In the book, Dawkins mentions one occasion when a teacher put a hand down his trousers at a prep school in Salisbury, and four others at Oundle, when he “had to fend off nocturnal visits to my bed from senior boys much larger and stronger than I was”.
One master at his public school, Oundle, he writes, “was prone to fall in love with the prettier boys. He never, as far as we knew, went any further than to put an arm around them in class and make suggestive remarks, but nowadays that would probably be enough to land him in terrible trouble with the police – and tabloid-inflamed vigilantes.””I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.” ”I think we should acknowledge it. That’s one point… But the other point is that because the most notorious cases of paedophilia involve rape and even murder, and because we attach the label ‘paedophilia’ to the same things when they’re just mild touching up, we must beware of lumping all paedophiles into the same bracket.”
Most people don’t know how to visualize things or how to switch perspectives and see things from another person’s eyes, I do, that is why they call me the mind hacker and the psychopath hunter. I have repeatedly pointed out psychopaths and predicted their behavior years ahead of time. My psychological model was made based on detecting how psychopaths communicate so that I could recognize them and understand how they think, what the form of their conquest is, what their motivation is, what their end game is. Psychopaths don’t want to be understood, they misrepresent themselves. The truth of what they say is based on the effect they hope to elicit from you. They manipulate your emotions, and bypass your threat filter, and then they strike. They approach you strategically and not authentically and honestly.
I believe that some psychopaths are basically over-coddled children, they had a parental authority that let them get away with things and rewarded them for psychopathic behavior, and created an environment for them to be a little psychopath. When this type of person grows up they continue forcing the frame in which they were raised, trying to get people to participate with that premise. Let me paint a picture for you, Dawkins is describing a highly sexualized environment in which boys reward and punish each other with sexual behavior and a parental authority that participates with it and even encourages it. C. S. Lewis described a similar environment in which boys used what her referred to as tarting and fagging, in order to gain approval or humiliate someone into submission. Now the thing is that Dawkins thrived in this environment, he succeeded in this environment, most people do not hate the environment in which they succeeded and rose to the top.
What I suspect that Dawkins is concealing, though he continues to paint himself as a victim, is that he actually enjoyed the attention. I suspect that teacher inspired him, just as Dawkins is emotionally connected to the event and can’t condemn it. Dawkins has never missed out on any opportunity to condemn and ridicule religious people so it is a huge departure for him to defend “mild pedophilia” there is something else going on here, a topic so intimately associated with religious abuse which he is so eager to exploit and he vacillates all of a sudden? I think it likely that Dawkins not only loved that teacher but her modeled himself after that teacher, who was probably a role model for him. The mind is an association making machine, and Dawkins associated sex with learning and science at a very young age. He had a teacher that rewarded him with sexual attention, this would have been noticed by the other students. Dawkins flatters himself by saying that the teacher was only attracted to the pretty students.
We see that just like a varsity all state baseball or football champion Dawkins is stuck in that time trying to relive his Golden Years, we all know somebody like that. He is reproducing behaviors from his childhood. When he subjects religious people to humiliation he is using the behaviors he picked up in school, the sexual bullying, Dawkins is picking on the intellectual queers. Dawkins behavior is based on flaunting his sexual prowess, his evolutionary superiority, he is demonstrating why he is the most eligible bachelor. We emulate whatever behavior we believe to be dominant. Also our worldview has to make us correct in doing what we want to do, so of course he doesn’t condemn “mild pedophilia”.
I break everything down into patterns and tautologies, and I look for repetition and departures from repetition in a person’s rhetoric and behavior. Dawkins is a conflation master, he is very strategic and deliberate in his arguing method. He premeditates his arguments and I think he might also be premeditating his life and moving towards an end game. In his book, THE GOD DELUSION, which is a clever way of inviting people to make the assumption that religious people are insane, (notice how he doesn’t say it but he invites his readers to make that conclusion?) he originally quoted another woman talking about being sexually molested and she said that the experience was “icky” but didn’t do any lasting damage as emotional abuse would have. That narrative changed to, he was the victim of molestation and it didn’t do any permanent damage, oh, and he can’t condemn it. So, what we see is that their is some guilt, concealment, and strategic behavior, the narrative changed, Dawkins is sidling up to his actual position.
Nothing in the narrative, “I wasn’t permanently damaged” and “I can’t condemn it.” would disagree with the idea that he enjoyed it and wouldn’t mind being affectionate with a young student. You can’t condemn it but at what point does that become condoning it or desiring it? Remember what we said about the philosophy or the world view of the individual necessarily making themselves correct in their desires and goals?
The Master Conflater, conflates religious people with insane people, Agnostics with intellectual cowards, and deists with theists, and forces them to defend fundies. He strategically attacks the weakest and stupidest religious people and believes that he is falsifying religiosity. But he does for some bizarre reason make a distinction with pedophilia…
I believe that Dawkins wants to be honest about himself and he feels like people would reject him if he says that he is aroused by educating young boys. I believe that at some point he will be honest when his reputation or legacy is no longer in danger. He wants to be known as he is and he wants everything about himself to be loved. He posthumously wants to be absolved but more than that he wants to be worshiped by young boys, and he is peacocking for them. I would bet that his claim to be straight is nothing more than a way of throwing off his scent. We see in his debating style that he conceals, conflates, and obfuscates.
Part of my profile method is figuring out who is speaking, and by who I mean what personality, what meme. Dawkins meme is a manly intellectual homosexual meme that more or less despises women as intellectual inferiors. You aren’t familiar with the meme because it isn’t common in America, but it is common in Britain. He is using your lack of knowledge against you to manipulate you and conceal himself or reveal himself strategically.
RELATED ARTICLES
- http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/how-to-debate-atheists-and-win-every-time/
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.html
- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/10/richard-dawkins-isnt-defending-mild-pedophilia-but-that-doesnt-make-his-comments-okay/
^^^HORSE SHIT^^^
THE PSYCHO LINGUIST 