Daily Archives: November 1, 2015

The Great Innocence Rage…


November 01, 2015

Notice of Raw Links:

The Great Innocence Rage:
A Look at a Hyperaggression Syndrome Affecting Some Heterosexuals

The Great Innocence Rage
A Look at a Hyperaggression Syndrome Affecting Some Heterosexuals

Kamil Beylant

In a big ‘jump outside the box’ recently, psychologist Brian Nosek and 269 co-authors tried to reproduce the results of 98 published studies in psychology. They discovered that only around 40% of the studies could be reproduced; the rest were ‘irreproducible results.’ This was a shock of epic proportions, perhaps a turning point in history. Our troubled societies spend billions on research in psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and many related fields that attempt to explain and direct human behavior. Is over half that money really being spent on nonsense?

In reality, the results of some of the irreproducible papers might have been true, momentarily. The researchers’ focus may have intersected genuine, but transient, trends in socially influenced attitudes and practices. But that comforting face-saver immediately suggests that even the studies that were reproduced successfully may become invalid over a larger time scale. To what extent do any of the topics canvassed in modern psychological studies remain stable?

Psychology had its roots in phrenology and behavioral taxonomy, 19th-century attempts to reduce the natural diversity of human minds to manageable categories. In the era of Freud, it moved into introspective speculation, but remained anecdotal, almost artistic. Its only claims to being scientific were that it was partly based on observation, and that it wasn’t religious. As time went by, it and its medical sister-discipline, psychiatry, became ever more prominently relied on by governments and courts. This led to much mischief, since these speculative fields could find quasi-scientific arguments that supported eugenics, racism, any economic system, and any form of gender or sexual discrimination. In the 1960s and 70s, when psychologists turned en masse to modernizations like statistics, questionnaires and simulation experiments, the veneer of science over the field was greatly strengthened.

Psychiatry also butched up, scientifically, by turning to drug therapies for mental conditions. Much of its practice, however, was still scientifically soft. The Nosek study is by no means fatal to these twin fields, but it is a major setback in public relations, if nothing else. One suspects that in the long run, it will be ignored and life will go on as usual, but its memory will remain – it is the Twin Towers of the cognitive disciplines.

In light of this semi-debunking of the modern experimental psych disciplines, we can see that some of the most robust results these fields have produced are, in fact, the better speculative results. For example, the concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation, though always open to question on various nitty-gritty levels, are bulwarks of enlightened civilization. They obstruct moralizers in their constant attempts to promote a social uniformity that is politically motivated and biologically inaccurate. Similarly, many named psychiatric disorders, such as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder, are minimally supported by laboratory results, but they generally withstand examination well.

In the spirit of the scientists who have produced these successful, speculative, observational categories, I propose here, in this unofficial venue, to add one more.

I suggest that there is an as yet undescribed psychological disorder category that embraces problem behaviors that all of us are familiar with. It is a category that I believe would have been proposed decades ago, except that it involves a major social group that forcefully defends its normativity. This disorder category doesn’t by any means, however, describe the majority of members of the group in question – instead, it points at a small minority whose problematical behaviors are masked by their membership in the group. Although, as a new idea, it has no laboratory support, it is supported by an obvious evolutionary argument.

I hope you’ll agree with it, even if you hate it.

I’m going to start by giving you the context of my analysis. As a proponent of respectful treatment for law-abiding minor-attracted (MA) people (xxx), I’ve spent the last few years animating a Twitter account where I’ve been exposed to countless death and mutilation threats, invitations to kill myself, statements that I’m a waste of oxygen, and so on, as well as infinite profanity, particularly the epithet ‘sick fuck.’ This has happened even though I have never supported any behavior involving children (or adults) that anyone finds objectionable. I advocate an age of consent of 16 but am not militantly opposed to slightly differing ages of consent or to close-in-age exemptions; moreover, I don’t advocate sex before marriage or marital infidelity. I believe all children should be respected and honored and that their images, regular or illicit, should be treated in a way that acknowledges a real person was photographed and might be affected by redistribution of the photographs. My online writings stress all these mainstream viewpoints. My very presence, however, suggests that lawful MA people or their supporters may feel they have the right to speak out. That idea arouses immense, unreasoning violence, always combined with misrepresentation of my views as those of a rampant sexual predator.

