The column, is, by far, one of the most deceptive cases of propaganda I have seen in the Globe and Mail, and that is saying something.
It uses so many propagandistic feints and ruses that this column should be used as a textbook example of why journalism should be shut down and replaced.
This column is presented in a predatory and manipulative way by its very essence from beginning to end; so let's see how the manipulators at the Globe have proven to be very brazen propagandists:
Horror and disgust shouldn’t be our only response to pedophilia
All right, all you people who were sexually abused, you ought to ignore your innate and organic responses because the article is telling you that you are all wrong. You are at the headline and being told how to think about your past. This is called priming.
It is also a form of misdirection: we say that the people who harm others are not well understood, and that the focus of sympathy should be split.
The headline has another non-logic and non-factual purpose: it sets up a subtext. Because we with the degrees are more intelligent and moral than you barbarians who can only feel these primitive impulses of horror and disgust, and could possibly have no understanding about these poor little victim men who held positions of power and lorded over you for centuries are really all about.
Already a manipulative little pecking order. Nice try.
This is a classic case of priming and covertly establishing a hierarchy, as predators do.
Remember, people who write headlines at the Globe and Mail are in the communications industry; so there is no excuse that this headline is not making those assumptions on purpose. They already did it earlier this year with their headline bashing murdered teen Tina Fontaine, which I have written about here at length.
And now that we have primed the audience to feel ignorant, judgmental, and defective as well as uncertain of themselves, ready to be corrected and groomed, here comes the next feint:
Debra Soh holds a PhD in sexual neuroscience research from York University and writes about the science and politics of sex.
This is Appeal to Authority as if authorities haven't been wrong, and people with PhDs cannot possibly be pedophiles or apologists for them. This sets up a pseudo-rational "science-based" decree as if science doesn't lie or have bad studies and can never be challenged.
In my first book, I dedicated an entire chapter at how questionable scientific research has been misused. There are excellent and even ground-breaking studies, but they are in the minority. There are more decent studies, but they are not elegant enough to be definitive as there are enough structural problems to warrant alternative explanations. The majority are so badly flawed in design and methodology that they are good for the scrap heap.
If we are going to have grifters with letters after their names pretend that this isn't a problem, let me instruct you to look at this, this, this, this, and this: this is a manual of sorts on how to determine whether the clinical or academic study you are reading has any value, meaning there is a real need for it.
It is the reason the media constantly talks about various medical and scientific "breakthroughs", but it never goes past the lab rat stage, and we never see the promised results. The theory is wrong. The initial experiments seemed to prove the theory was right, when, in fact, it is absolutely wrong.
We have people hooked up to all sorts of contraptions to record their every atom, and yet, bring those theories into the arena of the real world, and then it gets pulverized by that reality.
Science cribs a lot of hacks and cheats from religion to make it sound more authoritative and definitive than it actually is.
I have read tens of thousands of journal articles over the years, and I can tell you that often I hear a news story that intrigues me, and so, I go hunt down the original article because it would augment my hypothesis or serve as a counter to refute it. I don't fear facts. In the majority of cases, (a) that study actually does not exist, as in does not exist, or (b) the study is so shoddy that it is mere rubbish.
So I do not use it at all.
Remember that "science" over the decades "proved" that men were superior to women, and that white people were superior to other races.
Also notice it was men who miraculously found data supporting their own gender and whites who discovered their race was by far the best one ever spawned.
That is, until women and people who weren't white were smart enough to break down barriers as they cracked the codes of academia, disproving theory with reality.
And this is just the byline. It goes downhill from here.
The purpose of this article on the face of it is to explain to the little people all about predatory behaviour in men, which is interesting as there are female pedophiles as well.
The newspeg for this piece of sophistry is the scandal that has once again hit the Catholic Church, the Den of a Thousand Horrors.
But before we get into the article itself, let's remember a few realities.
Studies have allegedly "shown" that rapist brains are supposedly wired differently, as are murderers, torturers, and psychopaths.
But there is a big glaring problem with every single one of these studies: we assume the brains are naturally different, when there is something else in play.
