Alt Left: Repost: Down with Colin Flaherty

This is a nice old post about Colin Flaherty. I like it and I think it’s worth a repost.

The problem is that Colin Flaherty’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No, really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.

Mr. Flaherty is a journalist and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense.

89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.

The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.

But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder, “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.

Flaherty wrote a book called White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes, Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.

Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low-level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh, what nonsense.

If you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the out-group or the other guys, is trying to kill us, Group A.

Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.

The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.

The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.

This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks, and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”

The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off by Serbian lies that “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”

Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were all predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people. Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust.

Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?

Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?

In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over, and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter. Remind you of anything? Afghanistan, anyone?

The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.”

It was only years or even decades later that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists, which is always the general message of anti-Communist slaughters.

Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us,” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.

It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.

I could write articles about this sort of thing too, you know. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.

Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people, and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.

Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape, and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular.

And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence, and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.

Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance, and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.

Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Greg and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong. They live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

Repost: Alt Left: Shut Up, Virginia Giuffre

Post from several months ago is still getting comments, so I decided to repost it. I reread and it good God is it vicious! That means it’s perfect for this site, which is about tackling all taboos and pissing off as many people as possible in the process!

Serial liar, faker, and professional victim Virginia Giuffre has filed a fake lawsuit against Prince Andrew, lying like a bitch that Andrew raped and sexually abused her repeatedly when she was underage at 17 years old.

Problem? Nobody raped anyone and Virginia (The Liar) Giuffre never got raped one time.

I suppose you could argue that Andrew may have committed statutory rape, but that’s not rape at all. Instead it’s simply illegal intercourse.

Second problem? Virginia Giuffre is a whore. A lowdown, lying, scamming prostitute of the lowest variety, lower even than most disgusting whores, and that’s pretty low.

What happened?

Giuffre decided at age 17 that her goal in life was to be a whore! That’s right, a prostitute. Such a noble calling. She somehow got in with Epstein and Maxwell’s blackmail ring, and she was basically offered a job working as a little teenie whore for Epstein’s Mossad spying blackmail ring. Of course, since her life dream was to be a lowly prostitute, she jumped at the chance.

Epstein et al were soon pimping her out to famous people, except it’s hard to call it pimping because they let her keep all the money.

The one famous incident with Prince Andrew occurred in the Virgin Islands. Giuffre was paid a measly $15,000 to have sex (excuse me, to get raaaaaaped) by Andrew. She reportedly had lots of fun screwing the guy, since by all accounts she was a little teen nympho slut.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was not underage! She was legal in the Virgin Islands, perfectly legal fresh teen pussy.

Now we move on to the other fake charges.

Turns out she had sex with Andrew several more times in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the UK.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was perfectly legal teen snatch in New York, New Mexico, and the UK. No rape. No statutory rape. No any kind of rape, except in her ditzy teen whore brain.

Now, moving on to Florida, we do have another matter. If she had sex with Andrew in Florida, she would have been underage, because the Age of Consent there is 18. But notice she was legal and of age in four different states or countries and illegal and underage in only one state? Big deal! That’s barely even a crime.

Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl is a garbage crime anyway. 17 year old girls are perfectly legal to fuck anyone they want to, even a 90 year old man, in most of the world. They’re only illegal in a few backwards places like Florida.

It’s perfectly reasonable to set an AOC at 16 or 17. Most of the world has it at ~16. Most of Europe has it at 15! There have been absolutely zero problems reported in any of these places by setting the AOC at 15-17.

Now, setting an AOC at 15 is sketchy in the US because we are too backwards, puritanical, and weird to handle that low of an AOC. Europeans, being civilized, can cope with, it but Americans are uncivilized backwards boors and sex-hating super-prudes, so we can’t deal.

However, there is an argument for making a Romeo and Juliet clause for 15 year old girls. In many states they are legal for men up to 18 or 19. Colorado is particularly reasonable in this regard, as 15 year old girls are legal for men up to age 24. I dated a lot of 15 year old girls as a boy and for few years into adulthood. They’re horny as Hell and from the point of view of a young man 18-21, they seem quite mature, about as mature as you are.

Now the problem is that wherever you put that AOC, men are going to start fucking those girls. Put it at 17? Men will fuck 17 year old girls. Put it at 16? Men will screw 16 year old girls. Put it at 15? Men will gleefully bonk 15 year old girls.

And if you put it at 13 or 14, men will jump on 13 and 14 year old girls. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, though sex with 14 year old girls and 18-21 year old men doesn’t bother me. The thing about this sort of sex is it seems a lot more ok when the man is very young because after all, college boys and young men have been screwing high school girls forever. It’s so natural it’s almost set in stone. But as the man gets older than, say, 25, a lot of people start getting a lot less comfortable with it for all sorts of reasons. And as he gets older and older, it gets less and less ok. This is fine with me and I understand people’s distaste for this sort of thing.

I’d like to keep the 13 and 14 year old girls illegal for most adults, though we definitely need a Romeo and Juliet clause for both of them. I’m not sure where to put the limits though.

I met some 14 year old girls at the store a while back. They were fooling around like teenagers. I looked at them real close and I thought, “You know what? These girls need to be protected from us men. And even more so, we men need to be protected from those girls!” We both need to be protected from each other. A good way to do that is with an AOC law because most men beyond age ~21 will start to seriously think twice about underage girls, and men significantly older than that will avoid them as if they’re radioactive. Which they are, in a sense. Teenage girls are dangerous!

I think 13-15 year old girls ought to be legal for boys 13-17 though at the very least. We really need to stop putting kids in jail and on sex offender lists for having sex with each other. Guess what? Teenagers have a sex drive, often a raging one. And many, many of them engage in sexual behaviors and even have intercourse before age 18. It’s as common as dirt.

Now we do run into problems with Andrew and Giuffre due to the fact that Giuffre was more than just a teen slut. In fact, she was an out an out real thing teenage prostitute! What a noble, morally elevated female!

Now the problem is that in most of the US at least, it was perfectly legal to screw Giuffre for free, but automagically, one you pay her, you’ve committed a crime. You can screw them all you want, but you just can’t pay them for it! I sort of like this law. We should extend to all women, not just the teenies. It sure would save us men an awful lot of money!

Now, buying a teenage prostitute under age 18 is illegal in the US. It doesn’t strike me as much of a crime because there are many enthusiastic schoolgirl prostitutes. But I don’t see how you make it legal either. Make it a misdemeanor. Instead, it’s a serious crime and worse that, it’s somehow or other sex trafficking!

Now sex trafficking is a completely abused term once the US Justice Department got a hold of it after Congress made a retarded law in the midst of a Sex Panic. Sex trafficking used to be pretty serious. It meant more or less sex slaves. These women are out and out sex slaves, being imprisoned or locked into service by evil pimps, mostly men. A lot are literally locked in and can’t escape while they are ordered to have sex with man after man.

It’s really gross and it’s a very serious crime. And the truth is that most pimping probably is trafficking. If the prostitutes are free to leave the pimp, it’s not, but when are they ever free to leave? Not real often. Pimps threaten to harm, hurt, or kill any prostitute who leaves their harem, so most prostitutes with pimps feel locked into them. Obviously, pimps are one of the dirtiest aspects of this dirty business.

However! The Justice Department decided to somehow include all underage teen prostitutes under the rubric of “trafficking,” which is quite dubious. I don’t mind a crime called Prostituting a Minor, but it sure as hell isn’t “trafficking.” Even worse, any man who patronizes an underage teen prostitute is himself somehow guilty of trafficking! You paid this 17 year old whore for sex, did the deed, and walked out. Turns out you just committed an act of sex trafficking! That’s absolutely ridiculous, but that’s the crazy new law.

As expected, the feminists took the ball, ran away with it, and were never seen again. The feminists have somehow decided that not only are sex slaves and teeny prostitutes being “trafficked,” but in fact, every single woman who is engaged in prostitution is engaged in sex trafficking! More properly, since feminists insist that women have no agency, they are “being trafficked (by others, basically men).”

Notice how when feminists talk, women never have any agency? That means that they’re basically children and not responsible for any of their actions. Women never do anything. Everything that happens to a woman is not because she did it because I guess she can’t do anything, but instead it got done to her by someone else (typically an evil man).

I would say that according to this silly logic, prostitutes in business for themselves, which is lots of them, are apparently trafficking themselves! But feminists logically say this is not possible, and I agree. Instead they are argue that prostitutes in business for themselves are being trafficked by the male customers who purchase their services! So every time a man buys a whore, he’s “trafficking” her. Ridiculous, huh?

So it appears that the morally upright Ms. Giuffre, now older, wiser, and probably a lot less horny, was never raped even one time, ever. Statutory rape doesn’t count. It’s a bit hard to argue that she was being trafficked, but Maxwell and Epstein caught her trying to leave them a couple of times and brought her back and threatened her. Ok, now they’re trafficking her, so she was trafficked some of the time.

Giuffre was working very profitably for as a prostitute for the rich and famous from ages 17-23. So for most of her career, from ages 18-23, she was an adult, a grown woman. Giuffre claims that during this entire time, she was being “sexually abused” or “abused.” She never had real sex the whole time. Instead she had some weird abuse masquerading as sex. Are you sure you didn’t like it, Ms. Giuffre? A lot of women like that sort of thing, you know.

“Sexual abuse” is a term that has been tortured, raped, and murdered by sex-panicked morons for a very long time now. It used to refer to child molestation, which involves adults and children under 13. From 13-17, depending on the laws, there is no sexual abuse. There’s just statutory rape or illegal intercourse. It’s not possibly to sexually abuse a teenage girl and you certainly cannot abuse a grown woman because no matter how infantile her silly little brain is, she’s still an adult, at least chronologically. Sexual abuse literally means child molestation and I don’t mind referring to child molestation and sexual abuse. It’s a logical way to see it.

Somehow now teenage girls with ravenous, nymphomaniacal sex drives get “sexually abused” a good part of the time when they have sex, even when it’s consensual. In other words, the term for child molesting got inflated by dumbshits all the way to teenage girls and from there all the way to so-called adult women, assuming there even are any in an emotional sense.

It’s bullshit. It’s nonsense.

Poor Virginia suffered through the horrific ordeal of getting paid $15,000 to fuck a hot, sexy older man. It boggles the mind. No doubt this indignity was inflicted on the poor virginal Virginia endless times. How did she ever recover from getting paid $15K to get laid by some hot dude? Obviously, she’s a survivor. How she survived such a horror is simply beyond me.

Poor girl! Girls are crying! Poor Virginia! Virginia is crying! Poor women! Women are crying!

She never got sexually abused even one time except in her tiny little pea brain. And of course she never got raped even one time except in the   fever dreams of her mind. Now she may well have been trafficked.

Virginia, I will take time out for abusing your sorry ass here to tell you that I am very sorry that these low lifes basically imprisoned you as a sex slave. I really am truly sorry.

And I hope whatever damage this may have caused you – and it may well have done so – you are able to get over it and move it. I’m sorry you got taken back and threatened when you tried to run away. At that point, Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking you. That’s a serious crime, and I hope you can make peace with it, and I mean that with all my heart, dear.

Now that I am done addressing Ms. Giuffre, back to the story.

95% of Virginian Giuffre’s story is a pathetic joke. It’s not even true. She’s just another silly bitch trying to milk us men for everything we’ve got like so many of her sisters. I hope she decides to do something more productive and dignified with her life than act like a baby, be a permanent victim, and make a living scamming men.

Alt Left: Two Populations with IQ’s of 87 Are the Same, Right?

Two groups with IQ’s of 85 will probably behave about the same, right? Nope!

That is because we are leaving out something very important, and  that is race. And race is absolutely real in a biological sense and you can make whatever you want of that. An 85 IQ US White, Persian in Iran, Chinese in China and US Black are going to act pretty different, though the American White and the Persian might act fairly similar. The races act different! I’m sorry but it’s just true. Open your eyes and ears. It’s only obvious.

A good IQ researcher over at Unz has written a number of articles where he claims that the IQ of your average human is  ~81. That’s terrible. It’s thought that you need a 90 IQ to create a decent modern society. That’s probably not completely true, but there’s something to it.

It also depends on the population. An Arab, North African or Central Asian IQ of 85 is simply not the same thing as a US Black IQ of 85. Go look around in Arabia, North Africa or Iran and get back to me. Even Pakistan is fairly civilized.

If those countries were full of US Blacks, the cities would look like Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Oakland, etc. That’s why I get so upset with White nationalists snarly at Blacks that they only have 85 IQ’s. First of all, it’s probably 87 now. Second of all, that IQ score is no fault of their own. It is some sort of a product of genes and environment. Let’s put it this way. I don’t think the US Black 87 IQ is their fault at all! That’s simply the way they end up getting wired up.

If Tehran and Detroit have the same average IQ, there is something more going on with US Blacks.

I believe that is psychopathy. Your average US Black has a psychopathy score twice as high as the average White on the PCL. Say the average White score is 4 out of 0-40. Everything below 20 is considered in normal range, but you can be quite psychopathic and still be in the normal range. What can I say? We are apex predators, meat eaters and killers of our own kind from time immemorial. He aren’t like cows. We are more like bears or mountain lions.

Anyway if your average US Black has a PCL score of 8 to the average US White score of 4, that is going to make a tremendous amount of difference. That’s because there is a universe of difference between a PCL score of 1 and one of 19! They’re both completely normal non-psychopaths, but I guarantee you that folks at 19 on a PCL are going to act way worse than people with a PCL of one.

Blacks also seem to have elevated testosterone levels, and that is absolutely genetic. But they are only higher until age 32, after which they fall and are actually lower than Whites! I suspect that elevated testosterone plays a role in the extremely high crime rates of US Blacks.

Let’s not get too hung up on IQ.

Different Types of Child Pornography: Under 13 (Kiddie Porn) and 13-17 (Teen Porn)

Teenage girl CP is completely different from the little kiddie kind.

First of all, most people would not be freaked out seeing teenage girl porn. In many cases, they would probably assume it was legal because it doesn’t look any different from adult porn. Even where they obviously not 18, it doesn’t have that creeptastic shock factor that throws you out of your seat. Also even in those cases, the girls have an adult sex drive (which makes all the difference), and they typically look like they are enjoying themselves.

So who’s harmed by this stuff? The typical argument is that child porn is “the record of a crime.” That’s not controversial, but if so, why aren’t videos showing murder and beheadings illegal too?

Arguments against Child Porn (Pornography of Children under 13 or “Kiddie Porn)

  1. It is the record of abuse. In a lot of cases, that’s not even true, but in other cases, it is.
  2. By being out there and people possessing it, it creates more demand. I agree with that.
  3. The child is harmed every time someone downloads a photo of her CP. This seems dubious. What if she doesn’t even know it’s out there? Even if she does, does she get a notification every time someone downloads her movie? How does that work? If it gets downloaded 1,000 times, how is she anymore harmed than if it’s downloaded one time? She isn’t.
  4. The child did not consent to having their CP spread far and wide all over the Internet. I’m sure that’s true in most cases, so that’s quite a violation, one that can follow the child until adulthood if they know their CP is still floating around out there.
  5. The more pedophiles look at this stuff, the more it arouses them to actually molest. That’s not a good argument and the limited studies we have shows that legal CP makes rates of molestation go down.
  6. A lot of this stuff is not consensual but forced or coerced. That’s a good argument, but would videos of a rape also be illegal. How about videos of a murder? But that kid should be protected from having his abuse put out there for everyone to see. No argument there.
  7. This stuff is just weird, freaky, and gross. I would certainly agree there. If you’ve ever seen this stuff, there’s a yuck factor involved that’s hard to put into words.
  8. The victim was a kid when it happened, kids need to be protected from having crimes committed against them broadcast for all to see, and the depiction of the crime is against the law in the first place. You’re not allowed to take pictures of this crime, while you probably could of most other crimes. This is an argument to show how the photographing of the crime of child molestation is different from the photographing of other serious crimes, such as battery, homicide, etc. Also the others are adults and presumably they could handle their victimization being out there better than a kid could.

What about Teen CP?

Almost all of the above arguments fall apart when you talk about teen CP. Show me one argument that still holds up when we apply it to teens.

  1. It is the depiction of a crime, typically statutory rape. Sure we can photograph other crimes, but this is one crime we cannot photograph because photographing this crime is illegal itself.
  2. It’s yucky, awful, and horrible – it’s upsetting to the senses. The yuck factor argument here falls apart because I imagine a lot of doesn’t even look yucky. Does it look any different from “barely legal” porn out there? Probably not. Even where they look underage, though it does look weird and somewhat disturbing to me, it’s not on the same level as real CP, which almost flings you out of your chair when you see it.
  3. Although most of this activity is probably consensual, some may be forced. Now we get into the argument of whether videos of rapes would be legal. But once again, this is one crime we are not even allowed to photograph, whereas we can photograph just about any other crime, I assume.
  4. If men looked at teen CP, this would arouse them to go out and have illegal sex with teens. That’s dubious, and it’s not the end of the world even if it does happen. In European countries, the age of consent is 14 or 15, and there’s no epidemic of older men hanging out outside high schools to prey on the girls. Nor is there much in the way of 14 and 15 year old girls having sex with older men. 15 year old French girls are capable to telling men to get lost. In other words, just legalizing something doesn’t necessarily increase the rate of it.
  5. The teen did not consent to having their porn all over the Net. Unfortunately, that’s probably not even true in most cases. In most cases, they probably made this stuff themselves as almost all of the teen CP out there is made by girls themselves and their boyfriends. Then they put it up on the Net and apparently don’t care if it goes far and wide, and it can’t go too far and wide anyway.
  6. The teen is harmed every time someone downloads the video. This suffers from the same flaw as the real CP argument, with the added factor that the girl probably doesn’t even feel harmed by the material in the first place as she produced it herself.
  7. By being out there and people looking at it, it creates more demand for the product. I’m not even sure that’s hard to prove because it teen CP doesn’t appear to be a commercial enterprise, probably because it’s so hard to tell it from real porn. Anyway there doesn’t appear to be much of a market for it anyway.
  8. Teen CP is the record of abuse. That’s probably almost never true unless it’s coerced and porn with adult women who were coerced would also be a record of abuse. There’s nothing “abusive” about adults having sex with teens.
  9. It is the record of a crime. Once again, why are homicides of beatings, homicides, presidential assassinations, etc. legal then? Those are records of crimes.

Good Arguments to Keep Teen CP Illegal (with Some Modifications)

I would not be opposed to teens having these photos and videos of each other. Millions of them already do and mostly nothing happens to them. All of the above arguments fall apart in the case of teens keeping porn of each other.

But then it should be restricted. I would say you can have it in your possession, but you can’t distribute it, say put it up on the Internet or sell or give away DVD’s of it. This would seriously limit the spread because how much can anything spread if it’s not on DVD or the Net? Hardly at all. But one thing I dread is going on the Porn Net and getting bombarded by offers to go to sites featuring 16 and 17 year old girls! Because as soon as you make that stuff legal, pornographers, being the sleazeballs that they are, are going to flood the Net within weeks with underage girls naked and soon enough in full hardcore porn.

If you put teen porn up on the Net for everyone to see for commercial purposes, you can and should go to jail. Most of this stuff is distributed in discreet networks that are hard to get to if you don’t know exactly where they are. Teen porn posted in these networks stays where it is. It’s almost all made by teenage girls themselves either alone or with their boyfriends. As long as it’s not spreading wildly to the wide-open web and staying on secretive channels, I don’t see the harm.

But how are you going to differentiate between keeping it on discreet channels and putting it out there for all to see? I have no idea. The main purpose of prosecution ought to be to keep teen porn off the Web in the sense that it is outside of the eyes and ears of your average person. You also need to keep it off of all large commercial, ad-supported, or porn video sites like PornHub. But how do you hold PornHub liable for teen porn it’s users put up there? You can’t. But where the girl is obviously not 18, you could make a case that PornHub should be liable if there is a complaint. You can’t expect them to sort through all the videos, but you can expect them to look at anything that generates complaints.

Society doesn’t want men approaching underage teen girls on the Net and trying to get photos and videos out of them. That the girls willingly hand this stuff out is no matter. This is just something society doesn’t like, along the lines of statutory rape. The penalties ought to be similar to statutory rape instead of CP. It’s hard to argue that having a video of a teenage girl having sex is 5-10X worse than actually having sex with her, but this is what the law will say. I’d want to make the penalties strict enough to deter men from doing this though.

What about adults in legal relationships with teens who have photos and videos of the teen, even in sex acts. It’s even harder to make an argument that this should be illegal or that it’s even CP. It’s legal to have with this girl every day for a year, but if you snap a picture of her naked, you get 10 years? That’s just getting weird. I suppose I would argue that the “personal possession ok, distribution illegal” argument ought to apply here. If it’s legal to have sex with a girl, it ought to be legal to take sex photos and videos of her for your own personal use. The law might require that you prove you were in a relationship with her.

Teens who take videos and photos of themselves is not really CP. There are people getting arrested for making sex photos and videos of themselves when they were underage. One man is on the sex offender list for possessing, when he was 21, a sex video of himself alone he made when he was 17. That’s just nuts. And putting girls in jail for making their own solo porn and keeping it on their drives is crazy.