As an interested, scientifically minded observer of life, I have found this impulsive violence and the exclusion of rational thought impressive. I’ve noticed a repeated pattern of statements along the lines of “if you come anywhere near my children, I’ll boil you in acid” – the threats of violence at the ends of these statements have been phrased in approximately a dozen different forms. In the same online sessions, while looking through daily news stories, I’ve seen article after article documenting how one or more enraged parents had killed their own children, or their step-children. I noticed that journalists, bloggers and the owners of many personally maintained social media news-feeds relentlessly document and link every police charge involving sexual assault on children, but that almost all of them avoid making any link among the cases of parental murder of children.

Each such case is treated as separate and mysterious – often, to be sure, connected to divorce or separation, but with the ultimate motivation for murder of innocents left as an unfathomable puzzle.

Early on, I discovered that some of the data on this topic are collected under the heading of ‘filicide.’ In the USA, as it turns out, not less than 450 children per year are slaughtered by parents or step-parents, married or unmarried. Though the majority of perpetrators are men, women are also surprisingly frequently involved as child killers. The carnage attributable to this common factor of human life hugely exceeds the death toll arising from any sexually motivated murders of children. I noticed that when I pointed this difference out to aggressive people online, they nearly always retorted “but abuse murders children’s souls,” or words to that effect. This deflection allowed the topic of filicide to be packed off, without further thought, into oblivion – its conventional place in the mental landscape of today.

I realized that there was a common thread that could link the aggression I had experienced and the annual blitzkrieg of parental child murders. I had clearly seen that scenarios involving children can arouse overwhelmingly violent urges in certain people. This strong, unreasoning aggression is evolutionarily predictable: it responds to a valid adaptive need in a species that, in prehistoric times, had to furiously defend children from predatory animals and from hostile human tribes. However, even though it evolved to protect children from threats, it can also easily misfire in certain people and become directed against the children themselves. Whichever way it works, it is almost always found in people who are in a parental role or envision themselves in that situation. The association with parenting connects it integrally with heterosexuality, the sexual orientation that produces nearly all children.

I believe that if we recognize this extreme, child-focused aggression as a single phenomenon – complex, but meaningfully unitary – we can understand and potentially solve several major social problems, including some unexpected ones. I name this child-focused hyper-violence “Heterosexual Hyperaggression Syndrome (HHS).” I hasten to add that this label does NOT call all heterosexuals hyperaggressive. Rather, it simply recognizes that this hyperaggression is a statistically uncommon but regularly occurring adverse side-effect, as it were, of the natural child-protecting urges entailed by heterosexuality.

HHS, I believe, works at several levels. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that multiple instinctive factors may be involved, in addition to cognitive factors. Step-parenting, for example, provides a unique evolutionary niche for aggression. The repeatedly evolved, pan-biological drive for ‘kin selection’ (sometimes, but not always, involving acts that increase the prevalence of one’s own genes via the instinct-driven killing-off of offspring lacking those genes) may play a part in linking child protection to child murder. People driven by HHS, most notably step-parents who are HHS sufferers, may risk becoming homicidally enraged at the children of their spouse partly because these children are, evolutionarily, ‘nest parasites’ who displace parental energy onto the ‘wrong’ genes. Clearly, no one would be able to testify to having such a thought process working at a conscious level, but we are an evolved biological species, and, in HHS, the traces of the strong evolutionary kin-selection drive may remain as a sort of blind rage that is easily triggered by unrelated children in one’s own home. The murder of unrelated children serves to protect one’s own biological progeny and one’s genetic line in general. In modern society, of course, it tends to result in prison sentences, which don’t by any means favor reproduction, but our atavistic biological urges may kick in despite such considerations.

In filicide, I should quickly add, murders of children by their own biological parents are also common. I suspect that child-protection rage, as a factor that is set up to be triggered when children are nearby or being considered, can be triggered in HHS sufferers by the children themselves. Perhaps, in some cases, the children’s unwanted behavior, such as incessant crying, becomes treated as if it were an internal predator needing to be beaten out of the child, as if there were a bad or disobedient spirit taking possession of the infant. Given that child-protection rage is blind and passionate, however, many cases may be more straightforward than that. Rage triggered by a child may, in HHS sufferers, be particularly deadly, even deadlier than the anger people experience as disrespect-rage (such as ‘road rage’) or its pro-active ego-building equivalent, ‘bully rage.’ It may not matter that there is no real logic involved in the murder of the child – the child was near, the child-associated rage was triggered, and that was sufficient to cause harm.

