A few days ago, a team of undercover journalists from RTL uncovered an underground digital network of child pornography in the Netherlands involving thousands of pictures of abused children in the country. It is interesting to note that the Netherlands, in the framework of its hyper-progressive political climate, has one of the world’s longest histories of paedophile advocacy including a movement in the 70’s and 80’s as a subcategory of the sexual revolution following the ‘doorbrak‘ movement after WWII. The public sphere in the Netherlands is since the doorbrak well known for a relatively high degree of permissiveness and a generally libertine and amoral attitude toward vices. Also known as the gedoogcultuur. A culture and national image has emerged of being on the progressive vanguard and of breaking through glass ceilings accompanied by lax policies regarding behavioural controls (same-sex marriage, trans rights, euthanasia, recreational drug use, prostitution and so on).
It should come as no surprise then, that when it comes to the extreme ends of human depravity, one of the most suitable cultural and political climates in the world for things like open paedophilia advocacy is to be found in the Netherlands. It should also come as no surprise that it is exclusively left-wing, progressive socialist parties who espouse the doctrine of moral relativism which can act as the point of mainstream entrance and the cultural gateway drug for paedophile advocacy.
Many conservative and independent voices have suggested that the idea that there is not a slippery slope from left-progressive advocacy toward the sexualisation of children will or has turned out to be an illusion.
In light of recent stories and cultural trends, including the child abuse of gender-neutral upbringing and the normalisation of hormone treatments for children, I am inclined to believe that there is indeed reason to suspect that, in the future, there will be more and more pro-paedophilia voices in the LGBTQ community and a movement bubbling under the surface. The political climate is perfect for it. I dare not make predictions concerning this but I will compile some stories related to left-wing tolerance, enabling and promotion of pedophilia in general and also particularly in the U.S. in a separate post soon. Here I will focus on the Netherlands’ history on the matter:
In the 50’s, Dutch psychologist Frits Bernard who was a staunch advocate of gay rights, wrote in favour of paedophilia for a gay rights organisation’s magazine. At the time, Bernard founded the Enclave Kring, the first public paedophile organisation which grew into international status in the 1960’s. Its stated goals were to break down the prejudices regarding sexual contact between adults and children as Bernard considered pedophiles to be a “persecuted minority”. Bernard was also a prominent member of and contributor for COC Nederland (Netherlands Association for the Integration of Homosexuality).
The COC is a currently active and the oldest existing LGBT organisation in the world which historically fought for the emancipation and the protection of homosexuals. In the 1970’s Dr. Bernard became an active member of the Dutch Society for Sexual Reform (NVSH: Nederlandse Vereniging voor Seksuele Hervorming) and made great contributions in establishing paedophile networks and conferences within the organisation. He wrote novels and published newsletters and a great number of articles for magazines defending pederasts, “boylovers” and the rights of homosexuals. The study he co-authored within the NVSH titled ‘Seks met Kinderen‘ is the first attempt at a public discussion of paedophilia in the Netherlands.
DUTCH SOCIETY FOR SEXUAL REFORM (NVSH)
The NVSH is an active organisation for sexual emancipation and a successor of the Dutch Neo-Malthusian League, a birth control organisation which opened the first abortion clinic in the world in 1881. In the 1960’s they opened many abortion clinics and had once almost a quarter million members. The NVSH argues for no restraints on pornography and eliminating discrimination or judgement against any form of “voluntary sex” or sexual impulses. The NVSH are decidedly anti-natalistic, criticise the nuclear family structure and call for a destruction of “old patterns” of sexual morality. The NVSH advocate a lowering of the age of consent and the acceptance of all forms of human sexuality including aberrations such as zoophilia and paedophilia. In 1979, they founded ‘Jon’, a support community for the protection of paedophiles. Another clue as to whether or not leftist progressivism ultimately leads to the promotion of sexualisation of children.
DUTCH PARTY FOR NEIGHBOURLY LOVE, FREEDOM AND DIVERSITY
The PNVD (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit ) was a Dutch political party known as pedopartij in the media founded by three self-described paedophiles which advocated for the lowering of the age of consent to 12, animal rights and the legalisation of child pornography. Their stated aim was to “break taboos and fight intolerance” by legalising things such as sex with animals, child drug use and child prostitution and free railway transportation. The party’s treasurer, Ad van den Berg, had been convicted in the eighties of sexually molesting an 11-year-old boy and was found, by undercover journalists to still have an underage boyfriend afterwards. The party’s leader, Marthijn Uittenbogaard had been a treasurer for Vereniging Martijn, an organisation which promoted sexual contact between adults and children and all of its founders have self-identified as paedophiles.