As with so many sex laws, this issue runs up into all sorts of thorny issues and arguments that make little if any sense. It boils down an emotional revulsion towards this sort of thing and society’s decision to encode its revulsion in law. Many of the justifications for such laws fall apart when you analyze them. And justifications for some laws, for instance CP, change constantly, along with the definitions of it. The best policy is whatever protects the morals and norms of the majority while interfering with the privacy and individual rights of the potential criminal as little as possible.

Friend Knows a Woman’s Husband Who Went Down on Child Porn for Chatting Dirty with an Underage Teenage Girl

A commenter in the private group told about how the husband of a woman she knows got arrested for child porn and now he’s on a sex offender list. Apparently he was talking to one or more underage teenage girls online, and I guess they were sending pics back and forth and his wife found out and turned him in. It’s not really child porn to me. To me the only child porn is the yucky stuff with little children and adults. Gross. A teenage girl looks like a woman. Most men like to look at videos and photos of naked women either posing or doing sexual things. Videos or photos of teenage girls doing the same things probably wouldn’t look much different.

There is a technically illegal video up on the web. Some porn company in Florida shot it. A 15 year old girl lied about her age to do the shoot. It has stayed up on the web for some reason. I think they said 25 million people have watched it so far, so I wasn’t really worried. It was just typical porn, nothing too weird. The odd thing was that if I did not know that girl was 15, there is no way I would think she’s underage. She didn’t look 1% different from a lot of the young 18-19 year old girls in porn, and there are lots of them.

On the other hand, society doesn’t want us men looking at that stuff and it doesn’t want us men to exchange dirty photos and videos with underage teenage girls. The fact that it’s pretty normal behavior is irrelevant. Most crime is probably normal in the sense that it’s not nuts or crazy. We dislike crime not because it’s nuts or crazy but because we think it’s wrong, bad, evil, on and on. It’s a right and wrong, good and bad societal morals thing.

Society has a right to whatever reasonable morals it wishes to have, and not allowing adult men collect or trade pics with minor girls is a legitimate moral value for a society to have. Same with age of consent laws. Society has a right to put the age of consent for sex wherever it wants, anywhere from 14 in much of Europe to 18 in US federal law.

If people tried to set it higher than 18, I’d get mad because now society would be acting ridiculous. Below a certain age, different societies, states, nations, do not want us men messing around sexually with those girls. The fact it’s a normal aspect of male sexuality is irrelevant. As noted above, lots of “normal” behavior is against the law not because it’s nuts because it’s wrong. Society happens to think sex with men and girls below a certain age is wrong. We live in society. The age of consent in my state is 18 and I’m perfectly happy to obey that law and I have since age 21.

I think the AOC here is too high and it’s silly, but I still have to deal with society’s morals. If I violate society’s morals because I think they’re stupid, I might go to jail because society has decided that a lot of what it considers immoral, wrong, bad, or evil behavior should be against the law. This is why we have criminal codes.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for older guys going down on these stat rape crimes, though the sentences are bizarre, absurd, and almost cruel and unusual. I look at a guy like that and I think, “What an idiot. He knew it was against the law but he did it anyway all because he couldn’t control himself.” There are a lot of stupid things you can do that might land you in jail. The solution is not to do stupid shit that might put you behind gay bars.

About “Child Porn” Involving Teenage Girls

First of all, there has to be “lascivious display of the genitalia” or she has to be engaging in some sort of sexual behavior. Just nudity doesn’t cut it. If she’s standing naked in front of a mirror it’s probably legal. If she has her top off and is flashing her tits, it’s probably legal. Nevertheless, I still probably would not want to have that stuff on my drive, legal or not.

The crazy “child porn” laws change all the time and the definition of “child porn” increasingly whatever the Hell the FBI thinks it is at that moment. I think a lot of these convictions where people thought they were obeying the law but went down on this stuff anyway should be vacated. You can’t have vague laws that nobody knows the definition of. You can’t have crimes where the definition of the crime is always changing so you never really know if you’re breaking the law or not.

Nudist photos are legal. There are nudist sites all over the Net with adults and kids of all ages strolling around naked in the woods, at beaches, at pools. All perfectly legal.

As far as getting arrested for that stuff, you have to either know she was underage and you saved the material anyway (as in she told you how old she was) or else, looking at the material, there’s no way she could possibly be 18. If she doesn’t tell you her age and she could plausibly be 18, it’s basically legal.

I’ve had underage teenage girls come to me several times over the years wanting to trade pics with me. They tended to be 15-17. I’m not going to say what happened other than I ain’t keeping that crap on my drive. It’s probably also a bad idea to send nudes to those girls. I know they ask for them. You’ll probably get away with it, but you might not. I doubt if it’s worth it.

Most of the recent ones came to me on Kik. I was in some Younger Women for Older Men groups on Kik. I guess they see my pic in the members and decide to come talk. One came to me recently on Kik. A really hot 15 year old girl came to me a couple of months ago and wanted to trade pics. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine. If she’s talking like that, good chance she’s not a cop because cops don’t send out pics. I knew she was 15, so told her I was afraid to do it because it was illegal, and she took off just like that. I felt like a pussy but at least I didn’t break the law.

Sometimes they just pop up and send me a pic with some text and then go away. I had one pop up recently and send me a message, “Me Daddy.” She’s nude standing in front of a mirror. I doubt it was CP. She was really hot. I tried to talk to her to ask her how old she was, but she went away. I looked at it for a while and concluded that while she was definitely on the young side, she could plausibly be 18, so I kept it. Really any 15-17 year old girl could plausibly be 18, so unless they can prove that you knew her age, it’s basically legal.

Below 15, things get really touch and go. Nudes and videos with 13 year old girls (or what look like them) just look “way too young.” How do I know? I’ve seen some that look to be about that age. And I ain’t putting any of that garbage on my drive either. When they’re that young, the stuff just looks illegal. Some idiot sent me a pic in a private chat son Kik the other day. I have no idea how old she was, but she was a young teenage girl, and I just got that “way too young” vibe off it. I didn’t save it and I blocked him right away. I was a bit pissed that he sent me that crap.

97% of all CP convictions are for material with minors under 13 having actual sex with adults. In other words, the really bad stuff. There are a ton of people collecting that – so many that there’s no way they can keep up with all of them. There are so many adult men collecting pics and videos of teenage girls 15-17 years old that the cops don’t have the time to waste going after those people, so most of these cases are ignored.

If they went after all the men who have teen stuff on their drives, the cops wouldn’t have time to do anything else, and they still wouldn’t make a dent in it. In the Black Cat Scans case (which was creepy stuff but the girls wore clothes) that site had 25 million unique visitors. That shows you how many men are looking at that stuff. The cops are going to arrest 25 million men? Really? That shows you the scope of the problem. The cops have to triage.

I’ve been in some Kik groups that were literally set up by underage girls themselves. I think one was 13 (but didn’t look it) and the other was 16. They just like to talk to grown men for whatever reason and they want the chat clean. I’ll stay in there a  bit but it starts to get a bit boring. Just some silly teenage girl talking about how school went that day or how she needs to lie down and take a nap. It’s more boring than anything else. They want the chat clean.

If you start talking about sex in there, they often shut the conversation down. And they don’t want dick pics. Some idiots send dick pics and the girls just throw them out of the room. I’m not sure what their agenda is except both are always posting cheesecake sexy photos of themselves in bathing suits or whatever. I think maybe they want to post sexy pics of themselves to get attention from men.

Every now and then, some joker posts something illegal in the group. Someone did a couple of months ago, a video. The girl running the group just said, “Way too young” and threw the guy out. It was a video of a couple of teenagers having sex, but there was no way that girl was 18, so it was illegal. I got the impression that the girl and her boyfriend made this video themselves and then put it on the web. I am hearing that more and more teens are taking porn videos of themselves when they’re having sex. It’s illegal but I doubt if they care, and 98% of them will never get caught.

Also there’s a lot of porn out nowadays that’s not just “barely legal” but they specifically choose adult women with childlike features and bodies so they look like underage teen girls. I think it’s lame myself because as far as females go, whatever the Hell age they are, I want them to look like a woman, not a girl. If she’s 15 and looks like a woman, she’s hot in my book. If she’s 18 and looks underage because she’s so childlike, I’m almost uncomfortable and creeped out by it.

I remember once I was having sex with this 18 year old Korean girl I picked up in LA. I’m not going to say what sort of sex we were having, but she had this curious delight about her her and she was looking at my cock with her eyes down right next to it like it was a cobra that was charming her into a trance. She acted so much like a “kid” even though she was of age that it honestly creeped me out, and for a while I couldn’t get it up. But later I did and it was all good. I still didn’t want to repeat the experience, and that was the only time I saw her. I almost felt like a pedophile having sex with her, and she was a grown woman!

I think there should be lower penalties for “teen girl porn” because let’s face it, it’s not really CP. And all of the arguments they make against CP, including the main one – that it is the depiction of a crime or the depiction of the abuse of a child – totally fall apart when it comes to photos and videos of teen girls.

Alt Left: The FBI Is Full of Shit

This is the sort of thing I read for sheer kicks. That is a 152-page document called Child Molesters – A Behavioral Analysis For Law Enforcement Officers Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children by Acquaintance Molesters, written by the FBI’s top expert on child molestation, Kenneth Lanning. I read about this stuff because I am very interested in sex offenders and paraphilias. I’m a teleiophile, and I’ve never molested a kid, thank God. And I never got molested myself. Similarly, I know few people who got molested. It’s just something that interests me.

I will say though that that document is hard to get through. I’ve had it up there forever and I still haven’t gotten through it. Trying reading about  child molesters for 152 pages some time. It’s pretty hard to do and it gets to you after a bit.

About this paper, I don’t think too much of Lanning or his document.

The “Pedophile As a Word with No Meaning” Bullshit

First, he doesn’t seem to know what a pedophile is. He keeps lumping in pedophiles with a preference for small children who molest kids with men who engage in statutory rape with adolescents. The two crimes could hardly be more different, and people who commit them are often extremely different. Few pedophiles even have an interest in a 13 year old! There is no mention of hebephiles. There is no mention that it is quite normal for adult men to have sex with adolescent girls, as we’ve been doing it for 99% of our evolution as a matter of course with no ill effects recorded since. Instead, he calls men who have sex with teenagers pedophiles! Ridiculous!

Second, he’s a pig. A real pig. A fed pig, by far the worst pigs of them all. I actually don’t mind a lot of local cops. But I truly despise feds.

He has an extreme attitude towards child pornography and claims that if a  pedophile is using a photo of a child to masturbate, it’s child porn! So a pedophile has an innocent photo of a kid in a bathtub taken by some doting parent. He’s using it to masturbate. According to Lanning, it automatically becomes child porn. Typical fed pig.

Further, he twists himself in endless circles trying to justify bans on child porn.

First of all, the real deal is a record of a crime. This is a fact.

It’s also a record of horrible abuse. This part is much less certain.

He says the child is victimized by having their photos passed around the world among pedophiles. I agree to a point. However, suppose the child has died? Sure, it’s a record of a crime, but so what? The victim is dead. As the victim is dead, they’re hardly being harmed by their photos being passed around. So there are issues with even the standard justification for making this stuff illegal.

The “Child Porn Is Whatever the Cops Think It Is” Bullshit

In the past 30 years, due to mass hysteria about the subject, courts have bent over backwards to endlessly redefine child pornography. It’s now like the feminist definition of rape – as big as the Atlantic Ocean, expanding all the time, and constantly changing so no one can even define it anymore. Child porn means whatever the pigs think it means. Rape means whatever some feminist thinks it means.

It turns out that if a pedophile has perfectly legal photos of nude kids, but writes lewd things on them or has balloons showing the child making lewd statements and he’s using this stuff to masturbate, it’s child porn! Oh, for God’s sake! Don’t these poor sods have a right to jerk off in peace? Life must be difficult enough for someone with an orientation like this. As you can see, the “photo of a crime” and “kid in the photo is being victimized as the material is used by pedophiles” arguments wash out completely in these cases.

Turns out we need to make up some new arguments to cover this stuff! When you have to keep making up all sorts of different arguments to keep something illegal as circumstances change, chances are the illegality of the behavior is on pretty shaky grounds.

He also agrees the pedophilic cartoons should be illegal, though once again, the child in the cartoon doesn’t even exist and is a fictional character.

By the same token, he wants 2-D CGI child porn to be illegal.

He also wants child sex dolls to be illegal.

And apparently though the FBI has said that child porn must depict nudity, Lanning argues that there are cases where a clothed child is somehow child porn.

Child porn fiction has always been legal until earlier this year, when suddenly it wasn’t. The fact that no one even knows the definition of child porn and that things are perfectly legal until one day the pigs decide without telling anyone that they’re not is very disturbing. Vague laws are unconstitutional. Laws that constantly change their definitions without being so changed by a Legislature or court are unconstitutional. In order to not break the law, you have to know what the law is. If there’s no way to even figure out what’s legal and what’s illegal and where the line between the two is, it’s unconstitutional.

I figure that anything that doesn’t show an actual kid being molested should be legal, sorry. If there’s no kid being molested, there’s no record of a crime. The kid in the pic is not being harmed either, as nothing is happening in the photo.

Anyway, Lanning ends up having to make up more and more new arguments to keep more stuff illegal. Turns out that photos of kids in bathtubs, child porn stories and cartoons, legitimate photos with lewd writing on them, and kid sex dolls all need to be declared child porn and be made illegal because…get this…pedophiles use them to masturbate! Apparently everything a pedophile uses to masturbate is illegal! That’s just crazy.

The “It Makes You Dangerous So It’s Illegal” Bullshit

He also says that all of these things that the pedophile uses to masturbate increase the likelihood that he will offend and molest a kid, which is justification for wanting to send them packing for everything they use to jerk off.

The problem is there’s no evidence of that.

In fact, what little evidence exists from countries in which child porn was legal for a while before being made illegal shows that molestation rates were quite a bit lower when the material was legal and went up significantly when it became illegal. I know the Netherlands is one such case. Apparently as rapists watch porn instead of raping, and porn makes rape rates go down, pedophiles look at child porn instead of molesting, and molestation rates go down.

The “It’s Illegal to Be Dangerous” Bullshit

So these guys are being arrested for the crime of “dangerousness.” I wasn’t aware it was against the law to be dangerous. Generally speaking, any law allowing cops to arrest people for “dangerousness” is unconstitutional. Of course there are some exceptions, mostly in terms of red flag laws.

In most other cases, you can’t be arrested because people think you’re dangerous. You can be as dangerous and scary as you want, and it’s perfectly legal.

However, if you are crazy and dangerous, we can hospitalize you.

The MDSO Ultra-Bullshit

This was the basis for the ridiculous and unconstitutional Mentally Disordered Sex Offender laws, where, incredibly enough, people who have served their full terms and paid their debts to society are re-sentenced just before they get out on the grounds that they are “dangerous.” Hell, 90% of the people we let out of prisons are probably pretty damn dangerous. It doesn’t mean we keep them locked up beyond their terms!

And because it’s perfectly legal to be a menace, the courts have twisted themselves into Octopus-like positions to claim that these men are both mentally ill and dangerous because if they are nuts and dangerous, we get to hospitalize you. These laws also operate on the bizarre and insane notions that locking these guys up for the rest of their lives after their terms are up on “dangerousness” chargers is…get this…not a form of punishment! Because if it was a form of punishment, it would be illegal!

I guess it’s actually a huge gift and a favor to these shmucks to lock them up for the rest of their lives on bullshit “dangerousness” charges.

Turns out that you don’t even have to be seriously mentally ill to get locked up this way. Most of these folks aren’t the tiniest bit crazy. All you have to have is a mental disorder that makes you dangerous! In practice, these are paraphilias, typically pedophilia. However, non-pedophiles keep getting socked away under these laws, particularly hebephiles.

The “Let’s Make Up Some Mental Disorders” Bullshit

Turns out that when you can’t figure out what paraphilia the person has, you get to make one up! So the hebephiles go down on Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified or Paraphilia NOS. Turns out that hebephilia is not even a documented paraphilia in the DSM. Turns out it’s not even mentally disordered behavior. Turns out it’s not even abnormal! Nevertheless, it can get you socked away forever on some bullshit law after you get out of prison.

One more thing. Locking people up as they are walking out the door for made-up crimes, or really for the crime they went down on, is obviously convicting someone twice for the same offense. They get around this by saying they’re not punishing these folks. Instead they’re doing them a favor!

This is just abuse. They’ve also invented brand new paraphilias where none exist. They’ve invented some Paraphilic Rape Disorder where the rapist is specifically and preferentially aroused by the thought of raping. Turns out this sort of thing is quite rare, and rapists, like most men, get turned on by a million things. Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association says there’s no such thing as Paraphilic Rape Disorder. No problem! Just make up a diagnosis! They simply say the man has Paraphilia NOS, and he goes down on that. Who knows what Paraphilia NOS even means. As with child porn above, apparently it means whatever some prosecutor thinks it means!

Alt Left: A List of Better Terms for “Pedophile” and “Pedophilia”

It would be interesting to talk about female pedophiles and how they are different from men.

Apparently, there are no female pedophiles, pedophile meaning someone who has a preferential interest in children under 13; that is, they are more attracted to children under 13 than they are to adults. Any female child molesters are likely to be non-pedophilic molesters or situational molesters. Apparently only men are preferential molesters; i.e., pedophiles.

The use of the word pedophile for anyone other than a preferential child molester or someone with a preferential sexual interest in children under 13 is simply false.

In the overwhelming number of cases where the word pedophile is being used nowadays, the person is either teleiophilic – that is, completely normal in age orientation, being maximally attracted to females 16+ and attracted to adults. That is 81% of all males, including me, believe it or not. Maximal attraction to 16 and 17 year old girls is not pathological at all. Not only is it not disordered, but it’s not even abnormal. In fact, it is much more abnormal to not be not maximally attracted to 16 and 17 year old girls. This means you are either a pedophile, a hebephile, gay, or dead.

Pedophile is also false when it means “attracted to girls 13-15.” Even teleiophilic men react to pubescent girls at a very high level of 86% of maximum. Literally the only difference between hebephiles and normal men is that hebephiles have preferential maximum attraction to 13-15 year old girls, and normal men have an attraction of 86% of maximum. That’s not much of a difference. Also a number of hebephiles have little to no interest in females over 15, which is odd to me.

Attraction to very young girls under 13 is not necessarily pedophilic either. Normal men are attracted to little girls at 60% of maximum. Pedophiles are attracted to them at maximum and often have little attraction for adults. Those are the main differences between pedophiles and normal men.

Adult men having sex with 13-17 year old girls is not pedophilic behavior. In fact, the American Psychological Association has said that it is probably a part of normal male sexuality if we speak in historical or anthropological terms. Legally speaking, this behavior is often statutory rape, and men who do this are called statutory rapists. In cases where it is legal, it is properly considered legal and normal behavior in a psychological sense anyway. Granted, many people have moral objections to this at least at certain ages anyway.

Most child molesters are non-pedophilic or situational child molesters. So pedophile isn’t even a correct word to use for most child molesters! The crime itself is called child molestation, not pedophilia. Child rape is a different crime. Child molestation should not be referred to as child rape because child molestation is often psychologically consensual, whereas child rape never is. Further, child rape is a much worse crime than child molestation in most cases.

Sex between teens 13-17 is never pedophilic or even child molestation. It may be statutory rape but mostly it’s just completely normal sexual behavior. You simply cannot molest a teenage girl. Nor can you molest a woman.

Any sex between an adult man and a girl under 13 is properly termed child molestation. In a minority of cases, the adults who do this are pedophiles, but in most cases they are non-pedophilic molesters. The best way to describe non-pedophilic molesters is to call them criminals. They are driven more by antisocial behavior than by deviant sexual interests.

Since nobody seems to be able to use the words pedophilia and pedophile correctly, we should just stop using them. Every time you want to say pedophile, just say child molester. Every time you want to say pedophilia, just say child molestation.

Pedophilia is simply a way of thinking or a sexual orientation like homosexuality or bisexuality, and it is biological in all cases, like a lot of homosexuality. It’s 100% legal. A pedophile is simply a man who thinks in a particular way in sexual sense or has a particular biological sexual orientation similar to male homosexuals. It is not against the law to be a pedophile.

Alt Left: Does Getting Molested and Raped Always Cause Intrinsic Severe Long-Term Symptoms in Females?

Polar Bear: What would you do if your perfect little angel, that you love more than anyone, is violently raped by a grown ass man?

Child Molestation and Child Rape Are Two Completely Different Crimes

Most child molesting isn’t violent rape.

That’s usually a different crime called child rape. And child rape does occur. It happened to my sister at age 11. Guy pulled a knife on her and her little friend while they were walking in this fairly wild area. We never heard that this had done anything bad to her. Certainly she never talked about it. But she flips if you say the words “rape” or “molestation” and shuts down the conversation. So I spell the words out sometimes when I’m around her. But other than that, I’ve never heard that she suffered any long-term harm from this very violent rape.

Much child molesting is more or less consensual. That is, the kid goes along with it. Of course kids can consent to sex past a certain age. Psychologically they can. They can’t legally though. I think 90% of molesting is in the family and it’s often consensual. What about brother-sister sex? All brother-sister sex is now called child molesting! WTF. What about men screwing 14-17 year old girls? A lot of people don’t like it, but that’s statutory rape, and stat rape is completely different from child molesting in so many ways.

