Charles C.W. Cooke defends Salon’s pedophile piece on NRO:
I’ve seen a good number of conservatives slamming this confession, often on the presumption that it represents an attempt to “mainstream” pedophilia. Respectfully, I have to disagree with this assessment.
Naturally, I am as disgusted by the urges that are referenced in the piece as the next guy, and, despite the author’s heartfelt plea for “understanding,” I find it difficult not to harbor a real animus toward him.
But I see no evidence whatsoever that Salon is endorsing or excusing child abuse, or that it is making the case that pedophilia is an “ingrained identity” and that its sufferers should therefore be free to act as they wish.
On the contrary: The piece draws attention to the fact that some people live with these abominable proclivities — “a curse of the first order” and “a massive handicap,” the author calls them — and yet manage successfully to suppress them. Whatever one might reasonably think of the man and his afflictions, to draw the opposite lesson from his admission than the one he intended seems to me unjust.
It’s fascinating to see how NRO is always willing to bend over backwards to view all statements from the other side in the best possible light, while being the first to heap anathema on any right-wing figure who dares to cross what they consider to be a line.
Derbyshire’s frank talk about blacks merited permanent banishment into utter darkness. Providing a sympathetic platform to a pedophile, well, that’s just good Christian behavior, at least according to this particular non-Christian.
(Seriously, what is with non-Christians who keep trying to lecture Christians about Christian theology. Don’t even go there; you wouldn’t tell Jews how to keep kosher, would you?)
The truth is that neither National Review nor NRO are on our side. They’re moderates and they’re down with Salon, the SJWs, the cucks, and the pedophiles.