If you are happy, your biochemistry and brain will be different than if you are sad. If you win a competition, your hormonal level increases, while when you lose, it goes down.
So if we were to test winners and losers, is it true that they are somehow biologically "different"?
No. There are differences in a snapshot in time, but we can easily change those dynamics.
Find people who keep winning at a certain competition and those who keep losing. Study their thinking patterns and logic, and then make a slight twist in the game to rig it so the results are flipped.
Now test the subjects.
And you will see differences switch.
We also see differences with people who are rich and poor. We see differences with men and women, but again, we make assumptions without doing actual digging.
People with memory impairments have different brains as their disease progresses and they lose ore memories, but often, find the right trigger, and they can retrieve it, which shouldn't be if the brain has changed.
We also know that people who are born with only a cortex and no brain function just like everyone else, and they find out that big huge shock by accident. Huge differences, but then no difference at all.
So what do brain differences tell us?
Nothing much. There are far too many exceptions than hard and fast facts. Scientists love to thump their chests to shut down debate, but they are not the Word of God, either.
So that's one thing, but there is something more.
The newspeg of an organization of powerful men who have been abusing children for as long as they have been in existence who hid their abuse, and sheltered the predators at the expense of prey, and all of a sudden, the Globe and Mail decides to indoctrinate the public about how this is hardwired in people.
No, it's not.
So let's focus on the priests since it is the opening lede, and look at the pattern of behaviours -- the whole pattern of behaviours -- for this subset of pedophiles.
Because here is a group of grown adults who go through this very complex and premeditated routine:
1. They seek positions where their authority is not questioned. This gives them protection.
2. They wear clothing that signals to their followers that they are superior, more powerful, and beyond reproach.
3. They form a hierarchy where they are a controlling cabal whose decrees are to be followed without question by the members who have children.
4. They groom, prime, and lure people with children into their den by advertising that this place is a safe space and that they are trustworthy authorities who guide and protect them because they are morally superior to the flock.
5. They perform rote rituals and form unnatural habits in their flock and present invisible monsters to this group of people if they should question or disobey. If they are deemed inferior, they will be thrashed for eternity by this thing called The Devil as they are rejected by the benevolent God who will have no understanding unless they follow the orders of the self-described Authority.
6. Followers must put in great personal, social, and financial investment into this pecking order, making them leave unlikely. They will be isolated from their families, lose out on their careers for no longer having the desirable group affiliation, and will be bullied into staying.
7. Their children will be slowly and methodically lured away and abused. They are a captive victim. They are told this person is a trusted authority. This abuse is not done out in the open, but in secret.
8. The victims are groomed and indoctrinated to believe they are at fault.
9. Should the victim come forward, they word will be of no value compared to the authority figure. The system is rigged in favour of the predator.
10. The authority who has been abusing younger captive victims have a sophisticated system of sheltering the abusers by transferring them to other places, refusing to cooperate with outside authorities, and smearing the reputations of those unwilling victims.
11. These authorities also use their proxies to sing their praises, justify their behaviours, and hide their sins. There will be PR campaigns as the predators have more means than those they prey upon, with the perpetual excuse that these are a mere few "bad apples" and otherwise this den is a safe haven.
Tell me what part of this well-oiled machine is biologically inevitable and the result of hardwiring?
Pedophilia is not schizophrenia or depression.
We can also say that rapists have a sexual preference for unwilling sexual partners. We can justify abuse in a million ways.
Pedophilia isn't just about having sex: it is about luring, isolating, priming, abusing, and controlling someone whose brain is not fully developed and has not even reached puberty.
The attraction is not to children. It is to the process of gaining top seat in a pecking order, nothing more. It is predatory by its definition, and should you turn the tables and use the same predatory maneuvers on these people so they are not in control or have any say in their persona or rigged outcome, boy, do they scream and howl about their rights.
So we can see all sorts of fireworks in the brain, but it means squat. Rich and poor people have different sets of fireworks going on in their minds -- but should reality switch their fortunes, their scans would reveal this altered reality. The brain is reacting to the circumstances.