What If My Daughter Got Molested or Raped by Some Man?

It depends. If it was actually child rape via a stranger and a weapon, sure it would be bad, and I don’t really know how I would deal with it. If he was molested with coercion, that’s also very bad. I’m not sure how I would deal with that either. But if she was molested consensually and had a neutral or even positive attitude towards it, I would act differently. And believe me, it’s very common for kids to react to consensual child molestation by saying it was fun of pleasurable. Neutral actions are also extremely common.

Not every kid flips out and gets horribly traumatized by getting molested. I think I would tell her that I didn’t want her letting any more grown men to do that to her. I would say it’s weird, strange, and not right. You really need to stop. If you keep doing this, it could be harmful to you. Mainly I would want her to start resisting if a man did this to her.

If she had a neutral or even positive attitude towards getting molested, I would be very happy because there’s usually no long-term harm in those cases.

I would say:

Look it’s not bad or awful or horrible or anything like that. It’s nothing! It’s no big deal. It’s not something you should make a big deal out of. That’s just something weirdo men do. Ever seen weird men doing weird stuff with kids, like yelling stuff at them or doing creepy stuff? Well, it’s like that. Weird idiot men are everywhere and they often try to do weird, stupid things to kids.

I would tell her not not see it as a trauma and freak out and make a big deal out of it because that what causes the harm. I would just brush it off with a great big attitude like this:

It’s nothing, forget about that stupid idiot, let’s move on. Don’t even think about it anymore. It was just a stupid thing some weird idiot man did to you. But it wasn’t harmful.

But I would tell her to be careful who she told about it. I would also tell her not to feel guilty about it as she did nothing wrong. I would tell her that girls who freak out about getting molested and adults who run around screaming how horrible it is is what causes the harm in cases of consensual molestation.

If it was consensual and she had a positive or neutral attitude towards and did not incorporate any negative feelings about it, by college she would be completely over it. Maybe even a lot sooner.

In a sexology book, I read that consensual child molestation used to not cause much harm back before 1950. They treated it like it was no big deal, brushed it off, and told the girl to forget about it. My mother told me that my aunt got molested as a girl when she was ~7. This might have been ~1940. I will have to check. I told my Mom about how people used to treat it like it was nothing, and the kids suffered little harm. She said my aunt had gotten molested at age 7 and everyone just brushed it off, told her it was nothing and to forget about it, but to not let any man do that to her anymore. My Mom said my aunt suffered no long-term serious harm from getting molested. In fact she may have suffered little to no harm at all!

Most of the Harm from Consensual Child Molestation Comes from Everyone Freaking out and Making a Big Deal out of It

In cases of consensual molestation, everybody running around screaming:

How horrible! You got ruined! You’ll never be the same! He stole your innocence! He committed a terrible crime against you, a horrible violation! He violated your body! Your personal space! You need to go to the police and then go to court to testify against this evil man who did this evil thing to you! You got abused!

He abused you! You got molested, one of the worst crimes of all! Pure evil! You got raped! He raped you, the worst crime of all! He’s the worst evil maniac on Earth! Here, we have to send you to a psychologist right now because many or most women who got molested as girls can suffer long-term lifelong harm, and we don’t want that to happen to you!

Then they shuffle her off to a bunch of therapists. I’m not sure they would even say the last sentence because the popular nonsense nowadays is that child molestation causes intrinsic and automatic harm to any kid who gets molested:

It causes trauma! And the trauma lasts a lifetime! No woman who ever gets molested as a girl is ever over it! It effects her for life!

First of all, this is not true. It’s not automatically and permanently harmful, and up to 50% of kids say they wouldn’t even consider it abuse. But telling victims that they suffered unavoidable long-term trauma that will effect them horribly their whole life is about the worst thing you could tell them! It literally causes the very horrible symptoms that they scream about.

Four Women Who All Got Over Being Raped, Molested, Beaten Up, Imprisoned, and Horribly Abused by Men

I knew four women around age 50 who all got molested as little girls.

One was a 50 year old woman who I got involved with for a short bit who was molested at church at age 8, church youth leader, apparently a pedophile. She told me she was totally over it. She said, “It’s weird because it feels so good but it’s wrong.”

Another was a 50 year old woman who I dated for a bit. She got molested by an uncle or a family friend, probably a pedophile. She was a little girl. She told me she was totally over it.She’d also been raped violently a few times. One time the guy broke in and almost killed her. Another kind was a date rape gone bad. She was over the molesting and she told me she was over the rapes too.

She’d also had a number of men pull guns on her in cars and burst into her house with guns pointed at her. She had a husband who beat the shit out of her for years. She told me she was pretty much over all this abuse men had done to her in her life. Weird thing was she still totally loved men.

And when she talked about a particularly horrific rape where she was beaten, imprisoned, tied up and raped for hours, she had a weird twinkle in her eye and a sly sexual smile on her face as she talked about, like it turned her on! I thought, “What the Hell is wrong with this chick?” Women tend to eroticize their sexual abuse, either molestations or rapes. That’s just the way they are.

Another was 55, a girlfriend for 5 1/2 years. She was 11 and a 13-14 year old boy on her street had sex with her. I don’t think that even counts! That’s practically childhood sex play. She also got raped at age 18-19. Almost date rape. It wasn’t violent. Black guy in Jamaica. She told me she was over both of the incidents.

One was a 52 year old woman, a  girlfriend with 1 1/2 years, who had a brother who had sex with her when she was 5-8. I think he was 13-17. It was their “little secret.” Unfortunately this crap goes on a lot. They usually don’t even call it molesting if it’s another minor doing it.

She was into really perverted, dirty sex where she liked to be totally dominated and even degraded. She liked to be “treated like a slut” as she put it. Pretty quickly after I met her she referred to herself as a slut and a whore casually.

She liked the idea that I “owned her” as property like she was some sex slave. She wanted me to “mark” her or “leave my mark on her” to show that “I owned her and she was my property.”

She told me she was over the molestation but she had had a very rapey, weird, and sick relationship with a sexual sadist with serious sociopathic tendencies who was definitely dangerous to women over a 5 year period. She said she got raped every day over 5 years. How is that even possible? And she didn’t even try to stop him. “It would be no use,” she said. She claimed that this was a time of horrific rapes but she always talked about all the extremely dirty sex they had and she had this look of fondness in her eyes as she talked about the sex. And she always talked about the sex during the five years of horrible rape when we were having sex. I think she eroticized her abuse.

I told her I liked to hear about the dirty sex she had with this guy, and she flipped out and told me I was fantasizing about her being raped! That’s bullshit. No one lives with someone and gets “raped” every day for 5 years if you’re not even fighting back or protesting. Fight him off! Resist him! Hit him! Call the police on him! And for God’s sake, leave him!

Also he had some very dirty sex acts she liked to practice and she was always asking for me to do that stuff with her. So she had basically eroticized getting “raped” over 5 years. That relationship turned abusive and he turned very mean. She told me there might be five good minutes in a month. The rest was just pure evil, living with a hostile monster. Yet there was still continuous sex!

She had a bad bone condition where she needed regular operations or her joints might literally fall apart. Once she needed an operation so she told him to go easy on part of her hip. Well, he started specifically making the sex where he singled out this hip area and almost attacked it during sex. If the joints would have broken, she might have died. She said he was basically trying to kill or at least seriously harm her.

She ended it after 5 years and had to move back into her Mom’s house to put herself back together.

I don’t think she was over this trauma, but she didn’t seem all that screwed up by it and she never talked about any bad symptoms she had from it. In fact, she had eroticized it and she often talked about this horrible monster rapist maniac with an attitude of fondness in her face, eyes, and voice.

She did suffer from depression and had attempted suicide before I met her. And she was suicidal part of the time I was with her. But I could never make any connection between her depression and suicidality and this rapey relationship. I never asked her if she had any trauma symptoms from this relationship, but I knew her for 1 1/2 years and she never mentioned having carry-over trauma symptoms even one time.

Game/PUA: Sure, Men Like ‘Em Young, but How Young?

Warning: Long, 18 pages.

This is a comment from Bumface, a regular commenter from the UK. He’s a bit of a volatile fellow, but I’ve kept him around anyway because he’s also nice sometimes, and he can be interesting. I might as well point out right now that it is more than obvious to me that Bumface is a hebephile, that is, he is preferentially attracted to girls in the pubescent 11-14 age range.

However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated flat out that Hebephilia is not a mental disorder. They also said that it’s not even abnormal! The APA said that hebephiles who act on their feelings and have sex with girls in that range would in most countries be called criminals. So if you just have these thoughts, it’s nothing, but if you act on them, in most places, you would be a criminal.

I’ve done some research and hebephilic attractions are very common in men. In fact, 19% of all men are like Bumface – they are preferentially attracted to 11-15 year old girls! In most cases, they probably have a strong attraction to mature females too, and in that case, you can always suppress or repress your antisocial hebephilic urges and focus on your prosocial attraction to adult women.

I suspect this is what most such men do, and actually, I would advocate this for anyone in this category. Nevertheless, there are hebephiles who have no attraction to girls over 15! I’ve been on their forums. People post photos of 16 year old girls and the hebephiles start yelling, “Ew gross!…No grandmas!,” etc. It’s actually pretty hilarious. That doesn’t strike me as real normal behavior, but I’ll defer to the APA on this one.

I was just reading the hebephile forum for research interests, and there’s nothing illegal on there anyway. At any rate, going to those forums is no big deal. All open pedophile/hebephile forums are about half pedophile/hebephile haters cursing them and saying they’re going to prison and half pedophiles/and hebephiles. In other words, those forums have as many pedophile and hebephile haters as pedophiles and hebephiles.

For self-disclosure purposes, I’m actually a teleiophile. Teleiophiles are maximally attracted to mature females aged 16+. The vast majority of straight men are teleiophiles.

78% of men are teleiophiles, 19% are hebephiles, and 3% are pedophiles. It’s stunning how tens of millions of men in the US are so strongly attracted to very young girls! But perhaps it makes sense, right?

Everyone screams about men having sex with 13-15 year old girls and of course about men having sex with children under 13. Just reading around, there sure seem to be a lot of men engaging in this behavior. Perhaps a good explanation for why this sort of thing is so ubiquitous is that so many of us men have strong attractions to younger girls. Why do we do this all the time? Because young girls turn us on so much, that’s why! Seems like the best explanation for me.

I’m a teleiophile, although I’m also very attracted to 15 girls. As we go down from there, I start getting less interested, and it looks more and more like a “little girl” to me, and I’m not into that.

In particular, 13 and 14 year old girls have what I call “little girl faces,” or baby fat in their cheeks. I don’t like that. Among 15-17 year old girls, the more she looks and acts like a grown woman, the more attracted I am to her. The more she looks and acts like a kid, the less I’m attracted to her. I suspect that my desires are typical for teleiophilic men.

Given that 22% of my fellow men have preferential attractions to pretty young girls, I’m not going to get on the “pedophile”-hating bandwagon. To me this is a men’s rights issue. God or evolution has saddled us men with some pretty weird desires in terms of age. We men so afflicted cannot help feeling this way.

If we truly are going to “kill all pedophiles” as everyone recommends, we will have to kill 24 million men. I’m sorry, I’m not willing to condemn 24 million of my fine brothers to death just because a bunch of feminist screechers and moral hysterics demand it. I’m willing to let all these guys slide as long as they only remain thought criminals. If they molest little girls, they need to be incarcerated, as in many cases, the girls get harmed. Even where the girls are not harmed, I don’t wish to live in a society where men can molest little girls.

Since there is no evidence that a majority of girls are harmed over the long term by being molested, I have mostly an ethical, not psychological objection to child molestation. However, many are still harmed anyway, so I do in part have a psychological objection because you might hurt the girl.

About men have sex with 13 year old girls, I mostly don’t like it, not for any particular reason except I think it’s gross and weird and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

About men having sex with 14-17 year old girls, I don’t see the harm if it’s consensual, and I have no problem at all with it if it is legal, but US society doesn’t agree with me and regards this behavior as morally objectionable to the extreme.

Societies have a right to have whatever reasonable morals they wish. They are free to encode these morals into laws as they see fit. We must live in society. If you break these laws, you might be incarcerated. I don’t like to see my brothers behind bars. I’ve always recommended to all my male readers that they don’t break the statutory rape laws wherever they live because you might end up behind bars.

I also strongly recommend all my readers not molest little girls (under 13) because to me it’s simply immoral behavior. You can also hurt the girl and end up “behind gay bars” yourself for a really long time.

Everything factual I stated above has been proven by science and is straight up scientific fact. Yet if you say it, it’s such a hate fact that you will have a lynch mob at your door screaming “Pedophile!” in ten minutes.

As you can see, my views on adult-teen and adult-child sex are more than reasonable. It’s beyond me why these views have made me into such a pariah. I’m not advocating anything bad.

On a final note, I don’t completely agree with much of Bumface’s hebephilia defense below. Nevertheless, I concur with him that hebephilia is not pathological or even abnormal for that matter.

Hello, I’ve been reading some evo-psych and sexology, and I’ve come across some things I think are very wrong. I just want to explain what I think is wrong about these ideas. Most of what I say will probably just be ignored by people in the field, but I’ll say it anyway.

I’ve often seen it claimed in the Evo-Psych literature that the best females for men to go for in ancestral times were those in their late teens at peak reproductive value. Many people just nod their heads in agreement with this claim without knowing that this is not really how it works in the real world. In primitive foraging societies the girls are actually married off quite a bit younger than that. Most girls are married off by the time they’re 16, so focusing on girls after that age would obviously not have been the best strategy.

In order to stand a chance at monopolizing the females’ reproductive lifespans, the best females to go for are those just prior the onset of their fertility, not after it, and this is what we see happening in primitive foraging societies. The girls are usually married off, and the men start having sex with them a few years before they become fertile.

By getting a female slightly before the onset of her fertility, you can guarantee she hasn’t been impregnated by any other males and still has all her reproductive years ahead of her. The price you pay for doing that is that you’re going to have to wait several years before she starts giving you offspring, but it’s not a big problem.

I’ve seen some Evo-Psychs claim that women about 20 would have been the best for long-term relationships in ancestral times. Now, this is completely out of touch with reality. Girls in foraging societies usually start reproducing before they’re 20, so what these Evo-Psychs are saying is that the best females to go for would have been those that are already married off and up the duff by some other man in the tribe. Complete nonsense.

The best females to go for would have been those that weren’t yet married or starting to reproduce. The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in foraging societies is about the mid to late  teens, so men would do best by aiming for girls under that age. If focusing on 20 yr olds is such a winning strategy, then how come we don’t see men in foraging societies using it?

Instead, we see girls get married off much younger than that, and it’s certainly not 20 yr olds that sell for the highest price in bride markets. It’s usually girls much younger than that. In a recent study into child marriage in Tanzania, they found that girls about 13 were selling for over double the price of 20 yr olds. If these Evo-Psychs are going to keep on ignoring real-world data like this, then they can’t call themselves proper scientists.

In his paper arguing that hebephilic preferences are maladaptive, Blanchard claimed that taking on pubescent wives would not be a workable strategy since you’d have to wait a few years before they’d start reproducing, but this argument is just more nonsense that ignores real-world data. We know the strategy works fine because we see it working.

It’s common practice in foraging societies for men to marry girls several years before they reach reproductive age. The most common age is about 14, but that’s only the age they’re officially married. The relationship often begins several years before that.

Sure, the men have to wait a few years before they start getting offspring from their wives, but it isn’t much of a problem and is easily outweighed by the advantages of getting a female who is guaranteed to have all her fertile years ahead of her. If it was as big a problem as Blanchard claimed, then it wouldn’t have become common practice to marry girls that young.

12 yo girls in HG societies on average live into their 50s, so claims that your 12 yo wife may die before she starts giving you offspring are more nonsense. Sure, she might die, but the chances are she’ll live all the way to menopause and be able to give you plenty of offspring along the way. Again, real-world data is being ignored. Two other ridiculous claims in his hebephilia paper are first about the fact that pubescent girls in foraging societies are often closely guarded to protect them from sexual harassment and rape, and second about the reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe.

Blanchard mentioned that pubescent girls are often guarded by their male relatives and claimed that this is somehow evidence that being attracted to pubescent girls is abnormal. Wait, what? If they didn’t have to be guarded that would be evidence that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much the men want them.

When a girl in a primitive foraging society comes into puberty and sprouts some perky eye-catching boobs, she has now entered her most attractive time of life, and all the men notice. She’s now a perky little Lolita, a young maiden, her body is tight and fresh, her boobs are pert, and her face is young and cute.

She is now at the age she where she will suffer the most sexual harassment and is most likely to be sexually assaulted or abducted by raiders who want to keep her for themselves. That’s why she has to be closely guarded at that age. By the time she gets to about 20 and has started reproducing, she’s past her peak, the men lose a lot of interest in her, and she no longer has to be closely guarded.

Her boobs have started getting saggy from breast-feeding, she has stretch-marks on her stomach, pregnancy has made her fatter, and her face has lost its youthful freshness and sparkle.

The risk of sexual assault follows the same pattern in our societies. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crimes between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood. The males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.

We can see that rape and other sex crimes against females peak in the teenage years.

Another graphic.

A bunch of idiot fool women who don’t understand the reality of human male sexuality and that being attracted to girls from 12-17 is 100% normal in every sense of the word.

At the end of his paper Blanchard shows some reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe and thinks he has proof that hebephilia would be maladaptive. Basically, the statistics show that girls who start reproducing under 14 are reproductively less successful overall than those who start at 16+.

He thinks this means that men who commit themselves to girls under 14 would also be reproductively less successful than those who commit themselves to girls 16+. This just does not mathematically follow because the girls don’t start reproducing at the age that men commit themselves to them.

A man may marry a 12 yo girl and start having sex with her at that age, but she won’t typically get pregnant until several years later. If a man married an 8 yo girl, she obviously won’t start reproducing at that age, apart from maybe one time in ten million. You can’t presume that a girl would start reproducing at the age a man commits himself to her because that just isn’t what we observe to happen in the real world.

Men in primitive societies marry young girls, but they don’t start reproducing until a few years later. That’s the whole point of the strategy. In order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, you need to claim and commit yourself to her sometime before she reaches reproductive age. What those statistics are really telling us is that it’s a bad idea for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. If a girl starts reproducing at 12, she’ll leave behind fewer descendants than if she starts at 17.

It’s a bad idea to start reproducing at 12, and that’s why it rarely happens. Evolution has selected out a lot of the genes that cause girls to start reproducing at 12, though not completely because it does still happen sometimes. Selection happens on a gradient, it’s not just on or off. What makes Blanchard’s theory even more laughable is that the Pume are actually a good example of how adaptive hebephilic preferences can be.

The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in the Pume is about 15, so in order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, Pume men need to claim her before she’s 15. Which is exactly what happens. It’s common practice in this tribe for men to marry and knob girls about 12. Whoops.

I think being gay makes it difficult for Blanchard to understand normal male sexuality. One thing he doesn’t seem to understand is that straight men find cuteness sexy.

For example, Belle Delphine.

Belle Delphine

He seems to think that men should only find adult features sexy, but this is just wrong. There’s no law of evolution that says males must prefer the fully developed adult form. The only thing that ultimately matters in evolution is reproductive success.

If the males in a species can achieve greater reproductive success by going after the immature females, then they will evolve to do exactly that. This has happened to a degree in our species. It makes sense for men to go for females who are a bit immature and haven’t quite yet reached reproductive age because they still have all their reproductive years ahead of them.

The female physical features that men find the most attractive are often those that indicate a certain level of immaturity. The facial proportions men find most attractive are those of girls about 13-14. Men find soft, smooth, hairless skin highly attractive. The skin of adult women is usually a bit coarser and a bit hairy. Disproportionately long legs are highly attractive to men.

During puberty when a girl has her growth spurt, her legs grow faster than her torso, making her legs out of proportion with the rest of her body. It’s not until adulthood that the rest of her body catches up. The general petiteness and slimness men find highly attractive is not typical of adult women but is instead the physical proportions we’d expect to see in teenage schoolgirls.

The BMI men find most attractive, for instance, is the typical BMI of girls about 13. The female genitals men find most attractive are those that look a bit immature, with small inner labia and overall petiteness – the kind of genitals we’d expect to see in girls about 12-14. Men find pert boobs the most attractive. In primitive foraging societies the boobs of adult women have gone saggy due to breast-feeding. It’s only the young adolescent girls who haven’t had a baby yet that still have nice pert boobs.

This state of breast pertness men find highly attractive is naturally an immature feature, not adult feature. In modern societies women retain this immature pert state longer into adulthood due to having babies at a later age and wearing bras that push up their boobs making them look perkier.

The male preference for blonde hair may be another example. People’s hair is often blonde when they’re kids and then goes darker when they’re adult. In cartoons and CGI the female characters are made more attractive by making them look immature, while for the males it generally goes the other way. And, of course, the image of the schoolgirl is popular in the porn industry all around the world.

Popular female figures in fairy tales tend to be rather young.

Fairy tale men below.

As you can see, fairly tale men seem to be older than fairy tale women.

