Simone de Beauvoir, Pervert
ONE OF THE THINGS they don’t teach in Women’s Studies classes is that pioneering feminist author [and close associate of the Jewish Frankfurt School “intellectuals” — Ed.] Simone de Beauvoir was a pervert who was fired from a teaching job for seducing teenage girls:
In 1943, Simone de Beauvoir was fired for behavior leading to the corruption of a minor.
Once again, the apologists of de Beauvoir might rush to say that the 1943 moment was a singular incident . . . But nothing could be further from the truth.
De Beauvoir’s sexual interest for children is a theme spreading throughout her life. She was amongst the first philosophers who tried to unite the genre that had begun in the 1930s (and that lasted until 1980s in Western Europe) of female pedagogical pedophilia. She attempted this unification with her essay “Brigitte Bardot and the Lolita Syndrome,” published for the first time in Esquire magazine in 1959 and then republished multiple times until the mid-1970s. . . .
The 1959 essay was just the beginning. In 1977, de Beauvoir, alongside most of the Marxist French intelligentsia, signed a petition demanding nothing more and nothing less than the legalization of pedophilia and the immediate release of three individuals who were due to serve long jail sentences for sexually exploiting several boys and girls aged 11 to 14. . . .
The 1977 petition triggered an entire discussion at the societal level in France about the laws concerning age of consent, a discussion in which the abolitionist camp (of which de Beauvoir and her lover were part of) united into Front de libération des Pédophiles (FLIP — the Pedophiles Liberation Front) and the intentions of the members of FLIP were explained quite clearly by themselves in the discussion broadcasted on the radio in April 1978 by Radio France Culture. . .
All these make de Beauvoir not just a pedophile apologist but an active supporter. However, what makes her an abuser is her activity through which she was recruiting pupils, abusing them, and then passing them to Jean-Paul Sartre, sometimes separately, sometimes in an integrated ménage à trois. The Telegraph writes in a review of Carole Seymour-Jones’s book, Simone de Beauvoir? Meet Jean-Paul Sartre, a book meant to analyze de Beauvoir’s relationship with Sartre, the following:
For long periods, the couple became a “trio”, though the arrangement rarely worked out well for the third party: at least two of de Beauvoir’s former pupils found themselves becoming first her lover, then Sartre’s, only for the couple to close ranks against them once the fun wore off. . . .
For Seymour-Jones, de Beauvoir’s affairs with her students were not lesbian but paedophiliac in origin: she was “grooming” them for Sartre, a form of “child abuse”.
For de Beauvoir (as well as for Sartre), age didn’t matter as long as the partners were younger than her and Sartre. The possibility that others might get hurt or sexually exploited wasn’t even remotely on the eminent feminist’s radar, who thought that “grooming” girls in order for Sartre to take their virginity (Sartre’s words, not ours) was in and of itself an act of sexual empowerment for those girls.
You can read the whole thing at A Voice for Men. It was written by a Romanian writer, Lucian Valsan, who remarks:
A while ago, a group of coffee-shop feminists were trying to convince me that feminism is not as bad as I say it is and that if I just read more about feminism, I would eventually understand. . . . Of course, those feminists were unable to fathom that someone had taken their ideology seriously enough to read its literature and then rationally end up utterly rejecting it. As with any other cult, such a thing is inconceivable for the true believers of the sect.
Indeed. I know exactly what he means. Readers may be interested in Carole Seymour-Jones’ book, A Dangerous Liaison, as well as Bianca Lamblin’s memoir, A Disgraceful Affair:
It is the story of Bianca Bienenfeld, a 17-year-old student who was seduced by her philosophy professor, de Beauvoir, and then passed on to de Beauvoir’s partner/lover Sartre. The three lived in a menage ‘a trois between 1939 and 1940, when the relationship ended and the teenager was abandoned.
Probably won’t find those books in your Women’s Studies syllabus.
* * *
Source: The Other McCain
For further reading:
The Jew Who Fled Rio
1973: Iconic "Feminist" Sports Win Was Faked
Lord of the Rings Star Elijah Wood: Hollywood Is Gripped by a Powerful Pedophile Ring
Victim: Epstein Had Cameras in Many Rooms and Media Room Team Constantly Monitoring the Feeds
Is the Anglosphere Ripe for the Taking? Moscow, Geopolitics, and the Anglobitch Thesis
Female Contraception Linked to Serious Risk for Depression
Europe: Sodomite "Chemsex" Surge
CBS Ousts Moonves After Sex Abuse Allegations
This post is not advocating sex with children, but strictly posing a question from a scientific/biological point of view: (David Sims might weigh in) Why would Nature have human females develop both the genitalia and the ability to get pregnant at around age 13 unless Nature’s intent was to have them do exactly that? I am not here addressing the legality of a 13 year old girl getting pregnant or advocating for or against any Biblical morality. I am merely addressing the scientific/biological question here: why would Nature make it possible for 13 year old girls to get pregnant and 13 year old boys to get them pregnant if that wasn’t intended to be part of their natural biological/reproductive function? Why?
Well then, why would Nature give 10-year-old children strong enough muscles, and strong enough teeth and jaws, to kill and eat their own parents — unless Nature’s intent was to have them do exactly that? Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is desirable or tolerable or moral.
The two are not equivalent, since killing and eating one’s parents is a conscious volitional decision made by a thinking human mind, but a female achieves reproductive viability whether she wishes to or not. In other words, she cannot say, “I’ll be reproductively viable only when I’m 17 years old instead of 13” because it is not something decided by a thinking mind. On the other hand, a murderous 10 year old child would have to make a conscious mental decision to kill and eat his parents. He can decide to do it today, or tomorrow, or five years later. Not so with one’s reproductive viability. And that’s because a hundred thousand years ago Nature decided to make reproductive viability independent of the human mind as a survival strategy. And… Read more »
HHC said: “The two [killing your parents when your body is able and having intercourse and children when your body is able] are not equivalent, since killing and eating one’s parents is a conscious volitional decision made by a thinking human mind, but a female achieves reproductive viability whether she wishes to or not.” I say they are equivalent in that acting on one’s reproductive viability is a volitional choice, just as is acting on the newfound strength of one’s muscles and attacking someone. Of course, it is true that deep, instinctive sexual desires begin to act on the human mind as maturity approaches. (Except in the insane, no such urges compel physical attacks on one’s family, of course, so my analogy isn’t perfect.) Conscious volition is still necessary to… Read more »
AA: “Of course, it’s also possible that you’ve come here anonymously just to get some terrible “racist” to say something that your co-workers in the agency or the newsroom can use against us. But maybe not; hence my reply.” No one can “prove” anything on a comment board, therefore the widely-practiced tactic of smearing someone they disagree with (with an unprovable assertion) in order to “win” the argument. That said, and although I cannot “prove it” here, I have been in the white nationalist movement very likely longer than you have been alive, or at least since you were still a child. For the record: I oppose pedophilia (which I’d already made clear) but I wanted to also make clear that Nature cares nothing about “laws” or “feelings”. For instance,… Read more »
We are animals by nature but our bigger brain should give us the ability to control those impulses of nature that are not good for us or others. We have the ability to defecate anywhere, but our higher intelligence tells us that if we don’t do it in an appropriate place, it could spread disease and the smell would be offensive to ourselves and others. It’s the same with young girls having the reproductive ability at 13, our higher intelligence and experience tells us that young girls need to be protected because their brains haven’t caught up with their reproductive function. Males are sexual aggressors and their libidos need to be kept in check or the consequences will be young girls with ruined lives and unwanted children. Nature doesn’t worry… Read more »