Dr EM Profile picture
May 1, 2018 78 tweets 21 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
I decided to take this out of my replies to some tweets and do a thread because this ‘Paedophile Manifesto’ is so chilling it needs its own analysis and exposure. I'm only half way through as it is just making me so angry.
I was passed a 'Paedophile Manifesto' entitled ‘The handbook’ published 2015 on archive.today to have a look at. It spends pages and pages talking about how to normalise what they refer to as 'Adult-Child Sexual Relationships'.
It encourages a long online campaign to shift the language and therefore culture, to demonise Radical feminists so our objections aren't listened to, to recast objections to paedophilia as 'paedophobia' and sex negative. @SuzzanBlac has been working on similar forums recently
It repeats the necessity to argue from feelings because 'Prejudice is not logical. Cannot be overcome by facts and logic'. The 'prejudice' described is opposition to adults raping children.
It speaks of a cascade effect - to de-stigmatise genitals then nudity then public sexual activity until paedophilia can be cast as the last taboo to loosen. Those who help with the first parts must be publicly celebrated as 'brave', 'bold'
It talks about slowly ratcheting up demands, not shocking and repelling the public too quickly. (Kind sex - Kind comes from Kindergarten). It talks of supporting 'sex-positive' initiatives first as a warm up and then paedophilia later.
It mentions a tactic of 'Desensitisation' - shown in the yellowish font. It makes the astute remark that 'any behaviour becomes more acceptable the more people talk about it'
More on desensitisation and the 'Overton Window' tactic and flooding culture. It describes those who oppose paedophilia as 'hordes of bigots' and ignorant.
Here it describes the process of 'Jamming' - to shut down the thought process which would question this movement. Using social pressure, particularly targeting young 'progressives', to make debate unacceptable
It posits a shift from ‘Jamming’ to ‘Conversion’ – creating true allies to the cause. ‘Pedophobes’ need to see their friends & role models embracing ‘admitted kinds’ (paedophiles).
It argues that paedophiles need to be depicted as suffering terribly because of bigots and their opposition to sex with children.
It lists strategies for social acceptance. It proposes 1.Come out 2.Portray 'Kinds' (paedophiles) as victims, not aggressive challengers 3.Give potential allies a just cause to fight for 4.Make kinds look good 5. make dissenters look bad
Under the sub-heading 'give allies just cause' it instructs that 'our causes are sex-positivity, anti-ageism, bodily autonomy and the right to privacy'. It is re-wording sex with children as a progressive movement.
Next Tactic -Make Paedophiles look good. It proposes diversity, using historical figures and deliberately confusing the medical and social definition.
Next on the agenda: Make 'Pedophobes' look bad. They must be vilified, publicly shamed, they should be compared to the Nazis or KKK.
I need to take a rest from this horrible document now. I'm only halfway through and intend to return to the rest but I can only work with this source in small blasts.
This just popped up on my TL: 'Should kids be shown porn in schools? Tomorrow @DoctorChristian will tell us that keeping it a secret will make children more likely to watch it without adult supervision or explanation...
But is there really a place for it in the classroom? If so, from what age? #wrightstuff'
Could this be an example of pushing the envelope discussed earlier in this thread. I would argue it is evidence of an Overton Window shift at least.
A shift in the Overton Window has occurred with news outlets and police describing 'child prostitutes' or 'child sex workers' - no that is paedophilia and rape.
Or the decrim sex industry, in the article it talks of a child prostitute. This is a dangerous language shift, no? nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news…
There is a constant switch between naming it as 'child sexual exploitation' or 'child abuse' and 'child prostitution' when reporting on the Telford paedophile ring: 'a police inquiry into child prostitution in the Telford area'.
As we have been talking about the shift in the Overton Window and politicians cosying up to the sex industry/pimp lobby these proposed policies of the Lib Dems may be of interest (Flyer produced by @not_buyingit) :
The source - the 'Handbook' - came to my attention through a discussion between @JackyHolyoake and @SuzzanBlac. It is thanks to Suzzan Blac's research that things like this have been forced out into the open.
As this awful manifesto keeps going so do I. We now turn to 'Strategies For Acceptance: Economic'. It tries to compare liberating paedophilia to the civil rights movement and LGB movements, it directly references Trans tactics, threatens mass twitter/email/phone campaigns
Next on the agenda, 'Strategies for Acceptance: Legal and Political'. It recommends the public shaming of politicians who have spoken against/questioned 'children's rights' [to be raped/abused], electing or running paedophile politicians to normalise...
Here is the big one, which receives more words and time in the document. 'Strategies for Acceptance: Linguistic'. 'He who controls the language controls the debate', it then references Trans tactics. This section is worth your attention.
Linguistics goes on. The importance of using emotional language such as 'ignorant', 'bigot', 'prejudiced' to label one's enemies
Next Up, 'Media and Advertising'. These/this man isn't just savvy and well researched, he is confident.
I am *Content Warning* these screen grabs. They describe what the adverts would look like, there are no descriptions of child abuse but the ability to visualise these, for me at least, makes them worse than the other awful stuff.