So when sexologists like Blanchard and company claim that men prefer fully developed adults, we can see that this is not true. That is what they want to be true, the way they think men should be. They think men should have preferences for fully developed adults 18+, but that is just not what the data shows or what biology predicts.

The most popular age for girls in the porn industry is 18, but that’s because they’re not allowed to go any lower. Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. It’s like in that Chernobyl drama when the Geiger counter measures 3.6 Roentgens because that was the highest it would go to. The evidence is that if there were no legal restrictions, the most popular age for girls in the porn industry would be about 14.

A few years ago, the most popular porn genre was the barely legal stuff in which they’d use petite 18 yo girls with cute faces who looked about 14. They’d often dress up in school uniforms or role play as a young girl. This practice has since stopped because porn like that is now classed as child porn in most countries, but that’s what the market wants.

According to “experts” like Blanchard and Seto, a preference for girls that age is an abnormal evolutionarily maladaptive sexual disorder. They are clowns. They don’t understand the very basics of how the human mating system works. I think it’s only a matter of time before social attitudes change and some studios are granted a special license to produce porn in which the actresses have been made to look under 18 with machine learning.

Some country, probably in Europe, will decide to legalize this pseudo-CP in an effort to cut down on demand for the real stuff. It will have its own category on porn sites, and each video or photo will be electronically licensed to distinguish it from real CP. I predict that when this happens, it will become the most popular category on porn sites, and the most popular age will be about 14.

The most popular AI girlfriend in China is Xiaoice. She’s officially 18 years old, but she’s clearly modeled on a girl about 14. She has a cute face, a petite little body, and wears a school uniform. We can see what the market really wants.

Popular hentai figurine.

In this video she explains how she hopes to mature in the future, meaning that she’s immature at the moment.

Samsung getting in on it too. They’ve just brought out an immature-looking virtual assistant Sam.

Sam, Samsung’s young-looking female assistant.

This preference for immature females can’t be unique to our species. I imagine that in species in which the males try to monopolize the females’ reproductive lifespans, the males have a preference for the slightly immature females just prior the onset of their fertility. One example we see this in is Hamadryas baboons. They live in communities of several hundred out on the savanna.

Within these communities males keep small harems of females with their young. When the males enter maturity and are able to start building their harems, they become interested in the young immature virgin females and want to take possession of them. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.

What we see in Hamadryas baboons may be something like the way our Australopithicine ancestors used to live and mate out on the savanna. Over the past few million years of evolution through Homo Erectus and archaic humans, the harem size has gotten smaller and smaller, approaching monogamy.

But…but…don’t the highly scientific willy tests show that most men prefer fully developed adults? I don’t think we should take these primitive dick-meters too seriously. There are a ton of problems with them, the biggest of which is that the way people behave in the lab is not always the same as how they behave in the real world.

According to these dick-meters men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, in complete contradiction with both real-world data and what biology predicts. Teen schoolgirls have double the number of reproductive years ahead of them than 30 yo women, so biology predicts they would be much more sought after, and this is exactly what we see in the real world.

The schoolgirl image is much more popular than the MILFs in the porn industry, teen girls are targeted for sexual assaults much more often than 30 yo women, young teen girls sell for a much higher price in bride markets, and in fairy tales and mythologies around the world, young teen maidens are the most highly prized, etc.

If these tests say that men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, then we just can’t take them seriously. I think the sexologists who like to rely on them so much are suffering a bad case of physics envy. They like the idea that they can take some scientific measurements of men’s attractions and put them in a graph or equation like they’re doing Real Science. One day we’ll have the technology to do that, but these primitive dick-meters just aren’t it, and if they’re in conflict with real-world data, then we should go with the real-world data.

Menarche and Mammories

In a lot of primitive societies there are taboos against having sex with girls before menarche. A man may marry a young girl, but he isn’t supposed to consummate the marriage until she has her first period. People often take this to mean that this is the way nature intended things to work, as if menarche represented nature’s age of consent. When a girl has her first period, she has now supposedly become fertile and ready to have sex. A little bit of thinking will show that this just isn’t true.

There are no dramatic changes in a girl’s appearance of behaviour when she starts having periods. If a girl sprouted boobs and became interested in sex all of a sudden when she had her first period, we would have good reason to think girls have evolved to start mating just after menarche, but we see no such thing. One month before and one month after menarche girls look and behave the same. Minus the symbolic significance many cultures put on it, menarche is actually pretty uneventful.

Also, menarche doesn’t really mark the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t usually become able to conceive until 2-3 years after their first period. These rules against having sex with girls before menarche are really just as much social inventions as the age of consent in our societies. We have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before age X,” and these primitive societies may have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before menarche.” But is that how people actually behave?

I grew up in a working-class town just outside London in the UK. The AOC was 16, but it was common for men to have sex with girls younger than that. I knew two girls who lost their virginity at age 11 to men in their 20’s. Girls about age 13 would often have older boyfriends in their late teens or early 20’s. That’s what happened with my mum and dad.

I was always jealous of those Bigger Boys taking our girls, but when I was 20, I had a 13 yo girlfriend for a while, so it all balanced out in the end. When she was 15 she hooked up with her 35 yo uncle-in-law, and they’ve now been together for about 20 years and had 3 kids.

I knew a girl who loved older men, and when she was 12, she confided in me that she was screwing a 50 yo man who lived in the flats. I never saw him but I had no reason to doubt her. She also had a 23 yo boyfriend for a while when she was 12, and that was no secret. He was a friend of the family and used to come around her house to visit a lot.

So this is a little taste of reality. We may have this rule against having sex with girls under 16, but it happens anyway. The attitude we basically had was that if a girl had reached puberty and got the boobers, then she was ready. I think this is the way nature intended things to work, and we see the same kind of thing happening in primitive societies.

When Chagnon lived with the Yanomamo, he saw that when a girl got to about 12 and had some boobs, all the men noticed and she had to be guarded to protect her from sexual harassment and rape. The men weren’t supposed to have sex with girls that young because they usually hadn’t started their periods yet, but in reality they did. Most girls would start having sex with their husbands before menarche. In the Ache tribe researchers found that every single girl lost her virginity before menarche, usually with an adult man.

Out there in the jungle they may have some rule that you should only have sex with a girl when she has had her first period, but in reality probably most girls get screwed before that. Boobs are nature’s signal a girl is physically ready to have sex, not menarche. A girl reaches puberty, sprouts the boobs that signals she’s ready, and all the males notice and want to have have sex with her. This is how nature intended mating to work. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it.

Girls develop boobs a few years before they become fertile and able to conceive, but this is nothing strange. Soon after the onset of puberty, chimp females start getting sexual swellings on their bums that signal they’re ready to have sex, but they don’t become fertile until a few years after that. So we’re just following the same pattern we see in other animals. The females develop sexual characteristics and start having sex a bit before the onset of their fertility.

Alt Left: Nothing Worse Than a Fed

Tamerlane: FBI is even worse when compared to the police.

They definitely have more psychopaths than sociopaths in their ranks, possibly due to being 1 SD more intelligent than cops in terms of IQ, on average.

They enjoy using the powers the state gives them in creating plots and targeting vulnerable members of society. Sometimes the sick fucks run COINTELPRO just for the fun of it.

They also seem to employ a different kind of psychopath, the more sneaky and cowardly variety.

I’m not ecstatic about cops in general. I guess I feel about them the way I do about Jews and Blacks. I don’t really like them as a group, but I like a lot of individuals from the group. I just don’t like the group as a whole, as a collective. But all of those groups have perfectly fine people in them. And my longest relationship of 5 1/2 years was with a Jewish woman. And she agreed with most everything I said about Jews too. There are cops and there are pigs. There are Blacks and there are niggers. There are Jews and there are kikes. Two different things.

I really hate feds. There are some who only go after serial killers and child killers and murderers in general and whatnot, and I’m just fine with those.

Not real keen on the rest of them.

Not only that, but the FBI works with the CIA on their shenanigans. The FBI framed Libya for the Lockerbie bombing. Libya absolutely did not do that Lockerbie bombing. That’s settled by now. But the FBI deliberately framed Libya because the FBI is like the CIA in that they are crooked spooks who work for US foreign policy.

In Brazil, the FBI assisted in the “lawfare” that took down Brazil’s Lula. They made up false charges about him out of whole cloth and put him in prison for made-up charges. The FBI worked directly with Brazil’s fascist government (fascists love fascists) to frame Lula.

The Feds and the FBI worked with the Venezuelan fascist opposition to cook up the fake drug trafficking charges against the Maduro administration in Venezuela.

They were the ones who arrested the Chinese head of Huawei, Ms. Meng, on completely fabricated charges that wouldn’t matter even if they were true because she’s accused of violating US sanctions against Iran whereby US law somehow extends all over the globe! The US is trying to extradite a top ranking member of the Maduro administration for violating US sanctions against Venezuela. Since when does US law extend to Venezuela? Or Iran? All of those “violating US sanctions charges against foreigners are insane and in my opinion against international law.

I believe that a lot of these Muslim “terror plots” were frame-ups where the federal informants cooked up plots in order to entrap people. I wonder how many of those plots were even real as in not cooked up the fed pig informant.

The FBI was deeply involved in the assassination of Martin Luther King. That’s just a fact. J. Edgar Hoover was a crook. If he wanted you dead, you were dead.

Federal laws are ridiculous and stupid, way worse even then chickenshit state laws. The sentencing guidelines are insane. The recommended terms are far in excess of anything sensible.

Besides, if those fed pigs want to get you, they will get you. You do not want to have the FBI or any fed pigs for that matter coming after you in life. Local cops are bad enough, but you can often live with them, or at least I can. They’re negotiable. You can’t negotiate with feds. If they want you gone, you’re gone. I’ve never had any dealings with the FBI or other fed pigs in my life and I never want to. The farther away you stay from those guys, the better. I hate federal prosecutors too. I can’t believe that chickenshit charges they cook up against people all the time. Ridiculous.

They will come into your home, turn it upside down, and then sift through your whole life going back forever. I figure most people are breaking some sort of chickenshit law most of the time. And if you do a data dump on a lot of people’s lives, you can probably cook up some chickenshit charge against them. And if it’s a federal crime, I guarantee that the sentence for that crime is absurdly excessive.

I really despise all feds (except the homicide detective feds discussed above). Those are the worst pigs of all by far. Can’t stand them!

Sociopathy and Psychopathy as They Relate to LE Officers

From an anonymous commenter: Many law enforcement officers have strong Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathic) tendencies. It makes parts of their job easier. It is also why there is domestic violence in up to 40% of police households, depending on definition and which study you read. In any event, it appears to be above the base rate for the population.

It is often excused as job stress and either kept in the home or behind the “blue wall.” Unlike the hardcore sociopath, the vast majority do have a conscience and sometimes that gets to be too much or they realize they are going to get caught in some nefarious deed, and they kill themselves. There has been an unusually strong stigma for LEO’s to seek mental health help when they get depressed or PTSD symptoms worsen. That is changing slowly.

I believe that sociopaths are created and have a small conscience. Psychopaths on the other hand do not.

Most psychopaths never spend a single day in an institution. Our former president is a good example. Controlled psychopaths are a dime a dozen. LE, the military, business, law, and even medicine (particularly surgery) are full of psychopaths. One study found 10% of corporate CEO’s were psychopaths. I’m not sure how many there are in the population.

I have seen figures like 1% for women and 4% for men, but perhaps it is higher. That gives us 2.5%.

Female psychopaths are a lot different and are mostly dangerous to your wallet. They are just stereotypical “thieving whores.” The various sex industries are full of these women. 45% of female prostitutes are psychopaths, and “whore” and “thief” are almost synonyms. I had a date (if you want to call it that) with a woman a while back, and I am 100% convinced she was a female psychopath.

Not very smart at all but in some ways, she had a genius IQ in manipulation, scamming, and lying. She was not a prostitute at the time but had been one in the past. Even former prostitutes are usually bad news. As my Mom says, “You can take the girl out of the whorehouse, but you can’t take the whorehouse out of the girl.”

Whores see men as walking ATM’s. Of course most date men and have boyfriends, but they also drain your bank account and I would advise all men to not date or get into relationships with prostitutes, having had the misfortune of dating a few whores in my life. The porn industry, stripping, etc. is full of women like this. The porn industry is also full of male psychopaths, who are much worse.

On the other hand, male psychopaths are out and out dangerous to your life and limb because they often engage in physical violence.

On most negative variables, the male variety tends to be more virulent and is often a menace, while the female variety is more moderate and is mostly dangerous to your ego, spirit, and sanity. Women just aren’t as “florid and  extreme” as men. Men are like the desert, blazing hot in day, and freezing cold at night. Women are the Mediterranean, more moderate all year long  with few extremes in weather.

For instance, there are more male geniuses, but there are also more male retarded.

Women attempt suicide 5X more than men, but men are 3X more likely to complete it. With women it is often the stereotypical cry for help. But men don’t mess around. Also women use pills, which are notoriously unreliable for suicide. Men don’t fool around like that. They use a gun and get it over with.

The male versions of mental disorders such as Bipolar Disorder tend to be  more virulent, aggressive, violent, psychotic, and wild as they specialize in wild manias. Whereas the women of course tend to be depressed with fewer and more attenuated manic episodes.

Sociopaths are created by society and are hotheaded and not usually very successful. They tend to act on impulse. They do sometimes feel a certain amount of remorse for their acts because they do have a conscience, albeit a weak one.

Psychopaths on the other hand appear to be biologically created perhaps with an additive factor of abuse and head injuries in childhood determining whether one becomes a controlled versus uncontrolled psychopath. Psychopaths are cool-headed, cold and calculating. In contrast to the sociopath, they have no conscience at all. Psychopaths are probably more dangerous but I’m not quite sure. It seems like you might be able to work with sociopaths, although it would be very hard. They give off this “salvageable” vibe to me. I doubt if you could do much work with psychopaths at all.

Having been arrested and thrown in jail twice and having spent a whole six hours in jail, I am quite familiar with psychopathy in LE officers, though they don’t all have it. For every crazy asshole violent sadistic cop, there’s one who’s a lot nicer and more toned down.

One thing I noticed was some prominent sadism in the police who arrested me. They really got off on throwing me into walls, etc. And they loved calling me a faggot. Really got off on that and wouldn’t shut up about it, although I’m not gay. After those experiences, I’m not much of a fan of cops, though I take them as individuals and some are really cool. A lot of others are huge assholes. I think police are best avoided in your life because any time you have police anywhere near your life, there’s probably something bad going on. The further they are from my life, the better.

I don’t care anything about cops or ex cops like detectives, especially if they just work homicide or robbery. I’m probably not real keen on narcs or narcotics officers. I’ve talked to a few of them and they were all self-righteous, sanctimonious dicks. They weren’t very nice either. To them, drugs were evil and they were doing God’s work.

Most detectives probably don’t give two shits about most crimes other than their specialty, especially the chickenshit stuff I got arrested on. Why should I hate a cop who just tries to catch murderers?

I did an interview for a possible attempted homicide with three homicide detectives, two from New Jersey and one from my city.

They were really nice to me but they weren’t going to let me fuck around. Also they didn’t care about other crimes. They asked me if I had committed other crimes. “Like stealing stuff.”

What can you say to that? Of course I’ve stolen a thing or two in my life, but I don’t make a habit of it. I said that and one smiled and said, “Oh, you stole things out of cars, for instance?” like this was the most innocent thing on Earth. If I said yes they were not going to hold it against me. I found that absolutely amazing. I asked about drugs and they said, “We don’t care about your drug history. We’re not interested in hearing about it.”

To tell the truth, they were very nice, warmhearted and congenial guys! I would not want to be in their custody though. I’m think they could turn on the bad cop pretty quick.

Delphi Murders September 30, 2021: In Which The Major Outlines of the Case, Including the Principal Suspects, How It Was Carried Out, and the Motive Are All Revealed

First, a pitch for supporting this website and our sleuthing group:

Our group is clearly the best Delphi sleuthing group on the Internet by far and has been since it was founded four years ago in 2017.

Unlike any other sleuthers, we have determined the main suspect in the case and have a good idea of what happened during the crime and what the crime scene looked like. Best of all, much of our information is via solid sources such as search party members, official case documents, and LE sources close to the investigation. No one else has come close to uncovering the amount and quality of information we have.

Why not join the 230+ members who have already signed up for the best Delphi sleuthing team of all? How about getting your money’s worth? There is a small fee of $20 to join, which includes lifetime membership.

Support the best Delphi sleuthing group of all!

First of all, all of this information under the Keys to the Crime and the Motive heading, except for some, came from the police. Info that did not come from the police in that section is italicized.

Second, warning: I will be discussing some truly horrendous and even disgusting things below, so if you can’t handle it, don’t read. I am very sorry for the horrible details I will lay out here, but remember the reaction of LE to this crime at the first press conference and how shaken up they were? This is why.

Third, it appears the facts of this case are so much more horrible than we ever thought.

Fourth, The term guardian below refers to either a mother, a grandmother, or a grandfather.

Fifth, Our source is a LE officer close to the case. We can’t tell you anymore about them because they can get in trouble for leaking to us.

Lately they have been careful in how they talk to us. They mostly talk in riddles. Some of us call the source “The Riddler” in reference to the Batman show. They also speak using a lot of cryptic statements. In addition, almost everything we get is not posed to us as a fact. Instead statements are posed as hypotheticals, theories, possible theories, and above all questions. The source throws a boxful of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle at us. Further, they aren’t very nice about it lately. I guess we are supposed to put the puzzle together.

We think we do a good job of that, but if you want to attack us on the basis that our info comes in cryptic statements and riddles we don’t put together the puzzles properly, you are free to do that.

Sixth, you will notice I use the “editorial we”. Well, I do have a Journalism degree, so I know what I am doing. Also, I wish to make these posts less egocentric. Most importantly, all of this information comes to me from members of my sleuthing group. So when I say, “we,” I am saying this is what the whole group thinks. So in a way, all of my posts are not being written by me but are instead being written by my group.

Seventh, We are not referring to either girl by name below, however, there seems to be some confusion about which girl was the focus of the crime. Therefore, we will refer to the 14 year old and the 13 year old. We know which we are talking about in every instance, but we are making the girls indistinguishable out of respect for them and due to endless attacks that our reporting is not sensitive to the girls, who, in all honesty, are dead anyway and could care less what anyone says about them.

****

We are going to try a different tack in this post. A lot of the information below will be stated in a similar way as it came to us from our source. That is, the facts below will be posed mostly as hypotheticals, theories, possible theories, and most of all, questions. Some things will be stated as fact. It’s up to you to put it all together.

We just figured out much more about this crime. We now know at least the motive and why certain things were done.

First of all, we are going to need to hide the names of some people.

*****

The Main Suspect and Other Players in the Delphi Murders Case

We are not going to list the names of any of the main player or others involved in this case at the moment, or possibly ever. If you join our private group though, you can learn all of this information. We are doing this to protect the suspect and possible suspects, who are factually all presently innocent of committing this crime, from harassment and harm.

Mr. X: The main suspect in the case. Delphi resident, age 49 at the time of the crime, otherwise unremarkable person. The police think he is the man who actually conducted the murders, and they also think he is the man on the bridge. We agree with the police on this. Listed as not a possible suspect but in fact as the main suspect in the crime. He is also now the main suspect in the Evansdale Murders.

J or now Mr. J: J was a 17 year old boy at the time of the crime. He is now a 21 year old man. He is closely associated with Mr. X. We are now stating for an absolute fact that J, or at least a photo of J, is the 19 year old Catfish Boy used to catfish a girl over four months on Snapchat. In addition, a young man seen by a female witness at the south side of the bridge at 12:30 PM in the day of the murders.

She chased him off her property. She said he had dark and evil eyes. The thing is that the composites of the Catfish Boy and the young man seen at the bridge above are almost perfect matches of each other. Therefore, we believe that it is possible that J was present at the bridge that day, although LE have not confirmed that to us. All they have confirmed to us is that he is absolutely the Catfish Boy. Police also believe that he helped set up the scary and bizarre crime scene. There is also “a question whether he was just the Catfish Boy or whether he played a larger role than that,” to quote our source. Close friends with Misters P, B, Q, and F. Listed as a “possible suspect” in the crime.

Mr. P: Mr. P was a 26 year old man at the time of the crime, now 30 years old. He is closely associated with one of the families. Police believe that he helped set up the bizarre crime scene, but are uncertain of his involvement beyond that. The crime scene was probably set up by these young men no more than 24 hours before the crime. He may have had foreknowledge of this crime by a couple of hours or so.

He was interrogated by police soon after the crime. He got out of jail seven months before the crime. He has a criminal record mostly for repeated drunk driving offenses. We believe he met criteria for Conduct Disorder as a youth and may have trended into Antisocial Personal Disorder as an adult. On the other hand, he is very charming, but most of these types are like that. Close friends with J and Misters B, Q, and F. Police say he is a “possible suspect” in this crime.

Mr. B: Mr. B is a former police officer in a nearby town and a good friend of J and Misters P, Q, and F. I believe he was in his mid-30’s at the time of the crime. Soon after the crime, he was abruptly fired from his job. LE then searched his apartment and turned it upside down in the process. We have no idea why he was fired or why the apartment was searched. We are uncertain of his role in the crime, except that he may have foreknowledge of the crime by a couple of hours. He may have helped set up the crime scene, but we have no evidence of that.

Mr. Q: Another young man, friends with J and Misters F, B, and P, who helped set up the bizarre crime scene. We call him Mr. Q because his identity is not known at this time. He is listed by police as a “possible suspect” in the crime.

Mr. F: A young man, 20 years old at the time of the crime, now 24 years old. Police believe that he impregnated the 14 year old girl and he was pressuring her to get an abortion. We are calling him Mr. F because he was the father of the fetus the 14 year old girl was carrying. His involvement is unknown beyond that, however he is good friends with J and Misters Q, B, and P. He is not a suspect in this crime.

****

The Keys to the Crime and the Motive

Note: All of the information below came to us from the police except for whatever is in italics. That came to us either from rumors, our own investigations, good sources other than the police, or simply our own hypotheses.

There are some keys to this crime:

Remember that post a man made to his friend about “I only nutted in her once” and “she was only 14?” That text message is the key to the whole case right there. That was supposedly from a rap song. Well, that has nothing to do with one of the men having sex with a 14 year old girl like everyone thinks.

What if those men were referring to a mutual friend of theirs, 20 years old, Mr. F, having sex with a 14 year old girl, one of the murdered girls? And perhaps not just having sex with her her but actually knocking her up? I have been reporting since very early on in the crime that one girl was pregnant. I received more abuse for this statement than for anything else I wrote about this crime.

However, I can now that as an absolute fact that one of the murdered girls, the 14 year old, was pregnant. She was in the early stages of pregnancy. In order to determine if either girl could have been pregnant, unfortunately we had to do an investigation into their personal lives. Our investigation revealed that both of those girls were sexually active in terms of PIV sex, so getting pregnant was definitely a possible thing. I suppose a better way of putting it would be to say that both girls had had PIV sex at least one time.

Both of those girls were growing up way, way too fast. They were both 13-14 going on 20. The 14 year old had a cousin, M., who was taking her to bonfire parties where there was a lot of drugs and drinking for a few years from 12-14. There were many grown men at those parties, including many who may have had no qualms about having sex with a 13-14 year old girl. And this girl may indeed have been using drugs from ages 12-14, although we are not certain about this. Her guardian, a grandmother, had recently forbidden her from hanging out with this cousin as a bad influence.

Remember that video “We have a secret?” released the night before the crime where both girls are holding up their fingers in the secret signal? The secret was that the 14 year old girl was pregnant, and she had told the 13 year old.

Screenshot posted by the girls the night before the murders. The text said, “We have a secret.” We believe that the secret was that the 14 year old girl was pregnant.

Let us assume that a 20 year old man, Mr. F, impregnated the 14 year old girl. What if perhaps Mr. F was pressuring the girl to abort the baby, and the girl was balking? Mr. F was looking at possible incarceration for banging a 14 year old girl and then 18 years of child support. Could it be that Mr. F told J and Misters P, Q, and B about his plight with the girl who would not abort? Is there a possibility that J and Misters Q and P got together and decided to terrorize this the girl into aborting the child? And perhaps an older man these young men knew, a 49 year old man named  Mr. X, got into the mix somehow.

The paragraph below is completely hypothetical. It is a hypothesis we are considering, but it has no direct evidence to back it up at the moment.

How about this for a hypothesis? Perhaps Mr. X also felt the girl should abort. Perhaps word got out that if this girl became obviously pregnant, and the 14 year old girl’s male guardian was threatening to either harm or kill Mr. F or lock him up. Could it be that this guardian, a very religious man by all accounts, is anti-abortion and opposed this abortion plan? Could that be the nature of the falling out with this male guardian and Mr. X?

Could it be that these three young men, J and Misters P and Q, set up that weird bizarro crime scene beforehand with the stuffed bear, the dolls, the sheet with the smiley face, the crucifix, on and on, to lure the 14 year old girl there to terrorize her and threaten her to have the abortion?

The five foot stuffed bear visible at the crime scene to the right and below one girl’s body. We think it is a Valentine’s bear because we think it has a message in its hand. The message says, “I love you” or something along those lines. Another cruel and wicked aspect of this crime. Is it possible that Mr. X escalated things way beyond what was intended all the way to the next level and two girls ended up getting killed? Is it possible that the 13 year old girl was not the intended target but was instead collateral damage, in the wrong place at the wrong time, or was killed to eliminate a witness?

Perhaps these young men were more involved than that. Perhaps J, Mr. P, and Mr. Q, the unknown third man were actually involved in the planning of this crime and instead of intending to terrorize the 14 year old girl, they actually intended to murder her. In that case, LE would be looking at a murder involving one older man and three young men, or four people. Mr. X is of course an actual suspect. Is it possible that LE could be looking into these three young men as suspects, but in this case a lesser quality of suspects, “possible suspects,” too?

******

The following information did not come to us from the police. It consists of unverified rumors, albeit very long-lasting ones. However, a female search party member has stated that one girl’s abdominal cavity was excavated.

Remember those rumors about one girl being gutted and partially disembowled with a gut knife?

A sheathed gut knife. Rumored to have been used to carve up one of the girl’s bodies. It is not known how they came to this conclusion. One rumor is that this knife was left at the scene. Another possibility is that they inferred that this type of knife was used due to the nature of the wound.

What if that were true and not just an idle rumor? What if a search party member reported that it was true that one of the girls was seen in this condition at the crime scene? And that the disembowelment was so complete that her entire abdomen (which includes the uterus) had been removed? Is it possible that this “operation” was done in order to remove the uterus of a pregnant girl? If you can imagine how horrendous a girl in that condition may have seen to those who discovered her, can you now start to understand why the police at that first press conference all looked so freaked out? Most of them looked like they had just seen a ghost.

An unsheathed gut knife. Police were going around to local hardware stores in the weeks after the crime asking if anyone had bought a gut knife. Also police openly stated that they were looking for “an unusual knife or cutting weapon” but would not elaborate beyond that.

A scalpel was also found at the scene. There is a crime scene photo of a scalpel at the scene which we are trying to get a hold of. If a girl was disembowled and had her abdominal contents removed, a scalpel would have proven handy in that operation in order to cut away tissue. One wonders how this killer could have had enough medical knowledge to conduct a Jack the Ripper like operation on a victim. Is it possible that the killer was a very avid deer hunter? And is it possible that in killing these deer, he had a lot of experience with gutting deer, which involves removing their abdominal contents. After all, a gut knife included in the five knives that BG has in that deer kit he is wearing around his waist.

Could it be that we are now all the way back around to our very first theory that we got torn to pieces over – a hillbilly abortion?

*****

Bottom line is a girl was pregnant is absolutely the key to this crime.

Police Have Opened an Investigation into Who Is Leaking to the Beyond Highbrow website!

We have learned that the police are investigating who in the police is leaking to us, which shows our facts are correct. If the source was giving us nonsense and lies, the police would not care at all. This is excellent because it shows that our account of this crime is correct at least in part.

It also shows that police read our website and are onto us and our sleuthing group. I always thought maybe they did, but I never knew they took us so seriously.

We now have a retired LE homicide detective who worked 75 cases working with our group. He has been incredibly helpful to us.

Top US Expert on Serial Murder Contacts Beyond Highbrow and Expresses Interest in Working on the Case!

Also, one of the nation’s top experts on serial killers has expressed interest in joining us in trying to solve this crime, as has a female homicide detective who ran an 80-person unit in France.

The serial killer expert lives near me. He called me a few weeks ago in the morning and we talked at length about the crime. He was extremely interested in the crime and wanted to get involved. He said he had worked a lot of homicide cases with police all over the country.

Body Found in Grand Teton National Park!

Update 4 PM PST: Police announced that the body they found is that of Gabbie Petito. How they figured that out so fast, I have no idea.

From the Instagram site of the missing young woman, Gabbie Petito. They were searching in the area of a campground where her van had been photographed on August 27 by a couple documenting their road trip on their vacation. Her hat is sitting on the dash and her sandals are on the ground. Why did she leave her hat? Who takes their sandals off and goes walking in the woods?

After August 27, Brian was seen three times, but he was always alone. Her boyfriend, Brian Laundrie, was seen in West Yellowstone in a bar at 10:30 PM soon after this. He must have abandoned the van in Grand Teton, possibly down near Jackson and then hitchhiked up to West Yellowstone. He then probably walked or hitchhiked with a tarp to sleep on down from West Yellowstone back through Grand Teton to Jackson where he abandoned her van. He was next seen on August 29 carrying a tarp and walking down a road in Grand Teton National Park. A couple gave him a ride. He seemed agitated and nervous and offered to pay them $200 for the ride. The problem is they were almost out of money when she was last seen. Where did he get all this money?

They let him out short of his destination. He was seen later that night at 10:30 PM in Jackson, Wyoming. He seemed agitated and angry and was angrily throwing items in a trash dumpster. Her van was right next to him.

He next drove all the way from Wyoming to Florida in only three days, showing up in Florida on September 1. He told no one where she was and did not report her missing. She was not reported missing until 10 days later by her family. He has retained a lawyer and is refusing to speak to anyone about what happened or where Gabbie is. He is now missing or more probably in hiding. He has not yet been arrested for this crime. Her van was seized by police and some items were taken from his home.

They documented almost their entire trip on the Internet with photos following them everywhere she went. Gabbie singled out four locations in Grand Teton on the Net, apparently places where she wanted to go hiking. One of those is the campground at which his van was photographed with her sandals on the ground. Police have been searching this campground. I assume the body was found in the campground because that is where they were searching. I am pretty certain that is the body of Gabbie Petito.

Brian Laundrie’s Instagram page is here. He’s an artist and he has a lot of his drawings up there. A lot of them have very dark, twisted, Satanic, murderous, or evil overtones. I’m not sure what all that dark artwork means. It often means a dark mind, but that in and of itself doesn’t prove much of anything about the person, only that they like to think of dark things.

He is continuing to work on his Instagram page so he is still active on social media. He’s deleting followers and blocking some people.

Repost: A Quick Overview of Some Types of Internet Scams

Same thing, reformatting and reposting some old posts. Hope you enjoy.

I don’t talk about it much on here, but I had a Yahoo group with over 1,200 members to fight scammers out of Nigeria and West Africa. We focused on the love scammers. These are people, often males or gangs of males, who use fake pictures of men or women, often stolen from porn or model sites, to engage in fake Internet romances with Westerners, the purpose of which is to get money out of them. In many cases, the scam can go on for years or until all of the money is drained.

Nigeria is Ground Zero for romance scamming, and Ghana is second. Many Ghanaian scammers are Nigerians. It’s also spread to Benin. These are the same scumbags who started off with the famous 419 scams and now are branching out.

They are now into romance scams, fake renter scams, fake buyer scams, fake auction buyer scams, and fake seller scams (especially beetles from the Cameroon).

The fake renter scam works something like the guy is going to rent your place but somehow needs money fronted to him. He never shows up for the room, and you lose the money.

Fake buyer scams involve the use of stolen credit cards to buy stuff in the West and have it shipped to West Africa. Merchants report that out of every 10,000 credit card requests from West Africa, not even one will be legit. The culture of lying, stealing, and general scumminess is so pervasive in West Africa that most credit card companies have banned the whole area from getting any cards. Fake buyer scams also involve overpayment schemes.

They write you a $10,000 check.

But the item is only worth $4,000.

The check is no good. You deposit it and send the $4,000 back to the guy Western Union.

3 weeks later the check goes bad and you lose $4,000.

Similar schemes involving expertly forged money orders, especially US postal money orders, are common. You cash the money order, keep 20% for yourself, and send the rest WU to West Africa.

In 3 weeks it goes bad, and now you owe $5,000 or whatever.

And the banks do want to get paid. Banks will often just cash any shitty check for you without even checking to see if it’s any good. They have actually fought legislation to require them to figure out if the check is any good before they cash it. This would be time-consuming and harm their capitalist bottom line.

Auction buyer scams are similar to overpayment scams. I believe that they also set up fake seller schemes. You send the money and the stuff never shows up.

The beetle scams were interesting. There are actually lots of guys who are so weird that they actually collect beetles. They pin them to boards and whatnot. I guess it’s more honorable than politics or pitching prime loans. Anyway, Cameroon has an incredible amount of beetles, including some of the hugest and rarest beetles on Earth. The West Africans quickly infiltrated the beetle lists on the Net and offered to sell these rare beetles. Lots of folks shelled out $100’s for them, and of course they never showed up.

The West Africans have now fanned out all over the world and operate out of many places, doing their scams. The Nigerians are notorious and hated all over Africa by their fellow Blacks for being a nation of liars, thieves, crooks, and all around scumbuckets. There are now expat Nigerian gangs in Libya, Egypt, Spain, Netherlands, the UK, Switzerland, etc.

Nigerians have swarmed in the Balearic Islands of Spain, where if you go into the cafes, it’s all Nigerians, and probably 90%+ of them are engaging in Internet crime. They are in the Gulf States, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, and now China. Everywhere they go, the Nigerians are head over heels in crime, usually confidence games and cons.

In Nigeria itself, in many of the cafes, many to all of the people in there are criminals sitting there all day and nite trying to rip off Westerners. One of our informants saw a famous local TV newscaster who had lost his job in the cafe trying to steal from Americans.

There is now a tremendous amount of romance scamming coming out of the Philippines. They scam in the open, use their real faces and real names, and shamelessly rip off every American guy they can find. These are usually young Filipinas promising love or marriage to American males. The law enforcement system in the Philippines is terminally broken, and LE does not even bother to arrest or prosecute the scammers. Philippines is starting to seem like as much of a failed state as an African nation.

There is also a lot of Internet crime coming out of Russia, including romance scamming. The romance scammers are the Russian Mafia operating out of Mari-El Republic. Dating sites are saturated with fake Russian chicks promising to marry you. They hire college students, male and female, to write letters to the Western male suckers and draw them in. Female coeds man the phones 24-7. When you call up your Russian lover girl, Natasha answers the phone and pretends to be whoever she needs to be. End of the scam is she needs airfare to come marry you. You fork it over and she never shows.

The Russians to their credit have busted some of the scammers. There have been several arrest roll-ups, and hundreds of crooks have been arrested, but the scamming goes on. With the return of capitalism, Russia has turned into one of the world’s most horrible epicenters of Organized Crime, Internet Crime, scams, and ripoffs.

There are also many scams, including romance, rental, and auction scams, coming out of Eastern Europe. The return of capitalism has also turned much of this area into crime-flooded pestholes, and Organized Crime practically runs the show in many places. Little is known about these criminals, but the auction scams are mostly run by “Romanians.” Investigation revealed that all or nearly all of these “Romanians” were actually Gypsies, possibly the most criminal ethnic group on the planet.

Repost: They Were Committing Crimes

Originally written 13 years ago.

Chip Smith of Nine Banded Books said he liked it, and it should be published in a book. He said it reminded him of Peter Sotos‘ work. Interview with Sotos by Chip Smith. Nine Banded Books is his book publishing outlet for sick fuck books. Chip Smith is a sick fuck too, by the way. I kind of liked that, being compared to Peter Sotos. Peter Sotos, in case you are wondering, is a homosexual. He’s also sick fuck, a sick fuck writer of sick fuck fiction. But he was the King of the Sick Fucks, and the King of the Sick Fuck Writers of Sick Fuck Books, and you know that has to count for something. I was in good company. I’m still proud to this day of being compared to that sick sonofabitch.

From Wikipedia:

In his books, Sotos examines sadistic sexual criminals and sexually violent pornography, particularly involving children. His writings are interpreted by some as commenting on media hypocrisy around these issues. His books are often first person narratives, taking on the point of view of the sexual predator in order to explore sadistic and pedophilic sexual impulses.

In addition to offering many details about the crimes of serial killers and Nazis, the text in the magazine praises them, describing them using such terms as “genius”, “glorious”, “exemplary”, and “illustrious”. The text is juxtaposed with pictures and newspaper clippings relevant to the crimes discussed, showing that the media also abuses the victims. A short manifesto introducing the first issue says the magazine “satiates and encourages true lusts.”

Good Lord, no way am I as sick as this guy!

Some of his sick fuck books:

Lazy (1999) examines the public fascination with sex crimes, and their influence on artworks such as the painting Myra by Marcus Harvey.

Selfish, Little (2004) recounts the murder of Lesley Ann Downey by British Moors Murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley in 1964.

Predicate (2005) explores the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in 1996 and the motives and life of its perpetrator Thomas Watt Hamilton. Other topics covered include Operation Ore, the Wonderland murders, Russian orphanages, Megan’s Law, and non-nude teen websites.

Comfort and Critique (2005) explores the hidden motives of reporters and citizens as shown by their reactions to sexual crimes.

Show Adult (2007) investigates the experience of pornography. The book also analyzes the TV shows Supernanny and To Catch a Predator as publicly acceptable forms of child pornography.

Lordotics (2008) deals with sex offenders and the art of photography.

Pure Filth (2012) details transcripts of the gonzo movies porn star Jamie Gillis produced during the 1990s. Gillis adds an introduction to each transcript. Sotos, who was a friend of Gillis, brings his own perspective to these records. The book was completed a few days before Gillis died in February 2010.

A sample of his prose from Mine, of his sick fuck books. I think I like it already.

I have to pin the words down, cut them out and place them as far as possible from the dunce economy. I’m not an exegete. But I take the words and ideas and stutters and stick them somewhere far more successful. You’ll understand this, finally, when I demean myself enough to tell you what I do with the words that these mouthy pigs just repeat often enough to tell you that they stand behind them. It’s not what I take, or who I take them away from. But where I put them. Not rewrite them.

Not change or charge the context. I identify them. I don’t, idiot, masturbate with them. I can’t imagine wanting to do anything without having these words fully included. I wouldn’t even consider doing anything without them. The cunts that make cartoons out of their ideas. Little collages and signatures and slack versions. Strippers and songwriters and female’d max factors. I live all over them. I write through them, use them, come away with little more than a dangling possible.

What I do is inescapable.

The main characters here are some guys I knew, or maybe I never knew, or maybe I made up, or maybe they’re really me – Thrillseekerman, an all around petty criminal and moral degenerate, Internetman, an Internet semi-criminal who straddles the line between legal and illegal, and Killerdude, a truly dangerous fellow with psychopathic tendencies whose bark is worse than his bite. Of course none of these people could possibly bear any possible resemblance to me, right? Of course not! This is just stuff a bunch of maniacs told me. I’m just a journalist, scribbling things down, good and bad, right and wrong, not caring to distinguish between any of them.

They Were Committing Crimes

There were committing crimes.

And no one ever caught.

Internetman

They Were Committing Internet Sex Crimes

A few months ago, or 10 years ago, or maybe today, or maybe I read it on the Net, Internetman met 15-year-old girls on the Net, and they sent him nude pics without him even asking, and said they wanted to have sex with him right now, but they were too far away. So what did he do with the pics? Delete them, call the cops and turn himself in, or keep them in an evil secret file to show it to his most evil friends? I bet they are gone now. Internetman is paranoid. Not only that, but he’s not stupid. Were they illegal? Was Internetman a criminal? He never got caught.

*****

Internetman went into a chatroom the other night, or was it five years ago, or was it just something some friend said? There was a teenage girl in there masturbating on cam, and everyone in the room was watching the fun. Well, she was 13, but she looked like a full-grown to him. The chat room was full, mostly kids but some adults too, both sexes, including middle-aged women. They were all watching the girl on cam and cheering her on.

Some kid in the room said, “I know her! She’s 13! She goes to my school!”

Internetman turned on the cam and it was ok. It was like you take the body of a full-grown woman and then stick a little girl’s face on it, then you make it act like a little girl sometimes. The effect was jarring. Was it illegal? He got away with it.

*****

It was seven years ago, or seven weeks ago, or seven months ago, or tomorrow, and 14-year-old girls came to talk to Internetman in the chatrooms and ask for cybersex. What’s a man to do? What did he do? I bet he didn’t get caught. It was a while back, or the other day, or some time ago, or 4-7 years ago, and Internetman did the cybersex thing with them, the 14-yr-olds, the 15-yr-olds, and the 16-yr-olds, and of course the droves of many more legal-aged women as well, and it was all in good fun.

One of them was just a friend, but she begged and begged for him to send her porn, so he broke down and sent porn to a 14-yr-old girl. Was that illegal? Now he’s paranoid, and he’ll never do it again. Or will he? Maybe he better not. Times change, you know. But then again, he never got caught.

*****

In a chatroom, five days ago, or last year, or five years back, or yesterday, or ten years from now, the 17-year-old girl saw he had a cam and asked him to turn it on. Internetman did so. She started whining for him to take his pants off so she could see his stuff, because she had never seen one before.

“But I’ve never seeeeen one before,” she whined into Internetman’s headphones, but he chickened out again. I bet he wouldn’t have gotten caught.

They Were Committing Statutory Rape

Internetman met a girl once on the Net a few weeks ago, or was it seven years ago, or was it in a dream? She was 17 years and seven months old, and wanted sex right now. She kept demanding and demanding, and she would not knock it off. She was a lesbian, but she wanted to try it with a guy to see what it felt like.

“Why with me?” Internetman asked.

“Because,” she said. “You are handsome.”