Another level of HHS involves certain kinds of violent social movements, including ‘moral panic’ movements and anti-heterodoxy movements. These ‘pogrom’ upsurges are often absurdly targeted and are couched in terms of protecting children or the child-raising environment. Even though they may be fundamentally based on the suspicion that people who are different are hostile to the community, they are best whipped into a frenzy by child protection urges. Classic anti-semitism, for example, was notable for linking Jewish people to fictions about the kidnapping, killing and even eating of Christian children. This idea became popular in early medieval blood-libels such as the 1255 case of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, in which 19 Jewish citizens of an English town were killed in response to the unsolved murder of a 9-year-old boy. The theme has persisted into the 21st century, and was recently repeated in the Syrian-produced 2003 independent television series ‘The Diaspora’ (??????), in which Jews were said to have confessed to draining the blood of Christian children to make Passover matzoh bread. Community child-protection rage, probably seeded by the combined, illogical child protection rages of a critical number of HHS sufferers, has sometimes contagiously overwhelmed whole cities and even subverted governmental and justice systems.

One interesting question that arises in this consideration of social movements is whether particularly brutal political trends such as the current ISIS movement are manifestations of HHS. Children may at first not seem to be prominently involved. If you look at typical militants on the front lines, however, they are mostly people of early child-raising age, 18-35. This happens to be the high point of bodily and military fitness in our species, but motivation still needs to be accounted for. One recurring theme in young militants is that they have often been unsettled by freewheeling adult behaviors they have got into or observed, such as partying, drinking, and promiscuous sex. Some have also been shaken by economic and career uncertainty, conditions perceived as threatening to stable child-raising as well as to the adult’s sense of security. The apparently chaotic, unfeeling, self-centered conditions of the world of freedom have offended the innocent inner child of the militant, and he longs for a kind of familial stability and meaning that would better protect the innocence of his own sons and daughters, even if these offspring are currently only imaginary. He feels intense anger against those who promote the world of chaos and depravity that threatens the innocence and stability of children, including the child he once was. With his back guarded by the fundamentalist religious promise of peace through intensely administered order, he goes on a war of infinite rage against the world that is so callous in its botching of innocent lives. His HHS fuels him – or her HHS fuels her – with more than enough fury to enable pushing sexual deviants off bridges, chopping off the heads of religious deviants, and arming schoolyards full of child trainees with Kalashnikovs so that they can partake in the glorious dream of establishing stable, communal innocence over sensuous, individualistic, ‘selfie’-clicking narcissism.

The enraging concept of the threatened innocent always includes some projection of the injured innocence in the angry person’s world-trammeled adult self onto the imaginary perfect innocence of the children the person imagines him- or herself to be defending.
ISIS’s deadly order and purity ethos is reminiscent of the lethal agrarian purity fanaticism of Pol Pot in Cambodia. Similar anti-worldliness, pro-innocence fanaticisms were a fixture of the 20th century in southeast Asian Maoist movements and other radical secular or atheist movements. Islam may be very close to being a ‘red herring’ in the ISIS movement. The well-hidden true driving force of ISIS, I would speculate, is actually HHS. A region with a long history of peaceful religious plurality is being disrupted by a force of, literally, black fury that, at its root, has nothing to do with religion. ISIS, arguably, is a collection of people, assembled from all over the world, who share an undiagnosed mental health condition that makes them berserkers of irrational fury.

Part of the scope of child protection rage is what you might call ‘nesting rage’ – moral fury against anything that would seem to foul the social nest that children must be raised in. My feeling is that the HHS sufferer will tend to over-react explosively to nesting threats as well as to notions of direct danger to children.

An interesting development in the story of HHS in recent times is that one of the most extreme, mindless and brutal HHS manifestations, homophobic queerbashing, is rapidly disappearing in the Western world. This once-widespread activity, though fundamentally an outgrowth of schoolyard bully violence against perceived insidious weakness, was highly pumped up by the idea that homosexuals would molest, recruit or otherwise weaken or contaminate children. The miracle phrases that slowly drove that idea out of public consciousness were, firstly, ‘sexual orientation’ (or ‘born this way’), which said that the child-recruiting idea was unrealistic, and ‘consenting adults,’ which said that LGBT sexual orientations were not directed toward children. The latter term has become a universal catchphrase among hyperviolent internetters reacting against anything perceived to be pedophilic in nature. When told that their stated urge to knife or acid-bathe or castrate law-abiding, non-abusing MA people is similar to previous anti-queer deviant-bashing, they predictably give a response much like “gays are only interesting in consenting adults, unlike you sick fucks.” The LGBT movement’s careful divorce from previously allied sex-permissive pedophile and hebephile movements such NAMBLA has successfully driven the irrational child-motivated rage of HHS sufferers onto people perceived to be ‘pedophiles,’ in very broad journalistic sense of the word. Queerbashing has become pedo-bashing. One need not be a molester or abuser to qualify for this Clockwork Orange hyper-hate.

The final irony of HHS is that it may blame MA people for problems that it, itself, creates. Organizations that combat child prostitution (now often called child trafficking) recognize that the majority of people apprehended engaging in paid sex with children are not pedophilic in sexual orientation. Here’s a paragraph from an information sheet put out by ECPAT (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes), a global NGO based in Bangkok, Thailand.

“The misuse of terminology results in confusion about the profile of child sexual abusers, most of whom are not, technically speaking, paedophiles or even preferential abusers. The majority of child sex abusers are situational abusers. They are usually men who use a child for sex because the child is made available to them, most commonly through prostitution or within the family. The situational abuser does not usually have a specific sexual preference for children.”

Who are these ‘situational abusers?’ Here’s a clue in a news story about British victim-campaigner Shy Keenan’s book documenting abuse perpetrated by her stepfather.

“By 1977, Shy had been institutionalised for violent behaviour and branded by social services as being sexually aggressive. Once in care, the sexual abuse continued, perpetrated by various members of staff. In 1977, Shy’s mother died. On the day of the funeral (stepfather Stanley) Claridge and an accomplice buggered her with a bottle, which shattered inside her. She was taken to hospital, almost bleeding to death.”

Claridge, though according to Keenan a repeated rapist of herself and other children, was also the regular sexual partner of an adult woman, Jennifer Wootton, Keenan’s mother. Let’s put the pieces together here. We are told by feminists, and I agree with them, that rape is largely a matter of violence and dominance, not sexual desire. In this story, we have someone who is heterosexual and obviously aggressive, committing an act that is recognized as being far more violent than sexual in nature. Stories regularly appear in news sources about rapists raping elderly women – we don’t need to propose that there is a category of elderly-woman-lusters who couldn’t obtain sex without raping someone. The picture we’re looking at here is one of pure aggression that happens to choose a child as its target. The choice of the child may sometimes be more directed at humiliating the mother than at satisfying a sexual or sadistic desire for a child per se. The humiliation of the child, however, is also gratifying to the aggressor.

As reluctant as many will be to believe it at first, I believe that over time, we will all accept that situational child rape can be a pure act of HHS – a misfiring of a hyperaggressive urge that originally evolved to protect children. Just as sows who have given birth will start to lick off their piglets and occasionally progress to ghoulishly eating them up, so people who have an indwelling biological impulse to defend children with extreme violence may develop a pathology where that very violence becomes directed against the children themselves. The violence may take the form of murder, or injury – or rape. There is nothing pedophilic about this type of rape. In the case of male step-parents, the evolutionarily predicted kin-selection drive to insert one’s own genes into the lineage of any children one is raising may also be an unconscious factor adding to the hair-trigger status of HHS-driven sadistic rape.

To me, it is the ultimate in tragedy and irony when I find myself online, talking to an extremely enraged, irrationally threatening woman who accuses me of supporting the extremely aggressive stepfather or mother’s boyfriend who raped her repeatedly when she was a preteen. She is a victim of HHS, but also probably a sufferer herself. I suspect that many of the people who threaten perceived deviants online are more dangerous to children than are the deviants themselves. Even if the HHS sufferers are focused enough to remain protective of children, they still experience almost uncontrollably powerful rage impulses that lead them to yearn for lynchings, genocide (I’ve received ‘your kind should all be killed,’ or more graphic versions of the same, countless times) and other irrational mayhem.

I believe it is time to calculate the amount of ‘pedophilia’ reported by newspapers that, in reality, is heterosexuality observed in its hyperaggressive mutation. Even rape involving young boys, whose high voices, rounded bottoms, hairless skins and fine faces are obviously reminiscent of female biology, is likely to be a manifestation of HHS in many cases – especially the more appallingly violent ones. The people perpetrating these acts are often attracted to women and involved in heterosexual relationships. Some are not pedophiles at all; others may have a degree of pedophilic orientation, a sort of bisexuality based on age differences. The factor that triggers them to turn from attraction to obviously harmful abuse, however, is aggression. One thing that always struck me in my many years in the LGBT movement was how few gay men expressed any physical aggression – some were good at verbal dressing-downs of those who had slighted them, but gay fisticuffs were almost unheard of. Rape of boys is violence, not sex, just as rape of girls and women is. As paradoxical as it may sound, I suggest that a large proportion – though by no means all – of the aggressive sexual assault of boys that occurs in the world is perpetrated by heterosexuals and is yet another manifestation of HHS.