The two notions of 'get educated' about paedophilia and paedophiles being born this way and its their true selves are stark. Proposed adverts have titles such as 'come out and play'
If you are just joining a huge *Content Warning* this is one 'Paedophile Manifesto' published online on archive.today in 2015. Back into the darkness, strap in, tally-ho!
More suggested advertising techniques including ‘bracketing’. Contrasting a hateful opposition with a nice oppressed paedophile.
‘Strategies for Acceptance: Dealing with the Opposition’.
Wow, it suggests that those who oppose Paedophilia need to be compared to and called TERFs. It says if necessary use the ‘wrong side of history argument’.
It specifically targets LGBT and the religious right and recommends internal co-option and blurring the lines.
Short bit on winning the right which the author admits he doesn’t believe will happen but they can be steam rolled.
He makes the same argument which they tried to defend Roy Moore with independent.co.uk/news/world/ame…
Dude, Immaculate Conception! Not Child Abuse!
‘Get the kids involved’
The author makes the observation that ‘all social movements of the past were won or lost on the backs of children’
The goal isn’t to get parents to agree but their children. He talks about using the internet to get youngsters on board. He proposes that it should be presented to young people as liberating for them.
The author recommends using YouTube videos and then encouraging kids to make their own to spread the message and garner acceptance.
Teenagers are to be encouraged to come out to their friends and families as ‘kinds’.
He suggests to ‘Make a huge deal about bullying of minor-attracted-teens in school to gain sympathy and support’.
'Strategies for Acceptance: Miscalleaneous'. He advises to:
1. Shift the debate – use the language of love and liberation. He is essentially co-opting LGB and feminist arguments of previous generations.
2. Create a tolerance promoting media and a community of content makers to spread the message of acceptance.
3. Create alternative terminology, make the term paedophile seem outdated.
4. Anonymous funding.
5. Don’t focus on adults but children. Make this a movement for the ‘glittering’ liberation of children to be their true selves.
He suggests to ‘use the legal process to the fullest extent. Get lawyers to work pro-bono. The pro-bono thing I think is to make it appear more like a movement from the ground up rather than co-ordinated by the powerful.
He advocates creating an association of paedophilic journalists to manipulate the media.
He advises starting an awards programme for citizens and journalists for ‘fair-minded’ reporting and bravery in the cause.
He recommends publishing guidebooks on paedophilia for all ages.
He commands to ‘Leverage all your identities’
He advises to appeal to politicians on the grounds of compassion. The argument that not allowing children to be their true sexual selves and adults to be their true sexual selves is oppression of a minority runs throughout. Thats the context for 'compassion'
He advocates using what he describes as ‘4th Generation Warfare’ to discredit ideological opponents. He is reffering to ideas and memes. He references gamergate as a case study.
It asks paedophiles to ‘write about your experiences online. Make it personal… formatting them as letters to [paedophile] teens or open letters to society helps the most’.
It says to tell people not to judge the paedophile lifestyle, call them out for prejudice.
Another tactic it suggests is to make sure YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are full of those supporting the message. Use internet personalities to amass support, hijack hashtags, be aggressive in comments.
It reminds pro-paedophiles to not be afraid to be disruptive, make a scene. ‘Refuse to be overly rational and use your anger’.
It urges pressure to be put onto medical professionals and practitioners to indorse paedophilia.
It suggests that paedophiles should some times pose online as the opposition to post hateful comments.
It recommends cultivating an ‘air of inevitability’ around ultimate victory.
This section proposes the use of advertising strategies to make the message of paedophilia more acceptable. ‘Attractive packaging, celebrity endorsements and a promise of a better life’.
Under a section entitled 'Rules for Radicals' (notice the branding there, cool and progressive) it is advised to manipulate & inflate statistics, exploit discrimination laws and put unceasing pressure on the opposition.
It proposes that those who oppose paedophilia need to be socially isolated, hurt them and cut off their support networks. Name and shame them as bigots and nazis.
It now discusses mainstreaming formerly implausible ideas. It describes the process of an availability cascade. This is when the availability of an idea in public discourse reinforces that the idea is acceptable and plausible.
It talks about how the fear of being seen as ‘behind the times’ pushes critical thinking aside as self-preservation takes over. No one wants to be a social outcast so people go with the flow.
We are done on our journey into the dark. The document is finished.
I found these comments very interesting on MumsNet. The first the notion that because I am anonymous I may have made it up. I'm anonymous because the internet is a dangerous place for women, I recieve death and rape threats.
I think forcing dissenting voices to become anonymous is an attempt to discredit us. I have shared the source with a few people. High internet traffick could have meant it was taken down.
I'm pretty angry at the idea that exposing this 'Paedophile Manifesto' was a deliberate attack on Trans people as expressed by this poster. No, it was exposing proposed normalisation of child abuse. It literally mentions trans tactics in the text, I am only saying what it said.
It also mentioned co-opting LGBT rights and gay rights. I am a radical feminist but I attempted to keep this thread single issue. My intention was to alert to a nasty document and ideas.