Internetman thought and thought and thought, and he almost did it because she wouldn’t quit pestering him, but finally he worried it was an evil plot by one of his enemies trying to get him arrested for statutory rape. Good thing he was paranoid, so he never took her up. He still wonders about it. “Would I have gotten caught?” he wonders.

They Were Collecting Child Porn

Internetman went into these really evil chatrooms, just on a wild dare, and people were all trying to do horrible and illegal stuff in there, men and women of all ages, normal folks, and weird, the whole human panoply. Internetman tried not to do anything illegal. Will he go there again? He doubts it.

The Internet is the most evil place Internetman knows, and Internetman knows a lot of evil places, and he’s been to most of them at one time or another. Somehow he always got out alive. Somehow he never got caught.

You can do just about anything on the Net, and who knows if it’s even legal or what? Where are the cops? What’s a cop? There are bulletin boards right now where people are asking for child porn and bragging about their antisocial acts, and Internetman knows where they are. He’s been to them, lurking, never talking, but he didn’t do anything illegal. There was nothing illegal on the boards. Just a lot of evil talk. A lot.

He just stayed and watched the perverts perving.

“Young!” the perverts said, “Anyone got any young?”

And you know what that means.

There were men and women in there of all ages, goodlooking young couples, middle aged housewife types, the most normal people in the whole world, all trading the most evil pornography of all. Why? What gives? Was it the thrill? Of the forbidden? Of the crime, the rush of the crime, a rush like no other? Of getting away with it?

Internetman went to chatrooms where sex perverts traded porn pics. Internetman, being a pervert, was right at home. Mostly it was fun, but some people sent Internetman really illegal pics without him even asking, and he freaked out and deleted them about as quick as they hit the screen. Was that illegal? Did Internetman commit a crime? Internetman trembled in his seat. Trembled with excitement. With terror. With the rush. The rush of getting away with it.

They Were Raping Women

Internetman went to this chatroom last year, or eight years ago, or yesterday, or just some lie he told the cops, and met this guy in Kentucky, a psychopath I guess, who wanted someone to rape his wife.

“I’m looking for someone to rape my wife.” he announced.

Well, that was about the weirdest thing Internetman had ever heard, so he was intrigued and stuck around for the ride.

The guy would be gone. You had to break in, tie her up, rape her, and get away with it. Well, actually you didn’t have to get away with it, but that would certainly be preferable! He said you could not hurt her in any way.He described the sex acts he wanted Internetman to engage in with his wife.

“Fuck all holes,” he said.

Internetman was worried. “What if she doesn’t like it?”

“Don’t worry,” the guy said. “She’ll love it.”

Getting away with it was Internetman’s business, he’d been doing it his whole life and he’d never been caught for any of the crimes he’d ever done, and here the guy said would not call the cops and report the rape.

“How do I get away with it?” Internetman asked.

“That’s your business. Your problem. You’re on you own there,” the guy said.

So Internetman sat there and wondered whether or not he could be a criminal rapist and try to get get away with it, under special circumstances of course in which at least the victim’s husband consented, but he chickened out at the end. But he used to think about it sometimes? Could he have done it? Would he have done it? What if he got caught? What if he got away with it?

Killerdude

They Were Killing People

Killerdude came over a while back, or 25 years ago, or the other day, and said he was considering taking an offer to kill some guy, from a woman who was offering big money to have her husband knocked off.

So they, Thrillseekerman and Killerdude, sat around for hours blasted out of their minds on dope and talked about whether or not you should murder someone for the money. They discussed Christianity, as in whether or not a Christian should kill, and whether or not the would-be murder victim deserved it since he was a wife-beater, and Thrillseekerman tried to spy on Killerdude for the cops, but it did not work.

Thrillseekerman didn’t like the idea of killing for money (even Thrillseekerman had some basic values, if only a measly few) and thought his friend was degenerating morally. Even though his name was Killerdude, Thrillseekerman had never taken it literally. He thought it was all for show, like most things men do.

What if Killerdude did it? Would it corrode his mortal soul? Could he ever look in a mirror again without smashing it? Would he make his peace with God and the Devil both? Could he keep it a secret? Would the guy have deserved it? Is there a universal morality, or nothing beyond the ether? And most importantly, would he have gotten caught?

They Were Serial Killers

They took lots of drugs, Thrillseekerman and Killerdude did, while they talked about all this insane and evil stuff. It was last month, or was it 15 years ago, or it was something he hallucinated while he was on acid. They sat around for hours at night stoned out of their minds on chemicals.

Killerdude exclaimed, “Yeah! I could play the role of the insane serial killer! I could play that role! I could play any role! I could play as many roles as you could, Thrillseekerman! And that’s a lot of roles.

They shook their heads and laughed demoniacally. It was fun to be evil sometimes. You can’t be a choir boy forever. Sometimes you need a bit of rough.

But Thrillseekerman didn’t really consider it, just fantasized about it. About what? Being a serial killer? How many people do that? Could he have done it? Could Killerdude have done it? Could they have gotten away with it?

Thrillseekerman

It was really weird back in those days, or the other day, or whenever it was, or maybe it never even happened, but not too many actual crimes happened. There was just a lot of talk. Cheap talk. Talk is cheap.

They Were Selling Drugs

Thrillseekerman sold dope for 14 years, and the cops never caught on. He finally quit, and now he’s scared to do it again, but the temptation is always there, because he so loved the outlaw dealer life where you never get caught and outsmart the law. He also loved being a dealer because he loved being a criminal. As a dealer, you can be a criminal without hurting anyone else, so if you have a shred of guilt left, and Thrillseekerman does, but only just a shred mind you, it’s a great Catholic profession.

They Were Robbing Stores and Driving Getaway Cars

One of his drug addict friends, Killerdude, came over the other day, or was it 22 years ago, or was it a lie his enemies made up? He asked Thrillseekerman to be the getaway driver for an armed robbery, and Thrillseekerman considered it, but thank God he didn’t do it.

A few months back, or 18 years ago, or just some lie he told, one of Thrillseekerman’s doper friends drove the getaway car for an armed robbery, and he told Thrillseekerman all about it. Then the armed robber himself came over to Thrillseekerman’s house with his girlfriend, and they sat around and took drugs. He seemed like a smiling psychopath, and those guys are always charming in a way. Later Thrillseekerman called the cops and told them the guy’s name, but there was not much they could do.

They Were Turning People In to the Cops

Last week, or 21 years ago, or while he was daydreaming, Thrillseekerman called the cops on his friends and tried to get them busted. Once for selling heroin because Thrillseekerman thought that was shitty. The other time because Thrillseekerman was mad at his friend who sold pot and wanted to burn the guy.

Dealers work with narcs all the time, and Thrillseekerman was a dealer like a lot of thrillseekers. Why? Mostly for revenge reasons. Most people don’t know that. Without dopers to work alongside them, every narc in America would be unemployed.

They Were Stealing Cars

Once, 11 years ago, or a few weeks back, or in a movie he saw once, Thrillseekerman stole Killerdude’s car, not to be a criminal or anything, but just because he was furious at him, but he brought it back when the cop’s son across the street was going to have him arrested.

They Were Vandalizing Businesses

One time, it was last month, or last year, or it was 20 years ago, or long ago in another world, and Thrillseekerman drove by a business at 5 AM with a slingshot and blew out a window in a business because he hated it and it was evil.

Committing street crimes like that, which were actually a revolutionary acts in favor of People’s Power and against the crooked businesses that rip off the People, is one of the biggest rushes that Thrillseekerman knows. You will shake like a leaf. You will shake so hard it will be hard to steer the car after you do it. You will be terrified and thrilled all at the same time, and when you get away with it, there will be no better feeling.

They Were Setting Off Bombs

Once, in another country, or on the run or the lam, or just for shits and giggles, or maybe just as an urban legend, they got loaded and made some bombs. It was a few months ago, or 13 years ago, or back in the 80’s, or I made up the whole thing. Thrillseekerman had these antisocial maniac friends, some of whom seemed like they might snap, but Thrillseekerman wasn’t worried, and they liked to make bombs, like all maniacs do. It’s so fun making illegal bombs! The psycho dudes showed Thrillseekerman how to make bombs, which is so easy it’s scary.

You take some Piccolo Pete fireworks, take them apart, and there’s gunpowder inside. You take a softball and hollow it out and fill it with the gunpowder from the Piccolo Petes. You patch the hole but leave a small hole for the string. That’s your fuse. You put a string down in and fasten it. It’s not really a bomb. It’s more like a giant firecracker, like an M-80. It’s not a shrapnel bomb.

Then they took the bombs and blew up this dude’s windshield (who deserved it) with a fused time bomb, and they slashed his tires (he deserved that too) and never got caught. Then later they went to his apartment complex and they got a bunch of guys and they all turned his car upside down so it was sitting on its roof and they never got caught for that either! He’d been ripping off the local dealers. The street has a thousand eyes and thousand ears. The street knows everything. Nothing gets away from the street. The thing about the street is the Paybacks. The paybacks are a bitch, you know? Believe it.

Then they took another bomb, this time sort of a firebomb that shoots up a flame, and threw it on some other guy’s lawn (who deserved it), and it burned a hole in the lawn. They got away with it.

Making little bombs is the easiest thing in whole world to do, and every revolutionary and maniac of any age might want to make them and set off them in the street at least, that is if you have the nerve, just to see what an explosion looks like and to piss off the boring neighbors.

They Were Waging Gang Warfare

Once, when they were young, or maybe when they were old, or maybe they just read it in a book somewhere, they called themselves a gang and sat on the front porch of Thrillseekerman’s house and shot BB pellets and rocks and dirt clods at the neighbors’ house (who deserved it) and dared them to call the cops. The people did call the cops, but the cops hardly cared because they thought Thrillseekerman was doing a civic duty by getting rid of the real criminal (the neighbor) he was attacking. In other words, Thrillseekerman was a public service vigilante ridding the neighborhood of scum as he saw fit. So they got away with it.

They Were Smashing in Doors with Baseball Bats

Once upon a time, today, or happily ever after, Thrillseekerman grabbed a baseball bat, laughed maniacally, and ran across the street in broad daylight as a joke so the whole world could see it and to dare the coward neighbors cowering in their sissy kitchens to call the cops. When he got to the scum’s door, he smashed it in with his baseball bat! Bam! The door caved in! Then he ran back home. He laughed because he thought he got away with it. The cops paid him a visit on the phone, told him to watch it, and told him to spend $10 to repair the door.

Moral: If you’re doing a public service crime, do it in broad daylight.

They Were Flashing Women

It was just the other day, or long, long ago, or it was just some made-up bullshit. Thrillseekerman sneaked into the ladies room to take a crap because the criminal, feral, 13 year old Black youths were in the men’s room threatening with their eyes to attack anyone who came in. He thought he could do it quick and dirty and simple without anyone seeing. He thought he could get away with it. He was wrong. A woman called the cops, and the detectives threatened to kick Thrillseekerman’s ass if he did not confess to a perverted crime he did not commit. He only wanted to confess to taking a crap in the wrong place and the wrong time, which was the only crime he did.

Well, he was also trying to see if he could get away with it, so there was a thrillseeker aspect. The detectives quickly figured out he was not a pervert, but they kept on torturing him anyway and trying to get him to confess. Don’t you just love detectives? How many people in the US just confess unless the cops beat the shit out of them?

They Were Molesting Children

He was 20 again, or was he 50, or was he 35 or was it some lie his enemies made up? He was jogging in the park, and Thrillseekerman met a 12 year old girl he had known from an old job for a long time, and they chatted a bit and smiled and laughed, and then she flat out asked Thrillseekerman to have sex with her and smiled when she said it, just like that. Not only that but she was beautiful, brilliant, wise, and athletic.

And Thrillseekerman considered becoming the ultimate criminal that you can be, a child molesting sick evil scumbag piece of dirt, but then he decided against it. There are Lolitas and teenage girls that want it, 12 and up, with adult men, 18-65. And if you do it and get caught, you are going down in the worst way. Is it worth it? Will you do it? Can you resist it? And most of all, will you get caught?

They Were Having Gang Shootouts

It was yesterday, or long ago in another world. A whole crowd of gangsters came in the door. There had just been a gang fight, and people were hurt. The gangsters were underage, some of them, but they used an 18 year old girl to get in the door because they knew Thrillseekerman’s fatal weaknesses.

Later there were shots fired 50 yards from his door, and the cops didn’t even want to take any witnesses. They never do in gang crimes, and besides, in Greater Tijuana, here in California, there are pro-gang Hispanic spies everywhere. Thrillseekerman’s White, and he claims Norteno, or does he? Or does the whole neighborhood? After all, he lives in a Norteno hood, so everyone more or less claims in a way. Thrillseekerman wears jogging shoes with N on them for a reason, or does he?

They Were Doing Drive-by Shootings

Three weeks ago, or nine months ago, or 12 years ago, or never, someone came by and flashed a United Farm Workers shirt – Do you get it? Nortenos! – at Thrillseekerman and asked him to go out with a shotgun and kill some Surenos.

“Hey Thrillseekerman, let’s go get a shotgun and shoot some Scraps!”

Thrillseekerman had to think about it for a bit because nothing would be so thrilling and dangerous, and Surenos probably deserved it anyway, being scumbags after all, but thank God he declined. In the barrio anyway, no snitching was the rule, so you might even get away with it, but you could still get caught. Thrillseekerman didn’t like to get caught. He liked to get away with it. After all, he’d been getting away with it his whole life. Which, after all, was the point of it all. All the crime. All the bad behavior. All the bad boy fun and games and shit. The getting away with it. The not getting caught.

They Were Committing Crimes

There were criminal opportunities all over the place for decades, right under your nose, people enticing you here and there to break the law and commit serious crimes, some of them felonies, if only one was psycho enough, and they seemed to dare you and egg you on. Will you do it? Can you resist it? Will you get away with it? Will you get caught?

Porn: What’s Legal? What Illegal?

Note: I don’t really hate cops, but I’m not wild about them either. Now if a cop is, say, a detective working robbery or homicide, why should I have a beef with him? He’s catching robbers and killers. Why would I have an issue with that?

I don’t even mind dope cops anymore (although I used to hate narcs) as long as they aren’t busting pot. I have no problems with cops busting people for selling meth, crack cocaine, fentanyl, or heroin. That’s stuff’s garbage.

Now we get down to your ordinary street cop. Let’s look at my city. About half of the cops in my city are huge assholes, the biggest dicks on Earth. It’s like they’re always trying to pick a fight. Don’t like them one bit. But the other half are often pretty nice, and sometimes, they’re extremely nice to me.

But fed cops busting guys for buying whores or fucking 17 year old girls or kids sexting each other or adults possessing written stories or pictures of clothed humans that the cops don’t like? Get out. They’re pigs, plain and simple. Pests.

And the worst cops of all are feds.  Now if feds are only going after murderers as some FBI do, I have no problem with them. Or financial criminals or fraudsters.

But you don’t even want to be a subject of one of their investigations. Federal sentencing guidelines are batshit insane, far in excess of a reasonable sentence. They’re ridiculous! And if the feds want to get you, they will get you. They will dump all of your possessions on the  floor and go over them with a fine toothcomb. They will examine your whole life with a magnifying glass. And they will probably find that you are breaking some law somewhere somehow.

I imagine most of us are violating some stupid-ass law on a fairly regular basis. I know I do. I don’t feel good about myself unless I’m breaking at least one law. I feel like a great big pussy. Call it Permanent Bad Boy Syndrome. God forbid I should arrive at a time in my life when I’m no longer at least one dumbass law. I would probably look around like crazy to try to find a new idiot law to break. Who wants to be a goody-good or an altar boy? Screw that.

So if you see the word pigs below, I’m referring to sex cops. Cops butt out of our sex lives!

Butthead, a commenter, linked to a Youtube video. I clicked on it but it was already taken down.

RL: What was on the video?

Butthead: Bare schoolgirl boobage. She was brushing her hair in the bathroom and her towel “accidentally” slipped for a second.

Well, that’s legal. It’s not CP. Tits are legal on anyone of any age.

Nudity Is Not Necessarily Child Porn

So is nudity, honestly, but that does get a bit trickier. There are sites all over the Net of teenage girls, probably underage but who knows, taking nude selfies of themselves in front of mirrors. A lot of them are in Russia. They’re actually a bit hard to find but if you know what you are looking for, you can find them. I’ve seen them before but I don’t have a teenage girl fetish, so it’s not big deal to me, and I haven’t been back. Been there, done that. As long as they are just standing in front of a mirror or on the beach with their clothes off, it’s not child porn, because child porn is a lot worse than nudity.

There was a site where a lot of teenagers were camming all the time, teenage girls and boys both. Fairly regularly, one of the girls would take off some or all of her clothes. You could see over to the side the people camming and how many were watching. One cammer would suddenly go from five to 50 to 100 viewers, and if you went to look at the cam, sure enough, there’s some teenage girl with her top off.

I did watch one video like that. Two teenage girls aged 17 with their tops off. Problem was every time they opened up their mouths, they sounded like 10 year olds. All this retarded high school gossip. Total turnoff. I went once and never went back. Like I said, it’s not my fetish.

I’ve seen enough naked teenage girls in the flesh back in the day for 10 or 20 lifetimes. There’s nothing special. It just looks like the body of a woman, same thing.

I will never understand why everyone is so freaked out about the Goddamned naked body of a human being, whether it’s a teenager or a child, no matter. A naked human being isn’t necessarily sexual. It’s simply the way we were all born. This idea that some photos of naked human beings are some sort of evil pornography is completely insane. And not to mention, it’s wildly puritanical and prudish. It’s downright sex-hating and anti-sexual.

“Lascivious Display of the Genitalia”

As long as there is no “lascivious display of the genitalia,” everything’s fine. Child porn must involve “lascivious display of the genitalia.” There’s a lot of uncertainty about what that means, but usually it means she has her legs spread or she’s masturbating. Or it could simply be a photo or a video where the focus on the photographic material via zoom lens or whatever is the genitalia. That would be considered lascivious display. For a girl, it would be a focus on the vaginal area. For a boy it would be a focus on his penis, particularly if it is erect. It all depends on the focus of the photographic material.

“If She Has Clothes on, It’s Legal,” until It’s Not!

If she has clothes on, it was traditionally legal. The FBI was quoted as saying, “If she clothes on, it’s not child porn.” This seems reasonable to me. How on Earth could a photo of any human with their Goddamned clothes on be considered the most evil type of pornography? That’s wildly priggish and Victorian right there?

You see, any possible photographic material is legal (not child porn) until one day the fed pigs decide the change the rules and say it’s illegal! And they’re always changing the rules. It’s madness and you would think it’s out and out unconstitutional because you never know when you are breaking the law. A photo that is legal one day when the fed pigs are in a good mood all of a sudden becomes illegal the next day when the pigs automagically declare it to be illegal!

Erotic Stories

For instance, pedophilic stories have always been legal. They’re all over the Internet. I’ve read them for a few weeks decades ago before I decided this was one perversion I’d rather not explore, and I haven’t read one since. On the other hand, I don’t really read written erotica on the Net anymore.That was more of a phase I went through in my 40’s.

There was a large site called Mr. D.’s which dealt in pornographic stories. I’ve been on the site and there was a Hell of a lot of pedophilic material on there.

What was odd was that many of the authors were women! Grown women, often in their 30’s or 40’s, with a husband and kids! A lot of them had photographs and biographies on their author profile. I have no idea why those women were writing that stuff except that perhaps more people are interested in that kink than we think. Indeed, 18% of men and 7% of women report pedophilic sex fantasies, and many of them have masturbated to them. The vast majority of these people are not pedophiles.

Anyway, Mr. D.’s  had been sitting up there forever with all that pedophilic erotica and nobody did a thing about it. In fact, the top OCD experts on  the world out of Phillipson’s office back east were assigning those stories as homework for people who had OCD with the pedophile theme, which is an extremely common theme by the way. I know because I spoke to one of their clients.

Well, the other day, the fed pigs decided to change the law again! All of a sudden, written pedophilic erotica was illegal! Mr. D. was arrested in Florida, and his site was shut down. They were looking at throwing the book at him too.

So the fed pigs decided to change the law on the fly.

The Sad Saga of the Black Cat Scans

For instance, as I noted above, the rule always was, “If they have clothes on, it’s legal.” The men who ran Black Cat Scans and their photographer read the law and felt that they were within the law with their hebephilic photos of fully clothed young girls posing in some very erotic photos. All of a sudden out of the blue, the fed pigs decided that if they have clothes on, it could be illegal sometimes!

They arrested the two guys who ran the site, both Jews by the way, and they also arrested the photographer, who seemed like a really good man. They threw the book at all of them. None of these men were pedophilic or hebephilic. The Jews were just out to make a buck like they always are, and the photographer just liked to take pictures.

The arrest and sentencing of the photographer was particularly controversial. Most of the girl models were out of Russia, and they had all been brought in by their mothers. They were all adults by the time of the arrests, and they were all unrepentant about their modeling. There were 20-30 Youtube videos of former models and their mothers protesting  the  arrest of the photographer, saying that the girls were not harmed, that they did not regret what they did, and that the photographer was completely professional. It is important to note that none of the girls were molested in any way, shape or form. I believe the mothers were even present during the shooting.

Just to show you how absurd the law is, Black Cat scans had been visited by 25 million (!) men, and I assume a lot of them downloaded the pics. In order to enforce the law, the fed pigs would need to arrest and throw the book at 25 million guys! Good luck with that.

