How The Pardon Of Alan Turing Is An Attack Against Male Heterosexuality

schopenbecq

After years of campaigning, a royal pardon has been granted to computer pioneer and wartime codebreaker Alan Turing, overturning his conviction over half-a-century ago for ‘gross indecency’ with a 19 year old boy.

For the ‘enlightened classes’, this act of official state forgiveness for a secular homosexual martyr symbolizes the victory of liberal progress over the backward and prejudiced attitudes of the past. In reality, as with same sex marriage and sodomite rights in general, the Alan Turing story is merely a tool that the progressive elite is manipulating in order to disguise the brutal feminist war upon ordinary male heterosexuality.

The pardoning of Alan Turing should be set against the background of a modern witch hunt that is taking place presently in the United Kingdom, and that began in the aftermath of the Jimmy Savile scandal that engulfed the BBC a year ago. It involves the hounding of aged celebrities accused of historic sex crimes – mostly against teenage groupies in the sexually anarchic 60’s and 70’s, when the age of consent was largely considered to be a legal fiction. The day before Turing’s pardon, the much loved Anglo-Australian celebrity Rolf Harris, aged 83, was informed that he was facing further charges for alleged sex crimes against young girls, some dating back to the 1960’s.

While the British state attempts to re-write history by airbrushing the astonishingly liberal heterosexual attitudes of the 1960’s out of existence through the persecutions of aged celebrities of that period, it seeks to simultaneously confirm that past sexual mores were ‘backward’ through the Royal pardoning of Alan Turing. But how different was Alan Turing to the old men now being hounded by the British state without pity or mercy, and was he really the victim of ‘discrimination’?

First of all, Turing was not prosecuted for homosexuality, but for ‘gross indecency’ –  against a teenage boy. The 19 year old labourer that Alan Turing was found guilty of buggering, was not convicted of any crime, and was below the age of majority in the UK at the time (21).  He was seen as the child victim of Alan Turing, and the law against homosexuality, or rather ‘gross indecency’, was seen as protecting children and young people against sexual abuse.

Now this might not cut any ice with the ‘liberal’ champions of their ex post facto gay martyr. After all, as we see with the indignation and fury provoked by the Russian law against homosexual propaganda aimed at minors, even laws protecting children from sexual abuse are the work of the devil if they are judged to ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals.

When Alan Turing, at the age of 40, had anal sex with his 19 year old toy, homosexual sodomy was illegal, while at the same time the heterosexual age of consent was 16. The age of consent had been raised from 13 in the very same 1885 Victorian bill that had made homosexuality illegal as ‘gross indecency’ (the bill was largely the work of puritanical Suffragettes). It is not known whether Alan Turing had sex with any other teenage boys (we can assume that he did), and whether, for some peculiar reason, unlike other homosexuals of the period, he stringently adhered to the heterosexual age of consent. Liberal progressives appear to assume that Alan Turing, genius that he was, could foresee that in 60 years time society would have come to the correct moral conclusion that Victorian feminists got it completely right about the age of consent, but completely wrong about the morality of gay sex.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1967 but with a higher age of consent (21) than for heterosexuals. It was then lowered to 18 in 1994 and finally ‘equalized’ in the year 2000. Does an unequal age of consent discriminate against homosexuals? First of all, as we know that the legal system effectively treats the age of consent as applying only to male ‘predators’, then we should not see an unequal age of consent as being between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but rather as applying different ages for boys and girls. And this inequality does have the rationality of recognizing the established truth that teenage boys develop significantly slower towards their physical, sexual, and psychological maturity than do teenage girls. Unequal treatment based upon sex or ‘sexual orientation’ is not discriminatory if it discriminates upon the basis of a relevant difference. As emotional and sexual maturity is the primary justification for the age of consent in the first place, the scientific fact that boys reach maturity later than girls means that, actually, an equal age of consent discriminates against heterosexuals.

