. Thanks to two of our ancient seats of learning, the door has been closed”.
The morale I get from the above article is that it is much easier for paedophile Thomas O’Carroll to establish and keep up a sustained contact with Professor of Psychiatry Richard Green than for journalist Marcello Mega to meet him just once.
Why, I wonder?
* * *
And finally here is Thomas O’Carroll’s friend # 5.
DONALD JAMES WEST
DJ West, born in 1924, is the Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Emeritus Professor of Clinical Criminology, Cambridge University. He is the last person in our pedophilia-expert quintet and is probably the least known of them all.
I don’t know how close he is to our convicted pedophile Tom O’Carroll but in his preface to the book “Paedophilia: The Radical Case” Doctor D.J.West receives warm thanks from the author who says:
- “D. J. West, Professor of Clinical Criminology at Cambridge University read the whole text in draft and made many valuable suggestions”.
Now D.J.West is recommending us the second book by Thomas O’Carroll:
- “The author’s sympathy lies with the children whose feelings are disregarded by adults in prosecutorial combat. His vivid and insightful commentary is a joy to read”.
His main book on our issue is Children’s Sexual Encounters with Adults: A Scientific Study which is called by one of the reviewers as Pedophilia Chic:
“It is not sexual contacts per se that pose problems for children, the authors argue, but rather the cultural prejudices by which most members of society judge such acts.
The study emphasizes the positive side of man-boy love for the boy in question.
At a time when almost every kind of advocacy comes equipped with statistical batteries, it should come as no surprise that pedophiles and their allies, too, have acquired their own pseudo-scientific apparatus.
In one corner, enraged parents from across the country screaming for help in protecting their children; in the other, desiccated salonistes who have taken to wondering languidly whether a taste for children’s flesh is really so indefensible after all. And they wonder why there’s a culture war.”
* * *
So much for pedophiles and their advocates.
Now I hope, we will know the true worth of those ‘renowned scholars’ and their comments on Carl Tom’s book and will never swallow their bait again.