The time for polite pretense is long over. Pedocon theory is not about a unique kind of mental illness that just happens to be concentrated in the Republican Party. It is not about "uncontrollable animal urges." It is about how racial anxieties and obsessions, fantasies of patriarchal domination and control, lead inexorably towards the idea that women and children exist for men's use—including sexual use. Pedophilia is simply this libidinal obsession with power and domination put into practice.

• This new wave of Philosemitism is not a genuine and sincere positioning, but a strategic tool used by the far‑right in order to present itself as liberal and mainstream, gain support and engage in a ‘divide and conquer’ tactic among minority communities.

Far-right Reframings of Jewishness

• A shift from antisemitism to philosemitism has originated from a fundamental re‑imagining of Jewishness, where Jews and Judaism are understood through far‑right framings in order to legitimise existing ideologies. For example, by seeing Jews as European, pro‑Israel and anti‑Muslim, the far‑right allows itself to align philosemitism to its own interests.

• In this way, deliberately positive sentiments of Jews based on stereotypes are rooted in the same processes as antisemitism, whereby the two phenomena are two sides of the same coin.

• Strategies of ‘Collective Action Framing’ are used to impose a Christian‑derived framing of Jewishness onto Jewish people

• ‘Frame Extension’, in the case of the radical right’s understanding of Israel as a European frontier against the Arab world, is used to expand far‑right ideology beyond its primary interests in order to appeal to a wider audience.

• ‘Frame Bridging’ sees Jews as anti‑Muslim and therefore an ally in the war against Muslims.

• ‘Frame Transformation’ has generated a shift from ethnic to cultural nationalism. Towards a New Wave of Philosemitism

• A new era of far‑right relations with Jews has emerged in a specific political context, where the growth of identity‑based politics has generated a new notion of nationhood, based on the concept of a shared culture, which includes Jews as part of an imagined Judeo‑Christian civilisation.

• As collective consciousness of the Holocaust emerged towards the end of the 20th century, it has been necessary for the radical right to attempt to distance itself from historical antisemitism and avoid association with Nazi and neo‑Nazi elements in order to achieve relevance. Four coping mechanisms can be identified: guilt comparison, victim reversal, Holocaust revisionism, and erasure.

• Processes of reciprocal radicalisation shared understandings of Israel as European, anti‑Muslim and militaristic between the far‑right and the far‑left and Islamist ideologies – have resulted in the entrenching of pro‑Israel narratives into the far‑right.

chrisstiles wrote: »

There are some early indications that it'll be run on a similar basis to the Cass review:

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/alarm-over-governments-choices-to-lead-over-diagnosis-review-that-could-help-ministers-cut-benefits/

There was a narrower investigation by NHS England that concluded that adhd at least is probably underdiagnosed: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/report-of-the-independent-adhd-taskforce-part-1/

Perhaps that result wasn't politically convenient.

By the time a well-massaged report hits newspapers and media who lap it up and trumpet it, it's too late. Streeting can weep crocodile tears about how his hand has been forced and the press will totally cover for him. I'd look at what he does and what he's done - not just what he says.

If he had genuinely changed his views he would stop this review and respond to the research already there which shows underdiagnosis, and he would tackle the well-known barriers that stop ADHD folk especially accessing diagnosis and meds. This stuff isnt a mystery.

Streeting has already shown what he is by how he treated trans people. Nobody should trust him after that.

I'm well aware of wanting to feel attached to a distinct culture, because I feel it too. I'm a new Scot, born in England no less, and an incomer to an island community. I don't - can't - claim the heritage of my home island as my own, I don't feel I have that right (and if I did there are folk who'd soon set me straight), but I was born in a part of England where neither of my parents grew up (and no longer live) and don't feel that's my heritage. For a time I reached for my grandfather's Welsh identity, but that could never be really "mine" either.

Leorning Cniht wrote: »

There's a difference between the position "state schools should be better" and the position "the way to improve state schools is to force the rich to send their children to them". If you hold the latter position, and still send your personal children to a public school, you are indeed a massive hypocrite.

My mother accompanied her [Jefferson's daughter, Maria] as her body servant. When Mr. Jefferson went to France Martha was a young woman grown, my mother was about her age, and Maria was just budding into womanhood. Their stay (my mother and Maria's) was about eighteen months. But during that time my mother became Mr. Jefferson's concubine, and when he was called home she was enceinte by him. He desired to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred. She was just beginning to understand the French language well, and in France she was free, while if she returned to Virginia she would be re-enslaved. So she refused to return with him. To induce her to do so he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of twenty-one years. In consequence of his promises, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia.

Madison Hemings recollections, Pike County Republican, 13 Mar. 1873.

That a black woman in slavery would seek out a relationship with a slave master, or if not seek it out, not run away from it, is not a particularly attractive idea. Some view such a person as a traitor, giving the ultimate aid and comfort to the enemy. Our notions about women and sexuality probably play a major role in our discomfort about these situations. Sex between a slave master and a woman who was a slave has always been seen differently than sex between a slave mistress and a man who was a slave, both by whites and blacks. Whites tolerated the former because it posed no real threat to the established order. They claimed it did, but they did not react against it with the same vehemence that they did to relationships between slave males and white women, which were seen as threatening the social order and could never be tolerated. .... Most blacks probably would consider a slave woman who voluntarily joined a relationship with her master as a collaborator. On the other hand, they might see a black man who had a relationship with a white mistress as a rebel who was striking at the heart of the slave system. These ideas, rooted in our visions of sex roles, may have some validity as far as generalizations go. They do not take into account the differing circumstances and contexts in which such relationships could arise. Therefore, we should not allow them to control any serious consideration of an individual case.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy.