Press Release: Mu denounces the hysterical and violent response to MAP Camp

[Lennon72]

WOW! That broadcast was ridiculous. I turned it off before it was even finished. I just can't listen to bullshit. It's just a bunch of unfounded allegations by those who hate our community.

[Jim Burton]

They are scrambling against the idea MAPs are being respected as a valid identity movement.

It's hilarious. The more attention they give us, the more they feed into the perception MAPs are a woke fork, and force libs to pick a side.

[FairBlueLove]

Mu will hold its own lawful meeting (for people over the age of 18) in 2025.

So in the US it is unlawful even to have meetings where minors are involved?? Can you please expand on that?

[BLueRibbon]

Mu will hold its own lawful meeting (for people over the age of 18) in 2025.

So in the US it is unlawful even to have meetings where minors are involved?? Can you please expand on that?

We have nothing against young MAPs. In fact, I first engaged in MAP activism as a minor myself.

However, you have to understand why we couldn't possibly allow those under 18 to join our 'pedophile meeting'. It would attract the wrong kind of attention at a minimum, and could result in arrests on trumped-up charges in the worst case scenario.

[Fragment]

Mu will hold its own lawful meeting (for people over the age of 18) in 2025.

So in the US it is unlawful even to have meetings where minors are involved?? Can you please expand on that?

As Brian said, we wish we could be more supportive of minors who are MAPs, AAMs or allies. Unfortunately, MAP Camp's alleged proximity to a school was one of the biggest things that made people lose their minds. If a Mu event was infiltrated and there were minors involved that would be hugely problematic.

Our forums aren't restricted to 18+. We do think that minors need to be able to be supported online. But bringing that into real-life is just too risky for everyone.

[FairBlueLove]

Our forums aren't restricted to 18+. We do think that minors need to be able to be supported online. But bringing that into real-life is just too risky for everyone.

If it is not illegal, I view preventing kids from attending as a lost opportunity to set a positive example.
Please take my bluntness not as an offense (probably if I were in your place, I would proceed in the same way: I understand the risks), but as a sign of frustration for the simple fact that we are made afraid even to pursue legally sound initiatives. If we don't push back on (still) legal boundaries, where should we?
It is really a great thing, one of a kind even, that Mu forum is not restricted to 18+. But we need real life examples. Kids (whether adult attracted, pedophiles themselves, or just curious) discussing in a casual environment with MAPs and other kids would be a wonderful example to contrast the false and obsessive image people usually have in mind when thinking of the association "kid+pedophile".

[Fragment]

I'm a big supporter of MAPs having legal relationships with minors in their real lives. Some MAPs think we should stay away from minors to avoid temptation. I strongly disagree with that.

But having minors as a MAP meet up is too dangerous. At least for now. Maybe once people put down the pitch forks and start fighting us with their words we could consider it. Until then... Well, you're always welcome to host your own event! The more the merrier.

[Fragment]

https://www.libertystorch.info/2024/09/ ... r-of-woke/

In case the coverage missed you, Gentle Reader, it’s “minor-attracted persons:”

After local outcry canceled a camp for “minor-attracted persons” set for last weekend in Vermont, several organizations are publicly defending those who declare a sexual attraction to children.
MAP Union, or MU, which represents itself as “an international organization representing the interests of minor-attracted people and their allies,” sent a statement to local reporter Guy Page protesting the camp cancelation as “bullying” and violence against “society’s most oppressed minority group.”
“While it is appropriate for law enforcement to investigate crimes when they occur, no-one should face legal sanctions for speaking freely about a sexual orientation they did not choose, nor for meeting up with others who have the same orientation,” a self-described MAP Union spokesperson, who called himself “Percy,” said in an email to Page he published Monday.

