The MAP community needs to chill

[MemeticTheory]

Minor attraction and other liberating sexualities based on occultism? (Posted above for the linkage of occultism to minor attraction and other criminalized forms of erotic and libidinal expressions...?)

I really have no idea where you're going with this. You're very confusing, as is often the case with your posts (although in some instances, you also post really interesting stuff).

There's a silly far-right conspiracy theory linking "satanists" and "occult practices" to systematic and widespread CSA. The most common form of this conspiracy alleges that "the elites" are Devil-worshipers who do wide-scale child trafficking to satisfy their diabolical desires, which can range from child rape to outright child sacrifice. Some versions claim those "elites" take the blood of babies and/or young children to extract adrenochrome, which supposedly can extend their lifespan and increase their vitality (it's actually a totally fictional claim that comes from the novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). Is that what you're referring to? Obviously, there isn't any such link.

also though the NYT had a fear article... here it is.... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/worl ... rance.html "A Pedophile Writer Is on Trial. So Are the French Elites. For decades, Gabriel Matzneff wrote openly of his pedophilia, protected by powerfu


"links elite and powerful and media and cultural industries ties and pedophilia concepts..."

[WavesInEternity]

also though the NYT had a fear article... here it is.... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/worl ... rance.html "A Pedophile Writer Is on Trial. So Are the French Elites. For decades, Gabriel Matzneff wrote openly of his pedophilia, protected by powerfu


"links elite and powerful and media and cultural industries ties and pedophilia concepts..."

I can't read that, I don't have a NYT subscription. But really, I still don't see what you mean... you seem to be talking about many different things at once.

What "the elite and powerful and media and cultural industries" are actually doing, by far, is to promote a certain hegemonic narrative regarding AMSC, which labels all such interactions "CSA". When some rare media and some rare elites go against that narrative, for instance by defending a certain artist that featured themes of minor-attraction or children's sexuality (or even totally "innocent" child nudity) in his or her art, they inevitably get vilified by the masses for "normalizing pedophilia" or worse. In actuality, however, the elites and media are just as overwhelmingly anti-MAP as everyone else.

[MemeticTheory]

also though the NYT had a fear article... here it is.... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/worl ... rance.html "A Pedophile Writer Is on Trial. So Are the French Elites. For decades, Gabriel Matzneff wrote openly of his pedophilia, protected by powerfu


"links elite and powerful and media and cultural industries ties and pedophilia concepts..."

I can't read that, I don't have a NYT subscription. But really, I still don't see what you mean... you seem to be talking about many different things at once.

What "the elite and powerful and media and cultural industries" are actually doing, by far, is to promote a certain hegemonic narrative regarding AMSC, which labels all such interactions "CSA". When some rare media and some rare elites go against that narrative, for instance by defending a certain artist that featured themes of minor-attraction or children's sexuality (or even totally "innocent" child nudity) in his or her art, they inevitably get vilified by the masses for "normalizing pedophilia" or worse. In actuality, however, the elites and media are just as overwhelmingly anti-MAP as everyone else.

I agree, and to extended that thought, elite rule is actually a theory... here ""The Italian social theorists Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto were among the first to stipulate that elite rule is inevitable and to explore the ramifications of that axiom, mainly by analyzing the reproduction and transformation of elite groups."" (Encyclopedia Brittanica)


""The basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the elites are unified, the non-elites are diverse and powerless, elites' interests are unified due to common backgrounds and positions, and the defining characteristic of power is institutional position." (Wikipedia)

Elite theory envisions society as divided between the mass of people and a ruling minority, where the political power – the power to take and impose decisions valid to the whole society – always belongs to the latter. (Springer)

[PorcelainLark]

For instance, what are we to make of the sympathy of Mircea Eliade, the distinguished scholar of comparative religion, for the mystical-fascist-nationalist Legion of the Holy Archangel Michael during his young adulthood in Romania? Or Eliade's ongoing correspondence with Julius Evola, the brilliant Italian Traditionalist who synthesized a kind of esoteric fascism that inspired youthful extreme rightists to engage in a nihilistic terror spree during the 1970s in Italy? Do these instances of Eliade's hidden past totally undercut the value of his considerable later scholarship in shamanism, cross-cultural studies, and religious myth? Lachman considers such questions at some length and provides enough thoughtful analysis for the reader to grasp the difficulty of a single clear-cut answer.
https://www.theosophical.org/publicatio ... lly-unseen
Politics and the Occult: The Left, the Right, and the Radically Unseen

I'd say it's a different situation. Eliade's academic work, even if inspired by Evola, can be evaluated on it's own. However, with MAPs, we're talking about activism rather than academic work, so the evaluation can't be separated from the political beliefs that motivate the activism. Certainly a Marxist or fascist can write something that can be adapted to a different context (Wilhelm Reich particularly comes to mind for me). However some aspects of beliefs and political strategies can't be adapted (for example, belief in the Quran as literally revealed by God) to other contexts, or are mutually exclusive (racial supremacists versus anti-racists).
The trouble is that, when dealing with prejudice, it isn't exactly an ideology; it isn't as straight forward as Marxism versus capitalism, there are multiple way of opposing the prejudice against MAPs as well as multiple ideologies opposed to MAPs. We mostly lack a consensus about a non-arbitrary basis for why one ideology is preferable than another for MAPs. I'd like to try to build a consensus based on opposition to populism and supporting civil rights.