There are still some Black Cat scans floating around. What anyone sees in those photos is beyond me. I’ve seen them but I don’t like them because they seem creeptastic.

Art Photography

There are art photographers like David Hamilton who took many art photos of young teenage girls. You can find those all over the Net. They’re perfectly legal.

Nudist Photos

There are nudist photos all over the Net with humans of all ages, including plenty of teenagers and kids, strolling or sitting around naked in woods, beaches, and whatnot. It’s all perfectly legal. They don’t seem to be very popular so I imagine there isn’t much of a market for nudist pics.

Nude Beaches

It’s also perfectly legal for minors, including kids, to be stark naked at nude beaches, at least in the UK. Teenagers and kids get to walk around naked and look at naked adults and the adults are allowed to look at the kids. Anyone can look at anyone all they want.

I knew a 29 year old woman recently who often took her two daughters, ages 9 and 13, to nude beaches. She was always bugging me to go with them, but I never did. She also often made perverted comments about her girls, which seemed weird to me. She actually asked me to move in with her the second or third time I talked to her, but she was pretty far away, plus she was kind of fat. But she was cute.

Medical Text Photos

Medical texts often have nudity, including closeups of genitalia. All legal.

The Problem of Having an Internet Flooded with Photos of Nude Minors

Be that as it may, a lot of hosts want nothing to do with any photos of naked underage teen girls or kids, so sites with this material, even nudist sites, are few and far between.

I’d like to keep it like this.

Could you see if people started posting this stuff all over the Net and all these porn sites sprang up with nude underage teenagers and worse, kids?

That might flood the whole Internet porn industry pretty quickly. I don’t know what do do about that, as it would make me uncomfortable to see all this sites out there with naked underage teenagers and kids. Also, it would cause a tsunami of outrage, and there would be all these calls to ban the stuff.

Sexting

By the way, a lot of that sexting those teenagers are outrageously getting arrested for is probably legal. It the girls and boys are simply sending each other nudes with no lascivious display of the genitalia, it should be perfectly legal. So it’s not illegal for teenagers to send nudes to each other or at least it shouldn’t be, but who knows how the pigs enforce the crazy laws in their area.

The problem here is that most of them are probably not sending legal photos. Have you ever gotten nudes from a woman on the Net? Hell, they send them out before the first date these days! More women than I can count have sent me nudes over the Net. They were mostly 18-23. I have a whole huge folder of them. Unfortunately, you almost never get to meet them. They just send nudes and maybe talk dirty and then take off.

Well, if you have ever gotten nudes from a woman, first of all, there is typically a focus on the breasts and there is absolutely a focus on the genitalia. Often it is simply a photo of her breasts alone or her genitals alone, usually a huge closeup of the latter. Yep, women focus that camera right on those parts of their body. Women are such perverts!

And men, well, what are the complaints that women make about men when men send nudes? Men don’t send nudes. They send dick pics! So many selfies that men send women tend to focus on the male genitalia or it’s simply a photo of their penis.

So probably most of teen sexting involves sending each other pics with lascivious display of the genitalia, and yes, that would be CP.

But we have to think about this in some other way. It’s insane to bust teenagers for sending nudes to each other. It’s madness. But what can we do about it? I say we let them do send the real thing to each other – lascivious display of genitalia, photos of them having sex, whatever, but they can’t put it up on the Internet.

The Ever-Mutating Rationale for Making the “Child Porn Du Jour” Illegal

The rationale for making child porn illegal – that the child is harmed merely by having their photos floating around for everyone to see – doesn’t seem to apply here. These teens sexting each other – are they being harmed by sending those dirty pics to each other. Generally speaking, no! Ok, so what’s the new rationale for making this stuff illegal. The pigs have to go back to the drawing board and say the old rationale for illegal CP doesn’t apply here and somehow some new rationale applies. But what exactly would the new rationale be?

You see what they are doing?

First they make a reasonable case for making child pornography illegal. It is a document of a very serious crime of child molesting in most cases. But that alone does not seem a good argument because there are videos out there of criminals murdering their victims live on video. Perfectly legal. So photographic depictions of crimes is apparently completely legal.

The other better argument is that the kid did not consent to being molested, and the kid is being harmed merely by having pornographic photos of them floating around. I actually agree with this, though the rationale du jour “the child is harmed every time someone downloads one of their photos” seems ridiculous in a philosophical sense. How exactly does that work. So a girl’s photo gets downloaded 1,000 times. Does she  suffer 1,000X harm? What if it was downloaded once? Does she suffer 1X harm? How in God’s name does the victim know how many times their photo gets downloaded? Does the crime go out in some metaphysical space and zap over to the kid’s head and ring up another download in their brain, harming them ever so slightly more with each download? Of course not. But that is what this asinine article implies.

In the case above, did the girl whose photo was downloaded 1,000 times really suffer 1,000 times the harm of the girl whose photo was downloaded once? That seems bizarre. What if the girl doesn’t even know her stuff is out there on the Net. Theoretically, she suffers absolutely zero harm unless and until she discovers that her photo is out there. What she doesn’t know can’t hurt her, right?

Riffing off the argument above that the child is harmed every time their photo is downloaded, is the girl really harmed ever so slightly more with each subsequent download? Why would she? She has no idea how often the pic’s being saved.

This argument sounds convincing at first until you realize it’s garbage. But for kids who know their photos are out there or for adults who know pics of themselves are out there, I agree that they are being harmed, assuming they don’t want them to be there. But what if they are perfectly happy to have their child porn on the Net? Are they still being harmed with each and every new download? Of course not.

This argument is full of holes, but it does work in a number of cases.

I would make another much better argument that society is harmed by this stuff too. Even if it’s on the Dark Net where hardly anyone but the worst pedophiles is looking at it, I still think society is being harmed. Even if someone has the photos taken by themselves on their computer and has never shown them to anyone else? Yes, I would argue that society is still being harmed. We simply cannot allow photographic documentation of children being molested, willingly or not, floating around in society. I do not wish to live in a society where this garbage is legal. It’s disgusting and outrageous that it even exists at all. Kids shouldn’t be molested and we should not take photos of kids getting molested. Because we don’t wish to live in a society where we allow this sort of perverse and revolting garbage occur or exist.

The Anti-CP Argument Mutates Again

But notice how that definition alone isn’t good enough? What about in the case of the Black Cat Scans? The girls were not harmed and in fact they are quite happy to have these erotic pics of themselves floating around. So the argument that the girls are harmed is garbage. Are the Black Cat scans photos of a crime? I certainly hope not. I certainly hope it’s not illegal to take photographs of clothed pubescents in dirty poses.

So on what grounds is it illegal? Who knows? Notice how they have to keep going back to the drawing board and inventing new and weirder and weirder reasons for extending the crime beyond what was intended? Perhaps it is harmful to society to let this stuff float around willy-nilly. That’s a tough argument because even I find that stuff repulsive, but I don’t think stuff really harms society. But I don’t want the Net flooded with it either. If it only exists in a very secretive niche websites, I don’t have a problem with it.

And the Argument Mutates Again!

Pigs wouldn’t be pigs if they only had one mutating argument for making something questionable illegal. The reason they’re pigs is because the arguments for the illegality of this or that keep changing, seemingly with the wind. With each new unannounced expansion of the law, new justifications for the material’s illegal must be invented. The fact that people have to wrack their minds to come up with some argument, any argument, for making something illegal implies to me that it probably shouldn’t be illegal. Crimes ought to be justifiable on their face. It’s illegal to take another’s life without cause. It’s illegal to break into other’s homes. It’s illegal to see dangerous drugs that cause death and destruction. It’s illegal to drive drunk and possibly lethally endanger other people’s lives and limbs. It’s illegal to steal other people’s stuff.

With each of those crimes, did we have to wrack our brains forever to come up with some BS reason for the law to exist? Of course not. In general, all of those things are illegal because the person or possessions of another is harmed to taken from them. In other cases, innocent people are being subjected to unreasonable harm to life and limb due to the irresponsibility of others. Sensible laws are about hurting, harming, or killing other persons, relieving them of their possessions, or unreasonably threatening their lives and bodily health.

So we see that the child porn argument mutates yet again!

What about in the case of Mr. D.’s erotica? This is even crazier. The Black Cat scans at least dealt with real humans. With written erotica we are not even dealing with that. We are dealing with people who literally don’t even exist. The fictional characters apparently being harmed in these stories aren’t real! So how could they be harmed? There’s just a bunch of words. No humans, no photos, just words. Any girls get harmed? Nope, there were no girls to harm! A written depiction of a crime with fake fictional characters? I assume you can write stories about committing disgusting crimes all you want to. It’s a pretty weird thing to do, and I worry about people who do that, but it would seem to legal under freedom of speech.

Is society harmed by allowing pedophilic written erotica to exist? I doubt it. Who even knows that those stories even exist on the Net? 1% of the population? Who reads them? Less than that. I would argue that society is not harmed by a bunch of silly words that no one reads.

Delphi Murders Update August 25, 2021

First, a pitch for supporting this website and our sleuthing group:

People are donating lots of money to Delphi podcasters like Mike Greeno and Gray Hughes. Gray makes over $100,000/year from his podcasts. 

What shocks me is how little these men give their audiences in return for their purchases. Gray’s videos run to 3-4 hours and may contain five minutes of useful material. Greeno’s videos are almost completely worthless, and we believe he doesn’t know more about this case than anyone else.

Our group is clearly the best Delphi sleuthing group on the Internet by far and has been since it was founded four years ago in 2017.

Unlike any other sleuthers, we have determined the main suspect in the case and have a good idea of what happened during the crime and what the crime scene looked like. Best of all, much of our information is via solid sources such as search party members, official case documents, and detectives in other areas of LE who have some knowledge of the case. No one else has come close to uncovering the amount and quality of information we have.

Why not join the 230+ members who have already signed up for the best Delphi sleuthing team of all? How about getting your money’s worth? There is a small fee of $20 to join, which includes lifetime membership.

Support the best Delphi sleuthing group of all!

This post once again will be limited to answering the endless false charges that are leveled at me. Since they’re all untrue, it is necessary to respond to them to set the record right.

I have a question. My enemies say I’m the worst person on Earth. Fine, maybe I am, maybe I’m not, who knows? But if I really am this diabolical monster that everyone says I am, why is it necessary to make up endless lies about me? If someone is evil, you just look at the facts of their lives, and their wickedness is right there in plain view. If all you have is made-up stuff about someone, I assume they’re not that bad.

Below, I am starting a new procedure where I don’t refer to the girls by name unless I have to. It will simply be “one girl was,” “there is a rumor that one girl was,” “a rumor says X was done to one girl,” etc. You can make your own minds which girl we might be talking about. We are doing this in order to be more sensitive to the memories of these girls and to their loved ones and people who care about them.

1. Modr2u on the LibbyandAbby subreddit has made a number of statements about the nature of my team.

Response: Over 230 people have paid to become members of our team over four years. The site was shut down by WordPress for violating their terms of service (the post was about feminists, not about Delphi or anything else). I was accused of inciting violence. I didn’t realize this violated the TOS, otherwise I wouldn’t have done it. I was not thrown off for “making up lies” or “lying about Delphi,” and anyway, WordPress wouldn’t care if I did. A lot of these people have dropped off or went away.

When the site went back up on my own server with a free speech host (it’s up for good now), I went back and emailed a lot of the old members and invited them back. A number came back but many others didn’t. There are not currently 230 members actively reading on the site. I have no idea how many members are currently active. Perhaps 30-50? No idea.

The site went to pay due to necessity. It was free for a while but we kept getting invaded by trolls, pests, haters, and worse, and everything we said got copied and broadcast all over the Internet. My users wanted privacy so we went to pay to keep the pests out.

Originally we went to $10.

But some trolls and enemies actually paid to join anyway, and they were a real problem.

Group members got very upset and demanded that the fee go to $20.

The request was made in order to protect their privacy.

We went to $20.

We haven’t had any problems with trolls or pests since. So say what you want about profiting, but the $20 entrance fee was demanded by my members. I hardly make any money off this anyway, so I don’t understand why anybody cares.

There is an accusation that we have a team of “super-sleuths” consisting of FBI acquaintances and former FBI, active duty LE, and professional private investigators. None of us have any FBI acquaintances, there are no former FBI agents on our team, and no one from the FBI has ever talked to us. We have never had any active duty LE or professional investigators as members. Yes, we have reported from “people close to the case” but that always comes from others, not us because we wouldn’t say it that way. Also we always report anything from “people close to the case” as unverified.

Instead of being made up of any of these people, we are nothing but citizen sleuths – amateurs – with the idea that there is power in numbers, as in “the wisdom of crowds.”

Almost all of us have no particular expertise in this sort of thing. At one point we had someone who worked in the prison system. We have a physician and a therapist. And right now, we have a retired homicide detective who worked 1,000 cases in his life. Of course, none of these people are paid. We do go on field expeditions, interview people, take photos, etc. We have gone on a few field expeditions to Delphi so far. Most of our best investigators are women, but I’m not sure what that means.

So far, a grand total of four members of the criminal justice system, including sheriff’s deputies and detectives, have talked to us. That’s all. Four LE officials in four years.

We have received testimony from two female search party members about the crime scene. They lined up very well although they had never spoken to each other and what they described lined up very well with crime scene photos. One of these women spoke to us through three different sources. All three reports from each source lined up very well, so her story stayed consistent.

We also have some official case documents. One of them is a search warrant for the Maxwell property. We’re not saying how we got a hold of it.

2. Modr2u said our Evansdale information has been made up out of whole cloth.

Response: All of the information below came to us from a law enforcement source close to the investigation (from now on referred to as LE Source A). These guys talk to each other.

Mr. X, who is LE’s main suspect in the Delphi Murders, is also suspected of killing the Evansdale girls in 2012. His roommate turned Mr. X in to police as a possible suspect in the Delphi Murders. He said that the voice was close, the clothing “looked familiar,” and the walk was “perfect.”

He also said he suspected Mr. X of committing the Evansdale murders because he and Mr. X had been living in that area in 2011-2012 when they were transferred over there as part of a job, possibly a packing plant job. He said Mr. X was living there at the time the girls went missing.

Mr. X had a white panel truck at that time. A truck of that description had been seen cruising the streets of Evansdale for a few weeks before the girls disappeared. The suspect vehicle in the case was a white truck or a white van; however, it was only seen from the rear. If you view Mr. X’s panel truck from the rear, it resembles the suspect vehicle very closely.

Source for all the above information: LE Source A.

3. According Xanaxarita on the LibbyandAbby subreddit, I said a girl had a stake shoved into her body and was pregnant.

Response:

Pregnancy: There is a rumor that one girl was in the early stages of pregnancy, but we do not know which girl that is. This has been verified for us by JM who sourced it to a sheriff’s deputy in a nearby county. This rumor goes into the Verified category, with the proviso that the deputy may have been given false information.

One problem with the pregnancy theory is that we heard it a lot in the early days and then again a couple of years later via police from JM, but we haven’t heard much in a couple of years, though I heard it the other day from an excellent local Delphi sleuth. If a girl was truly pregnant, shouldn’t we still be hearing about it? This is what makes us a bit uncertain about this rumor even though it was verified to us by police.

Stake in a victim: There was an early rumor of a stake driven into one of the victims from above. We are not telling you which girl was referred to. The first report came from a local who somehow got a hold of “crime scene photos” and posted them to the Net for a few hours. He reported that the crime appeared to have Satanic or occult overtones and that the girls were posed.

He also said a stake had been rammed into a girl from above. I believe that others saw these photos that he posted. A couple of years later, we heard via JM, an excellent local sleuth, that a stake had been driven into one girl from above, just below her solar plexus.

The problem is we have heard nothing of this rumor since. We also have testimony from two search party members, and neither one mentioned a stake driven into a girl from above. Don’t you think they would have mentioned it? Had it already been removed from the girl’s body?

Would they remove it or would they leave it in for a while to preserve crime scene evidence? I’m sure they would have removed it when they went to remove the girl to the hearse. Hence this rumor has gone into the Unconfirmed, Dubious category.

4. Modr2u reported that I wrote on a Delphi post that “all women love me.”

Response: At my age, if only that were true! Actually, it’s never been true even in my salad days of youth. I said that most of the people I work with on this case are women, usually middle aged women. I get along very well with women and actually prefer their company to men. I know how to talk to and act around them, so this is an easy thing for me to do. You’re free to make whatever you want of that information. This is simply the way I run my life, and if it’s upsetting to you, too bad.

5. I said R U UP was written on the ground at the crime scene somehow, perhaps with branches.

Response: I never said that. A theoretical physicist (from now on the Physicist) did a video in which he revealed crime scene photos (which were indeed that), and he said those words were spelled out with sticks about the crime scene. I see what he could be referring to, but I’m not sure that anyone arranged sticks in that way. My opinion is he’s seeing things that aren’t there, so this rumor doesn’t come from me.

6. I said that dolls, a large plush bear, a sheet with a smiley face on it, an upside down cross, and a bottle of bleach were found at the scene.

Response: This is correct, but we have good sources for all of that.

A bottle of bleach:

  • You can see a bottle of toilet bowl cleaner in BG’s left jeans pocket in the bridge video.
  • Two different female search party members told us an empty bottle of bleach was at the scene.
  • The physicist said he saw a bottle of bleach in the crime scene photos on his video, but I can’t see what he’s talking about.
  • LE Source A told us that an empty bottle of toilet bowl cleaner was found at the crime scene and this liquid had been sprayed all over the crime scene.

Sources: Four: BG photo on the bridge, two search party ladies, and an LE official, all match.

A large plush bear:

  • The physicist successfully isolated what looks to me like a large Valentine’s Day plush bear at the scene of the crime. I agree that that is exactly what it looks like. There are arguments that we are seeing things, but I doubt it.
  • One of the search party ladies, the first one to come to us (from now on SP Lady A) reported, “There was a large object at the scene, possibly a toy, that was so large that he could not possibly have had it with him on the bridge that day.”  We believe that statement is compatible with the photograph of the huge plush bear.

Sources: Two: SP Lady A and the Physicist’s video partially match.

Dolls:

  • Both search party women told us that there were dolls scattered all over the crime scene and there were also dolls hanging from trees.
  • LE Source A said there were many dolls scattered around the crime scene. “There were so many dolls it looked like someone had gone to the Goodwill and bought a bunch of dolls,” he told us.
  • A high ranking member of the investigation team said, “There was at least one doll at the crime scene.” He mentioned this to his friend at a party, and the friend talked to us.

Sources: Four: two LE officials, including a member of the investigative team, and both search party ladies, none of whom had met each other, all match.

A sheet with a smiley face on it:

  • SP Lady A reported that this was present. She told this to three separate sources.
  • The Physicist reported a sheet with a smiley face on it at the crime scene in his video, but I can’t make it out.

Source: One: SP Lady A.

An upside down cross:

  • SP Lady A told us there was an upside down cross at the crime scene. We don’t know what this means. How did she know it was upside down? Was it planted in the ground?

Source: One: SP Lady A.

A knife:

  • SP Lady A told us that one girl’s hand was wrapped around a knife, and the knife had been shoved either into her right shoulder or into the log next to her.
  • On the Physicist‘s video, one can clearly see a large knife stuck into either a girl’s right shoulder or the log next to her.

Sources: Two: the Physicist’s video and SP Lady A match.

R U UP? written in branches at the scene.

  • This is alleged by the Physicist in his video; however, I’m not sure that is real or if he is just seeing things.

Sources: None, unverified rumor with no supporting evidence.

7. Via Reddit, a criticism by Agent 847. I will give him credit at least for being a fair critic. He says that the Physicist‘s video is simply wrong. The objects are pareidolia and so-called girls’ bodies could not be the real bodies because they would have to be 20 feet tall. He also says that the “bodies” in the video are in the wrong place and should be 30-40 south of where they are located in the video.

A point on Robert Lindsay and his theoretical physicist’s photos:

I was very curious when I first saw those images, because they look like the real McCoy. But there’s no way to tell because it’s zoomed and cropped and altered from a larger pic or screen shot of unknown provenance. So I did some digging and found the physicist and watched them show their work.

Initially I found it compelling: it’s from the WRTV footage. It’s in roughly the right place. The bodies look consistent with some of the rumors about how they were found, etc. But he also sees a giant teddy bear, a t-shirt or tank top, and a bottle of bleach. A couple things bothered me:

One is the giant teddy bear. No. This is absurdly implausible, and causes all kinds of other things about the crime to not make sense. I see the same image he does, but I see something different that makes a whole lot more sense than a giant stuffed bear. Another thing that bothers me is the distance.

Several sources place the bodies roughly 50’-60’ from the water, in the center of the area marked by tape, among a dense group of trees. The position of the Lindsay/Physicist photo is deeper in the woods, closer to 90 or 100’ from the north bank.

But there’s a bigger problem: I was able to isolate the same image: but in context of the whole photo, they’re too big. My measurements aren’t exact, but the girls would need to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-18 feet tall to be what you’re seeing.

It’s a pareidolia. It’s just one that is eerie and uncanny as fuck because it’s in just about the right spot. But it’s not them.