Founded in 1982 by the above-mentioned Ad van den Berg, it was until recently the largest paedophile activism group in Europe which also advocated for societal acceptance of paedophilia. Up until 1994, they were part of and supported by ILGA ( International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) but were ejected because ILGA strived for a consultative position at the ECOSOC which precluded their association with MARTIJN . The group published all sorts of written and visual content involving naked children, mostly boys in their magazine. This paedophile group was opposed and attacked by a committee called ‘STOP MARTIJN‘ started by a couple of now-extinct conservative right-wing Dutch parties (Nieuwe Nationale Partij and Nieuw Rechts).
Predictably, the radical left opposed this at the time, and saw fit to attack what they saw as just another blockade to sexual emancipation. In 2003, the Amsterdam Antifa organised a counter-protest against STOP MARTIJN to defend the paedophiles from MARTIJN.
In 2011, Ad van den Berg’s home was raided as downloads of illegal material were traced to his internet connection. Large quantities of child porn were found.
The heads of the Dutch Salesian Catholic Order had also been members of MARTIJN and were caught on tape defending sex acts between adults and children. Suspects involved in the Amsterdam child abuse scandal of 2012 where two married men abused over almost 90 children in daycares (Amsterdamse zedenzaak), were also members of MARTIJN.
On 2011, the Ministry of Security and Justice announced that the organisation could be not be disbanded as the crimes committed by its members could not be linked directly to the association. On 2012, a court in Assen ordered the group to disband yet in 2013 a higher court overturned this decision citing freedom of association until finally in 2014 the Dutch Supreme Court definitively ordered their disbandment. In 2015 MARTIJN appealed to the Court for Human Rights but was rejected.
Notorious Dutch far-left pornographer who advocated for complete sexual freedom. In the 1970’s he published a child pornography magazine called Lolita in which he encouraged readers to produce and contribute with child pictures. The publication lasted for seventeen years and reached a circulation of 25,000. The PSI subcommittee of the U.S. called it “the most notorious of the foreign commercial child pornography publications”. He was open about his urges stating on national TV that sex with children was normal to him.
EDWARD BRONGERSMA https://www.youtube.com/embed/nSMpAhQRDB8?enablejsapi=1&autoplay=0&cc_load_policy=0&cc_lang_pref=&iv_load_policy=1&loop=0&modestbranding=0&rel=1&fs=1&playsinline=0&autohide=2&theme=dark&color=red&controls=1&
A Dutch politician who was a member of the Dutch Senate for the Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid) and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He advocated for the rights of paedophiles and a new libertine sexual morality. At one point he was arrested for having sexual relations with an underage boy. For his political service, he was made a Companion in the Order of the Dutch Lion (De Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw ) on 29 April 1975. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he functioned from 1969 to 1977. “Because of his expertise, he played a major role in 1971 as a member of the Senate in abolishing Article 248bis of the Dutch Criminal Code, the same article on the basis of which he had been convicted. The age of consent for homosexual contacts was then lowered from 21 to 16 (the same as for heterosexual contacts). He advocated lowering the age of consent even further and allowing young people greater freedom to enter into sexual relations.” His work on paedophilia activism was focused solely on homosexual relations between child and adult. His magnum opus is titled ‘Loving Boys‘. Following his death in 1998 his archives were seized and were found to contain child pornography collections which had already been made illegal by legislation a few years before his death. Brongersma has been described as a prime example of a ‘doorbraksocialist‘.
In closing
Only in the context of libertarian theory does it become clear why it is that it is those people who advocate for the greatest expansion of State power over the individual that (almost paradoxically) most fervently fight for emancipation of degenerate, abnormal behaviour under the name of ‘freedom’.
In questioning the demonstrable moral degradation brought by leftist progressivism, there is a risk of being interpreted as supportive of paternalistic behavioural controls and “conservative” prohibitory policies. Instead, I posit that the behaviours in question, whether aggressive or not, were not being held back by the State before legalisation but are, by and large, a consequence of moral relativism which itself is a consequence of State power. As such, the correct reaction is not to grant the State more power to “protect” us from immoral behaviour through prohibitions but rather to allow private property rights and freedom of disassociation to effectively and organically undermine and eliminate these deviances through discrimination and ostracism.
“ Owing to the high concentration of welfare recipients, in the big cities family disintegration is already well advanced. In appealing to gender and generation (age) as a source of political support and promoting and enacting sex (gender) and family legislation, invariably the authority of heads of families and households and the “natural” intergenerational hierarchy within families is weakened and the value of a multi-generational family as the basic unit of human society diminished. Indeed, as should be clear, as soon as the government’s law and legislation supersedes family law and legislation (including inter-family arrangements in conjunction with marriages, joint-family offspring, inheritance, etc.), the value and importance of the institution of a family can only be systematically eroded. For what is a family if it cannot even find and provide for its own internal law and order! At the same time, as should be clear as well but has not been sufficiently noted, from the point of view of the government’s rulers, their ability to interfere in internal family matters must be regarded as the ultimate prize and the pinnacle of their own power. ” – Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: the God that Failed pg. 183