As an aside to those who are Muslims, I think it will now be clear to you that the people of Lot/Lut mentioned in the Quran (same as the Sodomites of the Christian/Jewish bible) were not homosexuals, but were heterosexuals who raped members of their own sex as a manifestation of HHS. They followed and expanded on a long-standing ancient Middle Eastern custom of battle rape of male enemies by heterosexual warriors. They are clearly stated to have wives. Nothing they are stated to do is anything but aggressive and violent. There are no homosexuals anywhere on this planet who remotely resemble the Quran’s description of the Lutis. Wake up. LGBT people must be integrated into the Muslim faith as full brothers and sisters, and the sting of rapist HHS must be forever removed from their backs. The throne of Allah does not tremble at the sight of love among members of dedicated, supportive adult couples. The Quran has shown us the way to apprehend this, whenever we are ready to accept its accuracy that transcends our own concepts. I cannot discuss all the aspects of this matter here, such as how it reconciles with marriage law, but I hope that in perceiving the true nature of Lutis, you can make a start. I suspect most of you living in Western countries have been yearning for some understanding of how your kindly LGBT neighbors can be given their true worth in Islamic respect.

We need to recalibrate our perceptions, and see the true causes of the heretofore inexplicable violence that has constantly agonized our world.

I know that the many millions of even-tempered, thoughtful, and diligently protective heterosexual people of the world, including the vast majority of parents and step-parents, will possess the needed mental calm to perceive that they are not implicated in any of my writings about HHS. Now, it is time to separate out and offer treatment to those who are implicated. In the long run, analysing complete genome sequences of substantial numbers of parental child murderers in comparison to well-matched controls should enable us to understand the genetic basis of this highly problematical behavioral anomaly.

Useful links

Reproducibility in experimental psychology

Filicide – murder of children by parents

Antisemitic blood libel and child protection impulses

History of exclusion of pedophiles from the LGBT movement

Situational child abuse by non-pedophiles

Shy Keenan


BBC Radio 4: Moral Maze…

Date: November 01, 2015

01) BBC Radio 4: Moral Maze

02) Direct Download Link [MP3]

“When Professor Averil Macdonald, the chairwoman of UK Onshore Oil and Gas, said that women are opposed to fracking because they don’t understand it, the reaction was predictable. She was accused of being sexist, patronizing, misogynistic. But in all the brouhaha what was missed was the difficult moral question at the heart of her argument. Professor Macdonald was citing research that shows only 31.5% of women are in favour of shale gas exploration compared to 58% of men. She argued that while women do accept the rational benefits of shale gas, they prefer to give more weight to their emotional fears about its possible impact. Setting aside the issue of gender, fear has been a powerful motivator in many campaigns such as GM crops, nuclear power, the MMR vaccine and numerous others. Combine that with an understandable streak of nibby-ism and you get an implacable and emotionally charged opposition to progress or developments that could benefit the majority of people in this country. It took eight years to apporve Heathrow’s terminal 5; a third runway is being fought even harder and HS2 is yet to get beyond the stage of computer generated graphics. Do we rely too heavily on public opinion? Should we trust politicians more to make the correct decisions on our behalf? Or are we abdicating our powers and responsibilities to a new breed of scientific philosopher-king? Rather than a toxic blend of ignorance and self-interest are these kinds of protest the sign of a healthy and thriving democracy where the voice of the minority is not only heard, but also counts and a reminder that there are values that go beyond the bottom line? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Michael Portillo and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses are Ross Clark, David Babbs, Peter Tatchell and Patrick Diamond.”

Interesting discussion about making public decisions, and the political weight of minority voice versus “expert” opinion.

I’ve often had a problem with this very question and issue…because it typically sidesteps the point of fact…that being part of a minority, means you normally have important and clear insight into the minority you come from…it’s needs…it’s problems…it’s outlook…What has worked within it, and what has not. Yet outsiders dictate from their high ivory towers [or at least high horses], what they feel a minorities fate should be, and how to deal with that minority…It’s so often a decision based out of ignorance…and the alienation of the minorities, themselves…that’s just a massive part of the problem.

They’re marginalized out of even being taken seriously, and being treated as human.

This way of things will lead nowhere good…People are rightly angered by it.