This is the beginning of a progression of a sort we should all be familiar with:

The first step is always to plead for tolerance. “We’re not criminals!” the activists whine. “We don’t hurt anyone. We just want to be left alone.”
The second step is the demand for acceptance. “Why can’t we be policemen, soldiers, librarians, teachers, Boy Scout troop leaders? One of us might be your neighbor, and you’d never know it. Why not treat us just like anyone else?”
The third step is normalization: “Well, yes, he’s a pedophile… not that there’s anything wrong with that.” (Note that this step requires assistance from “allies:” non-pedophiles who’ve been recruited into the “cause.” It usually enlists sympathetic media types.)
The fourth step is coerced inclusion: No occupation or institution, however obscure, is spared from scrutiny as to whether it has adequate “pedophile representation.”
The fifth step is sanctification: Even questioning the worthiness and civic value of pedophiles becomes actionable: first by private activists who threaten the questioner’s livelihood and social acceptance, and sometimes his life and health; later by government harassment and outright censorship.
Mind you, this is about politics. Your opinion of whether a particular minority group is tolerable has no bearing on it. What matters is the acquisition, first of social influence, thereafter of political power.

It worked for Negroes.
It worked for Muslims.
It worked for homosexuals.
It worked for transgenders.

All those groups now have disproportionate social influence and political power. Will pedophiles be next?

We can hope.

[Xuxa Nuit]

There is so much to unpack and read here, it will take me a week just to digest all the material in this one thread, but I will because it's exciting and important, kinda funny & weird too.
Mu Committee? Hey, you guise stole my idea!

I need to rethink the name of my own committee now.
Who's committee am I on anyway?

I just realized what kind of deep trouble I may have just got myself into.
Death threats don't scare me, I like the attention.
I need a role model or leader helper person to help me navigate my way to finding my proper place on the "committee" or in the community.
Mu isn't just some little backwater organization like I thought it was, it's massive, and probably gonna change the world after a few years.
All I know is I want to be here when it happens.
Fragment and BLueRibbon... thank you for your efforts in all you've done so far. I'd underestimated you until this very moment.

[FairBlueLove]

https://www.libertystorch.info/2024/09/ ... r-of-woke/

In case the coverage missed you, Gentle Reader, it’s “minor-attracted persons:”

After local outcry canceled a camp for “minor-attracted persons” set for last weekend in Vermont, several organizations are publicly defending those who declare a sexual attraction to children.
MAP Union, or MU, which represents itself as “an international organization representing the interests of minor-attracted people and their allies,” sent a statement to local reporter Guy Page protesting the camp cancelation as “bullying” and violence against “society’s most oppressed minority group.”
“While it is appropriate for law enforcement to investigate crimes when they occur, no-one should face legal sanctions for speaking freely about a sexual orientation they did not choose, nor for meeting up with others who have the same orientation,” a self-described MAP Union spokesperson, who called himself “Percy,” said in an email to Page he published Monday.

This is the beginning of a progression of a sort we should all be familiar with:

The first step is always to plead for tolerance. “We’re not criminals!” the activists whine. “We don’t hurt anyone. We just want to be left alone.”
The second step is the demand for acceptance. “Why can’t we be policemen, soldiers, librarians, teachers, Boy Scout troop leaders? One of us might be your neighbor, and you’d never know it. Why not treat us just like anyone else?”
The third step is normalization: “Well, yes, he’s a pedophile… not that there’s anything wrong with that.” (Note that this step requires assistance from “allies:” non-pedophiles who’ve been recruited into the “cause.” It usually enlists sympathetic media types.)
The fourth step is coerced inclusion: No occupation or institution, however obscure, is spared from scrutiny as to whether it has adequate “pedophile representation.”
The fifth step is sanctification: Even questioning the worthiness and civic value of pedophiles becomes actionable: first by private activists who threaten the questioner’s livelihood and social acceptance, and sometimes his life and health; later by government harassment and outright censorship.
Mind you, this is about politics. Your opinion of whether a particular minority group is tolerable has no bearing on it. What matters is the acquisition, first of social influence, thereafter of political power.

It worked for Negroes.
It worked for Muslims.
It worked for homosexuals.
It worked for transgenders.

All those groups now have disproportionate social influence and political power. Will pedophiles be next?

We can hope.

Call me Sheldon, but isn't that article sounding sarcastic?

And then we read the comments below and this appears:

The first step with “minor attracted persons” should involve ropes and trees. It’s nice that perverts are voluntarily telling us who they are so we can accomplish the necessary task.

It is not much that such low persons exist which is awful, but the fact that such cynical and hateful comments don't get removed as quickly as it might happen to peaceful comments from our side.