Paedophiles have always cloaked themselves in 'progress'. It breaks my heart everytime I see them try to appropriate the rainbow flag.
The notion that we may not discuss child sex abuse because the tactics appear similar to another group is incredibly dangerous. What else is off limits for discussion? Why can't you seperate the two issues out?
The author of the manifesto literally talked about tactically co-opting other struggles. Making paedophilia appear as one and the same, the language of the text is a colonisation of other causes.
Mens rights Activists, patriarchy and the sex-industry co-opted the language of women's liberation to argue for their own ends. This isn't novel. Does that mean we should not talk about sexism? Does that mean we should not talk about the oppression women face?
Parts of the text in fact use the language of feminism, slogans such as 'children not chattle' 'rights to choose'. Does that mean I think feminists are in fact paedophiles? No. It means a paedophile has colonised the language.
The women of MumsNet have been scolded by MumsNetHq for discussing this thread and how a paedophile is proposing to co-opt tactics and piggy back on LGBT & feminist advances..
With the idea that this guide/manifesto is so horrible it couldn't be real, rememebr in 2010 when Amazon sold Phillip R Greaves's self-published ebook The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure?
An interesting question form this MumsNet user to HQ
As a few people have questioned the legitimacy of the document or what my source is the link is below. I had to wait for others to grab evidence before I disclosed it and also I wanted to ask around whether I should, was it enabling? Here you go: archive.is/7c6pR
Its hosted on archive . today and appears to be a text dump from 8chan. It has a title 'The Handbook' but another title: 'After The Fall: A Beginner’s Guide to Destroying Pedophobia in the 21st Century' is included. @SuzzanBlac has also analysed it and other similar material.
It is also available on the paedophile website 'boywiki' .org. It has slight differences but it is the same. The paedophile website references the archive text boywiki.org/en/After_The_F…
The side bar on Boy wiki includes a 'donations' page and 'Boylove' news amongst other things. Here is a screen grab showing the 'Paedophile Manifesto' on the paedophile website
I have recieved comments claiming its not real/satire (although I have yet to find anything about the document funny). It is notable that an actual paedophile website lists and uses it as a source. They are treating it as real.
Hi @threadreaderapp , thank you for all your hardwork. Would you be able to unwrap the entire thread please? I feel some of the backlash this is recieving wouldn't occur if people read to the end =(. Do your unrolled threads update as the thread updates on twitter?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dr EM

Dr EM Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PankhurstEM

Oct 4, 2018
A detailed look at the U.K. Serious Case Review National Repository suggests to me that Susie Green of mermaids is making up statistics and in my opinion behaving unethically and in contradiction with the Samaritan guidelines around suicide.
This has come out of work @AlfredBelpaire has done and privately shared with me. The 'stats' Susie Green and another Mermaids mum are pushing, the sensationalist Guardian article do NOT agree with the research by GIDS of the Tavistock and Portman.
The GIDS evidence base is here: gids.nhs.uk/evidence-base
Read 6 tweets
Oct 3, 2018
This is a fabulous thread and was a brilliant project by three academics. This is very important and concerns knowledge, truth and teaching.
Who sent me this thread? I want to thank you but I can't find the notification.
Sokal squared set about to expose the sophistry and forgery of knowledge in academia, particularly 'grievance studies', and it has been marvellous. I was even dealing with this just this morning (see screen grab).
Read 16 tweets
Oct 3, 2018
This is in the comments section below. This Professor Emeritus of Applied Philosophy doesn't think that biological sex is real, that women are disadvantaged by systemic oppression based on biology. It is, frankly, batsh*t.
Prof.'s Stock rebuttal of five common arguments that men are women on their self declaration is beautiful. Proper reasoning and argument has returned to the room!
Read 5 tweets
Oct 2, 2018
According to @StopFundingHate talking about women's rights= hateful, speaking about safeguarding= hateful, biology= hateful, speaking of sexism= hateful, women defining themselves= hateful, advertising government consultation= hateful.
I'm starting to suspect @StopFundingHate haven't done the reading.
Are they really going to start a campaign telling women to just be nice? @StopFundingHate
Read 4 tweets
Sep 29, 2018
Jess is under the impression that women, and some men, meeting to discuss potential legislative changes is against UK law and council policies. Jess may have confused her anti-women feelings with actual legislation.
This is a personal favourite, Jess celebrating denying women their lawful rights by screaming 'mine' like a toddler. Thanks Jess, this really made me laugh.
There is a long heritage of women like Jess. Julia Bush has written a fantastic article on the women of the Anti-suffrage league bl.uk/votes-for-wome…
Read 8 tweets
Sep 28, 2018
Thread. I am very worried that the Girl Guides is creating an institution and climate which is conducive to abuse.
Those who wish to access victims will exploit situations and put themselves in positions where they are surrounded by children. It is why paedophiles entered the Catholic Church, sports coaching, gymnastics coaching, children’s hospitals and homes.
One is not going to get much access to children while working on an oil rig.
Read 31 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!