We should also note the ‘imbalance in power’ that existed between Alan Turing, 40 year old computer genius and professor of mathematics, and his 19 year old sex partner – a mere labourer. This is the other, related, feminist justification for the age of consent, and it does not shine a favourable moral light upon Turing’s relationship with the boy.

There are further problematic issues in regarding Alan Turing as a secular saint and a martyr to the evils of ‘discrimination’. These involve the circumstances of how his affair with his young lover came to the attention of the police – circumstances which are, to say the least, both cloudy and morally dubious. Turing’s home was apparently burgled, and the chief suspect in his eyes was the boy he had been having sex with. Turing confronted the young lad and threatened to go to the police. The teenager promptly broke down in tears and, in desperation at the fear of being arrested, threatened Turing with revealing their affair.

Our pioneer of computer logic and liberal martyr calmed the boy down, handed him a glass filled with alcohol, watched him drink it, then took him to bed for a sexual encounter. After sending him home, he went straight to the police with the glass that had the boy’s fingerprints as ‘evidence’ that he had committed the burglary. Turing knew that the boy would reveal to the police that he was a homosexual criminal and that they had been having sex, but he gambled on the police believing that the boy was lying in order to cover up a burglary (against a wartime hero). In fact, as history records, they did not believe Turing, and he was convicted of gross indecency.

It is quite possible, although we will never know, that Turing even faked the burglary in the first place after fearing that his homosexuality was about to be made public – as a means of preemptively discrediting the boy’s story. In any case, the historical fact remains that Alan Turing was convicted of having illegal sex with a 19 year old boy of far inferior status and intellect, as well as age, and that not only did he act immorally in putting the much younger person at risk of a traumatic legal process, he intentionally did so – even to the extent of blaming him on the basis of no evidence for a burglary (and that he may even have faked in order to escape prosecution for sexually abusing the boy). The liberal elite cannot re-write this aspect of Turing’s history.

Another final point to consider is that Alan Turing suffered far less than sex offenders, both heterosexual and homosexual, do today – many of them under insane feminist sex laws as backward as any laws against homosexual ‘gross indecency’. Homosexuals today can and are going to prison for merely looking at pictures online of 19 year old teenagers that ‘appear’ under 18 (as a good deal of gay porn actors do, and are employed because they do). This is still called possession of ‘indecent’ images. In the EU, including the UK, homosexuals caught viewing such ‘virtual child pornography’ will soon face a minimum of 1 year in prison, decades on the sex offender’s register (the modern feminist version of the ‘Pink Triangle’ branding), and be virtually unemployable for the rest of their lives.

Alan Turing knowingly broke child protection laws by sexually engaging a 19 year old lad, and did not even go to prison for it. He was required to take a course of hormonal treatment to reduce his sexual urges towards teenage boys, but he appeared to have suffered no long term effects, and shortly after his punishment was ended, embarked upon a successful fitness and weight loss regime, and before long was seemingly both healthy and content. Because he was an obvious security risk, he was no longer allowed to work for the British government, but he was able to resume his academic career at the prestigious University of Manchester.

Even his final act of martyrdom, his ‘suicide’ through the eating of a cyanide coated apple, may be an invention of history. There was no sign of depression in the days before his death and his close family were shocked when discovering his body, assuming it to be an accident. Although the coroner recorded a verdict of suicide, his biographer believes that it was likely an accident, as Turing had been conducting scientific experiments with cyanide on the day of his death. It is likely he had either inhaled too much cyanide, or he had accidentally gotten some of the deadly material on to his hands when he took a fatal bite of the apple.

 

Even to the final mythical act of martyrdom, the Alan Turing story is an attempt to re-write the past in order to control and mask the present – the brutal feminist ‘liberal progressive’ war upon ordinary male sexuality. The myth of Alan Turing is the myth of liberal progress.

Read Next: 5 Ways To Emasculate A Man