We have gone through these grifter's games in science many times. Cyril Burt was a psychologist who "proved" the intelligence was innate, too, and thousands of children in the West had their fortunes altered because they were deemed unteachable.
And then it was discovered the Burt just made stuff up.
There may be something different in pedophiles, but it means nothing: they are not amoebas who have one trick in their bag.
Pedophilia was always about domination and maintaining control over someone who has less power, life experience, and knowledge of psychological combat than you. There is no connection, only a means to gain control over a target.
In an Age of Propaganda, we will always have people try to use a variety of feints to justify their drive to defeat, conquer, control, manipulate, and abuse, and "science" is one of the most popular ruses.
You can't argue with science!
Yes, you can. Science is flawed. It is dependent on finding a sugar daddy to fund your work. You can rig studies. You can make up studies. You can have flawed studies. You can misinterpret results, and overstep what your study supposedly reveals.
Once upon a time people would shut down exposing corruption by howling that you cannot argue with God.
Yes, you can. You are not going to oppress me in the name of some invisible figment who doesn't have the ovaries to come and tell me to my face why I am supposed to put up with abuse from someone who has all the glory, power, and perks, and I end up in torment. Just bring this God over, and let Him just try to justify abusing an innocent and He will rue it.
And just because you wear a lab coat, doesn't make you God or that your edicts means a thing, either.
No pedophile deserves sympathy. There is nothing to be understood about a person who is attracted to power and will use every and all stratagems to obtain it. They ruin lives. They harm innocents. This isn't an illness: this is system of behaviour that is rewarded and reinforced as it is rigged to favour the abuser, and if there are any brain changes, it is because the person is getting happy getting away with living in the shadows while people are blinded by the lights they shine.
This isn't a column. This is an illiterate attempt at misusing science to spew an easily disprovable excuse. The Globe is desperate to matter.
It doesn't. It is worthless propaganda.
Now let us have a look at the pseudo-scientific sophistry being spewed by the Globe:
From a scientific perspective, studies have shown that the root cause of pedophilia in men (defined as a sexual preference for prepubescent children, typically between the ages of 3 to 10) and the lesser known hebephilia (sexual preference for pubescent children, aged 11 to 14) is neurological. Sexual attraction to children is associated, on average, with lower IQ, a greater number of head injuries during childhood, and differences in the organization of the brain, suggesting that it is the result of neurodevelopmental disturbances.
Lower IQ? It takes quite the sophisticated mind to pull off what the Catholic church did for decades. Many teachers in the educational system also got away with no punishment. Pedophile rings are quite sophisticated and more often than not elude police, even on a global scale. People with low IQs can't do that.
And even if you find lower IQs in this population, and there will be, you have a severe confirmation bias in your stupid study: you are only able to get access to the pedophiles who were caught.
And ended up in prison where the less competent criminals usually end up to begin with.
So that's rich.
You are not studying the ones who have complex stratagems and avoid detection.
Seriously flawed argument, and if you don't see the obvious, then don't fancy yourself as a researcher.
But there is much more.
The head injury theory is also a non-starter for the same reasons. As a researcher, you do not have access to a general population, especially those who are laying low because they do not want to get caught, and so you are stuck with the ones who could not get away. It would like holding a marathon and then managing to get to people who finished last to study runners, while ignoring all the ones who finished and went home.
Think your little study is going to be skewed?
So here is a laundry list of bad studies being paraded as if they proved something.
Actually it does prove one big thing: research in this area is a out-and-out sham. All you have to do is ask "who is your sample subjects and where did you get them?" and you see a serious problem.
It was the same way with Burt's fake studies: he seemed to have no shortage of twins who were orphaned and separated at birth, and were adopted in two vastly different families, and lo and behold, they had identical IQs.
Not similar, but identical.
Had people asked where did he get his subjects, the truth about him would have been revealed years sooner, sparing a lot of people unnecessary educational repression because the school system believed there was no point in wasting education on them.
Scientific research can be a powerful tool, but only if it is used correctly, and it often isn't.
Horror and disgust are very healthy reactions to have toward a newspaper that lost all common sense and morality -- and academia that is increasingly losing all touch with reality...