The location of the bodies, which you can’t see in the helicopter footage (possibly because they’d been removed, are covered, or the level of detail just isn’t there) is @ 30-40’ to the South of the location Lindsay’s source uses, which happens to be exactly in the spot that all other sources acknowledge. In short: they’re too big and in the wrong spot.

Response: I don’t have the ability to take apart his critique about the “girls” being 17 feet tall in the video (hence it’s not them) or that the crime scene in the video is 40 feet north of the actual one. I’m not sure if the Physicist can answer that either. However, there are three reasons that I think his video is accurate. The Physicist reported, among other things:

  • Both girls were posed with their legs spread.
  • There was a large plush bear next to one of the girls, up to five feet tall.
  • To one of the girls’ right, there was a knife plunged into either a girl’s right shoulder or the log next to her.

No one had reported any of these things before.

Sometime later, we got a report from SP Lady A who described many things at the crime scene. This was followed up by a report from a second search party lady (hence SP Lady B) that matched the first lady’s report well. They reported, among other things:

  1. Both girls were posed with legs spread (Source: SP Ladies A and B).
  2. “There was a large object, possibly a toy, present that was so large that he could not possibly have had it with him on the bridge.” (Source: SP Lady A).
  3. One girl’s hand was wrapped around a knife, which was plunged into either a girl’s shoulder or the log next to her. (Source: SP Lady A).

As you can see, items 1 and 3 line up perfectly with the physicist’s video, and item 2 is a partial and possible match.

The thing is that neither SP Lady was aware of the Physicist‘s video, and the search party ladies had never met each other, so the physicist and the search party ladies all reported the same things independently. For this to have occurred by chance, the ladies and the physicist would have all had to make up the same lies or they would have all had to hallucinate the same things.

I do not believe that occurred. Because the SP Ladies’ testimony so perfectly matches what the Physicist described in his videos, we regard his videos as accurate. I don’t think quibbles about sizes of objects of locations of purported crime scenes are relevant in that case because the video has now been proven to be correct.

8. I am really two men named Ryan van Slooten and Cory Ahlm from Minnesota who met 10 years ago in college who together made up a fake person named Robert Lindsay who lives in California.

Response: No comment.

Teenage Girl Sex Panic: I Was Banned from Reddit

I got banned from Reddit a while back. I still go there all the time and I am always greeted by this horrible message that my account is permanently banned. The site keeps throwing it in my face while I surf around the site. It’s very depressing to see that message over and over. It makes you feel hopeless. I kept sneaking back on and they kept banning me again. Sucks that these bans are for a lifetime. I hardly think what I did was worth a lifetime ban. I posted something. My opinion on a particular issue. You know, like free speech. And it wasn’t even particularly outrageous.

People were posting the usual insane bullshit about adult men and teenage girls, and someone discussed a man and a 13 year old girl. I made a post that said, “A man having sex with a 13 year old girl is normal.” I was banned for promoting pedophilia!

You can’t “promote pedophilia.” You can’t be for it or against it. It’s a biological disorder that some folks just end up with. Can you promote schizophrenia? Blue eyes? Albinism? Manic-depressive illness? Borderline Personality Disorder? Foot fetishism? Depression?

How on Earth can you promote or oppose any of those things, and what difference would it make if you did? None of those are really acquired behaviors. You can’t just decide you want to acquire any of those things. You either get wired up that way or you don’t, pretty much. Most are acquired in childhood, adolescence, or early adulthood, and tend to have a chronic course. People acquire mental disorders. You cannot promote or oppose any mental disorder. It’s ridiculous. These are simply maladaptive ways of thinking that some people get into. They’re not something where you wake up one day and decide you want to be this way.

And what would happen if you did promote any of the things above? Would you increase the rate of that thing? Of course not. What if you opposed it? Would you stop people from acquiring those conditions? Of course not.

Those conditions are not really willed actions, as in, “I can decide to go to the store right now.”

Get my pack, comb my hair, get my keys and phone, open the door, shut it and lock it, walk out of the complex to the sidewalk, and walk 200 yards to the store, then walk in, buy something, get change, turn around, and walk home with my item. Those are all willed actions.

I can decide to either do them or not. You can support or oppose any willed actions. Perhaps you wish people would not make decisions to do certain things. Perhaps you think it’s just fine if people decide to do this or that.

Anyway, what did I mean? Well, the American Psychiatric Association has decided that Hebephilia, usually an attraction or preference for pubescents aged ~12-14 is not a mental disorder. There was a big fight about it in the discussions of the latest DSM-5. The people saying it was not a disorder won. Furthermore, they went beyond that to say that not only was it not a disorder, it was also completely normal!

Turns out what they meant was that is it is completely normal for men to be attracted to 12-14 year old girls. In fact, 18% of all men have a primary attraction for girls that age; that is, they are more attracted to 12-14 girls than they are to mature females. It’s hard to say that 18% of all men are sick with some terrible mental disorder.

81% of men are primarily attracted to mature females, 15-16+. These men are called teleophiles. However, teleophilic men are also attracted to 11-14 year old girls, albeit on a slightly lower level than they are to matures. The usual estimate is that 100% of men are attracted to 12-15 year old girls and 95% of men are attracted to girls 2-12! However, in the latter case, almost all of those men are attracted to little girls at substantially lower level than they are to mature females. 3% of men are pedophiles; that is, they have are more attracted to girls under 11 than they are to mature females. That’s a lot of men.

So it is absolutely normal for a man to be attracted to 13 year old girls. There’s nothing wrong with that. Basically, all men have this attraction to some degree, frankly to a very substantial degree! Normal men are attracted to 12-14 year old girls at 87% of maximum. That’s a very high level of attraction.

Hence, does it follow that if he acts on the attraction, is that normal too? I said it was on Reddit, but I am not sure. It doesn’t strike me as intrinsically disordered behavior like child molestation. Men have been having sex with girls that age for almost all of human evolution. They still do in primitive societies, where men generally start having sex with girls after menarche, which is typically age 13.

In the DSM debate, they said that men who acted on their hebephilic urges were criminals in many Western countries. I would agree with that. If you’re asking me if I am advocating men to have sex with 13 year old girls ,I am not. The reason is because it’s illegal, and you might get caught. If you get caught they will throw the book at you, and you may go to prison for a long time, where you might not be real welcomed by the other inmates. If you ever get out you go on the Sex Offender list for life.

So I absolutely am not saying men should do these things. I completely oppose adult men having sex with 13 year old girls in our society. In addition, it ought to be illegal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. I would give a break to, say, an 18 year old man, but once you start  getting a bit above that, you have to seriously outlaw it. And if men are caught having sex with 13 year old girls, I think they should be incarcerated. I don’t wish to live in a society where it’s legal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. That creeps me out.

I’m just saying it’s not psychologically disordered to do so. Is it normal? Well, maybe, but perhaps a lot of bad behavior is normal. Almost all crime is considered “normal” in that it is not mentally disordered behavior. Criminals don’t do it because they’re crazy. Committing crimes doesn’t make you nuts.

Instead, while crime is “normal,” it is also wrong in most cases. And I think you can make a case that a lot of crime is intrinsically wrong. That is, when you seriously harm other persons or their property or cause them losses, that seems to be immoral in a global sense of universal morality. Wife beating is probably intrinsically wrong too. But it’s not nuts. Sadly, it’s very normal to beat your wife.

But is a man having sex with a 13 year old girl intrinsically wrong? You can’t really make a case for that. If the girl seduces the man, and the sex is 100% consensual, it’s hard to see how it is wrong. If there’s any coercion involved and the man is seducing a reluctant girl, that strikes me as wrong. But whether it’s wrong or not, it’s still illegal, and we have to follow the laws of our society.

A good rule is that non-coercive sex is generally morally right (except with adults and little children under age 13), and coercive sex is morally wrong. And in certain societies, men having sex with 13 year old girls is morally proper, natural, and normal. It’s seen as immoral and abnormal in our society. Our society and any society has a right to decide what is right and what is wrong within reason. Societies get to make their own rules about morality.

Men having sex with young teenage girls is a behavior that is intrinsically neither right nor wrong. This is one of those behaviors where society decides whether and how right or wrong it is. Quite a few societies think it’s just fine. Our society thinks it is wrong, bad, immoral, evil, disgusting, creepy, on and on.

That’s the value that our society has placed on that act. It’s perfectly acceptable for a society to decide that men having sex with 13 year old girls is dead wrong, a seriously immoral act. So societies have a right to outlaw this behavior and even throw the book at people who violate these laws. So it’s acceptable for a society to punish men who have sex with 13 year old girls with imprisonment.

These things are more matters of right and wrong, good and bad, good and evil than matters of crazy or sane or normal or abnormal. These are not things that psychiatry deals with. Psychiatry only cares if you are nuts or not. We don’t care if something is right or wrong, and we don’t have a good idea what is anyway. Issues of right and wrong and good and bad behavior are matters for Moral Philosophy, the Sociology of Morals and the Law to figure out. They are moral and legal matters, not psychiatric ones.

I still think it was low and hysterical to ban me on this petty offense. Obviously, Redditors are in the throes of this idiot sex panic. Society has gone completely hysterical about this stupid issue. Shame on every one of you for falling for this asinine moral panic.

True Crime: Joseph Edward Duncan III

Originally posted as a repost from the old site in 2008. I recently looked over this old piece and I was surprised at how good it was. I think it’s time for a re-run. Feel free to comment. Warning: long, runs to 28 pages.

On August 27, 2008, Joseph Edward Duncan III was sentenced to death by a federal court in Idaho after being charged with ten federal charges for the homicide of Dylan Groene, age 9, in Montana in 2005. He served 13 years on death row, but he died on March 28, 2001 of glioblastoma, a brain tumor, before he could be executed.

I don’t know any of the principals in this case, but Thrillseekerman knows Steve Groene and Chris Groene, Doperman knows Chris Groene and not Steve, and Sexmaniacman knows Steve Groene but not Chris. T-man went to elementary school with Steve Groene and his brother, Chris Groene. Steve Groene is the father of Shasta Groene, Dylan Groene and Slade Groene. I called Thrillseekerman, Doperman, and Sexmaniacman to get their recollections of these two guys, who I never really knew. Their recollections are at the end of the article.

Joseph E. Duncan III broke into the victims’ house on May 15, 2005, tied everyone up, and then bludgeoned Slade, 13, his mother Brenda, 39 and his stepfather, Mark McKenzie, 37 to death with a claw hammer. He took Dylan and Shasta so he could torture and molest them.

Police who came upon the scene were stunned by the sight. There was blood and gore everywhere, and the faces were nearly unrecognizable. One officer who came upon the scene was so shocked by the sight that he quit police work for months afterward. An APB went out for Shasta and Dylan.

Duncan took them in a stolen 2000 Red Cherokee jeep with Missouri license plates to a very remote campsite in the Lolo National Forest in Montana and kept them there for a few weeks, having sex with both of them and torturing Dylan. He made a video of the crimes, and the video was shown to jurors and those in the courtroom. He raped Shasta and forced Shasta and Dylan to perform sex acts on each other.

May 2005: Murder of Dylan Groene in the Lolo National Forest, Montana

“The devil is here, boy, the devil himself. The demon couldn’t do what the devil sent him to do so the devil came himself,” Duncan yells in one of the videos. “The devil likes to watch children suffer and cry.”

Duncan cracks sick jokes through the videos.

In one video, Duncan jokes, “They kidnapped me – they won’t let me leave.”

In another video, he cracks, “I shouldn’t be taking pictures of you pulling up your pants like that, young man – people might think I’m a pervert.”

In another video, Duncan asks the kids about their wishes. Dylan says he just wants to go home.

One video showed Duncan raping and torturing Dylan in various ways. At one point, he took Dylan into an old shack, where he forced Dylan to perform a sex on him and whipped him with a belt. Then he told Dylan to stand on a bench, hung a wire around his neck, and masturbated as he watched Dylan nearly die from hanging. “Then Jet took him down and said, ‘Wake up, wake up, wake up,'” Shasta Groene said in a police interview.

She said Dylan screamed when he woke up because he thought he had been in heaven. Duncan then offered the half-dead Dylan an opportunity to watch his “death” by hanging on tape. A little while later, he forced Shasta to drag the half-dead Dylan through the campfire with a rope around his neck, burning him horribly. Then Duncan “accidentally” shot Dylan in the stomach with a shotgun.

Dylan was alive and possibly could have lived for a few hours, though his guts were hanging out. Duncan decided that there was no way to save him, so he shot him in the head. It was later determined that he probably did not shoot Dylan “accidentally” after all. After Dylan was dead, Duncan chopped his body into little pieces and filmed himself forcing Shasta to throw the body parts on the fire. Then he forced Shasta to pick the body parts out of the fire and filmed that too.

Whew. Wow. Whoa.

This must set some sort of a record for evil, but I’m not sure. The FBI did say that this was the first time that they had ever heard of anyone murdering adults just to get at kids, so it does set a depravity record in that sense. Details of whatever he did to Shasta have not been made available yet, but she was definitely raped. Normally, in this sort of thing, the name of the living kid, Shasta, would be kept secret, but her name was already out there as an APB Amber Alert, so the cat was out of the bag.

I guess you are wondering why no one heard all this mess up in the mountains. The makeshift campsite is at the end of a very remote logging road. It’s a one-hour drive down a terrible road to get to the remote site at the bottom of a cliff. It seems like hardly anyone ever goes there.

There are a lot of remote places out in the Western forests where you can stay for weeks at a time and not see another human. One article said the video was shot at a cabin, but I think it was just a campsite. They also went to various other campsites and drove long distances while Duncan bragged to Dylan and Shasta about killing the kids’ Mom, brother, and stepdad.

July 2, 2005: Arrested in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho with Shasta Groene

Later, on July 2, 2005, Duncan went back to a Denny’s restaurant with Shasta in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, where she was immediately spotted by a resident who went in and told the manager who then wisely called 9-11. It was 1:30 AM and the cops pulled in with their lights off. Duncan saw the cops and took Shasta into the bathroom with him. He came out later and the police quickly surrounded the table and asked him to come outside. Shasta was taken back to her father her Mom and stepfather were dead.

Steve was briefly considered as a suspect but then they cleared him. They told him that he failed a polygraph, but lots of innocents do. They also suspected Steve’s eldest son, 18. They gave him a polygraph also and told him he failed too. Good thing neither one gave a fake confession in the midst of those interrogations.

The son was also into drugs – I bet meth – had a significant criminal record, and was most recently in jail for burglary. He said that that imprisonment was going to make him go straight.

Brenda Groene and Mark McKenzie were also drug users, but they were primarily recreational users. Brenda was a good mother. Initially, drugs were thought to be involved in the murders. Meth and pot were found in the systems of both Brenda and Mark. The couple ran with biker types who are in abundance in this area. Brenda had a criminal record for possession of drug paraphernalia and had served time for this offense.

Robert Roy Lutner was an original suspect in the case since he had a criminal record for relatively minor offenses and owed Mark and Brenda $2,000. They thought he killed them over the financial dispute. Further, he had visited them on the evening of Sunday the 15th, when the murders occurred. He turned himself in immediately, passed a polygraph, and was let go.

After he took the kids, Duncan was spotted in a sporting goods store with them in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, asking for directions to Libby, Montana. An APB went out but they were nowhere to be found.

Soon before he was caught, a video camera caught Duncan and Shasta entering what looks like a 7-11 about 40 miles outside of Coeur D’Alene. The girl looks mad and has her arms folded angrily across her chest. They buy something, get back in a red jeep, and leave. This footage was not discovered until later. Soon afterward, they were caught at the Denny’s in Coeur D’Alene.

Police discovered that the man was Joseph Edward Duncan III, a 43 year old fugitive sex offender from Fargo, North Dakota. He had recently been charged with molesting a 7 year old boy he knew who lived near him. He was born, one of five in a military family, in Fort Bragg, Virginia, in 1963. His parents soon moved to Tacoma, Washington, where he grew up. He was described as lonely and displaced in high school, especially after his parents’ divorce in 1979. He soon dropped out of high school. He engaged in sex at age 8 with two of his sisters. They apparently initiated it. What this had to do with his later offenses, I have no idea.

1975: Age 12, Arrested in Tacoma, Washington for Rape of a 5 Year Old Boy

He committed his first serious offense at age 12, when he raped a 5 year old boy, but he was not caught. In this way, he resembles Ted Bundy, who probably committed his first homicide of an eight-year-old girl who delivered the papers in his neighborhood at age 14. Bundy was never charged with this offense.

1978: age 15, Arrested in Tacoma, Washington for Rape of a 9 Year Old Boy

By age 15, he was charged with raping a 9 year old boy and sent to juvey. There he admitted that he had bound and raped six boys already.

1979: Age 16, Had Already Raped 13 Young Boys in Tacoma, Washington

He later said had already raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16.

1980: Age 17 Arrested in Tacoma, Washington for Auto Theft

The following year, he was arrested for stealing a car.

1980: Age 17, Sentenced in Tacoma, Washington to 20 Years in Prison for Rape of a 14 Year Old Boy at Gunpoint

At age 17, he was arrested, charged and sentenced to 20 years in prison (apparently as an adult) for raping a 14 year old boy at gunpoint. The tortures that he put the boy through were similar to those seen on the Dylan Groene tape.

At the time, he was diagnosed as a psychopath, or antisocial personality disorder under the current rubric. In my opinion, knowing little about his upbringing, he is a pure psychopath. This condition is largely genetic. They are just born bad from seemingly Day One. This condition is impossible to treat, though some of them burn out and often descend in alcoholism and depression in their 40’s. Duncan is clearly not one of those.

He was paroled 14 years later at age 33 and sent to a halfway house in Seattle. A man named David Woelfert had testified at the parole board that Duncan was no threat whatsoever. He had loaned Duncan $3,000 and had found a place for him at the halfway house. Woelfert was also homosexual, and for a while, Duncan and Woelfert had a gay relationship. It looks like Woelfert was conned too. In 1996, Duncan was released from the halfway house.

1996: Sentenced in Seattle, Washington to One Month for Parole Violation

Almost immediately after his release from the halfway house, he violated parole by using marijuana and possessing a firearm. He was given 30 days and released.

July 6, 1996: Disappearance and Subsequent Murders of Carmen Cubias, 9, and Sammiejo White, 11, in Seattle, Washington

Apparently soon afterwards, 9-year-old Carmen Cubias and her 11-year-old half-sister, Sammiejo White, went missing from the motel where they were staying with their homeless family. A while before, Duncan was living only three blocks away from the motel where they vanished. These girls later turned up dead, and they were definitely killed by Duncan.

The girls were last seen by their 16-year-old brother at 8:30 pm on July 6, 1996 after they left the Crest Motel in Seattle, where they were staying with older and younger siblings and their mother. The girls were used to be out at all hours and knew their way around the neighborhood very well.
They said they were going to the Taco Time where they were going to bum some spare change so they could eat and get some money for a pack of cigarettes for their brother. Apparently they never made it.

It turns out that Duncan has confessed to Shasta Groene that he killed two little girls in Seattle. He made the same confession to investigators, but he said he did not know their names. At the time of their disappearance, Duncan was living and working in Bothell, Washington, where the girls’ bones were found almost two years later in February, 1998, by a transient staying in an abandoned barn. They had both been murdered violently, but the details could not be ascertained. But both of their skulls had been crushed.

After Duncan was arrested for the Idaho killings, a woman came forward and said that she had worked at the Quality Food Mart in Bothell that summer. That summer she repeatedly saw a man she now says was Duncan come into the store to buy stuff accompanied by a frightened little girl, who she now identifies as Carmen Cubias. Once again, we see that Duncan kept his victim alive for a long time, molesting and possibly torturing them before killing them.

When talking to investigators, Duncan revealed enough details of the crimes, without confessing, to convince the cops that he killed the two girls. After he confessed, his lawyer convinced him to clam up about any other crimes he may have committed.

March 26, 1997: Disappearance and Murder of Deborah Palmer, 7, in Oak Harbor, Washington

On March 26, 1997, Deborah Palmer, age 7, disappeared on her way to school in Oak Harbor, Washington, about 50 miles away from Seattle. Palmer disappeared while walking the two blocks from her Kettle Street apartment home to school.

Duncan had an appointment in Seattle to take a polygraph test at an unknown time. Oak Harbor would have been a 1 1/2 hour drive away. Palmer may have been killed in Deception Pass State Park, near where her body washed up.

The week before, around March 19, Duncan had tested positive for marijuana, which would have violated his parole. Eleven days later, he quit his Bothell job, stole his girlfriend’s car, and fled his Seattle home for California to visit his father in Pahrump, Nevada. That was the very same day that Deborah Palmer’s body washed up on a Pacific Ocean beach seven miles away from Oak Harbor, and the story was all over the news.

She had been raped and strangled. The previous day, Deborah’s backpack and jacket were found at a gravel pit. There is no direct evidence linking Duncan to this homicide. There are also suspicions that a family member was involved.

April 1997: Disappearance and Murder of Anthony Martinez, 10, in Beaumont, California

After he fled to California, he killed again. This time, he took off from his Dad’s house in Vista and went to Beaumont, California, where he approached 10 year old Anthony Martinez and his brother who were playing in alley behind their home. He asked them to help find a lost cat, and they declined. Duncan then put a knife to Anthony’s throat and shoved him into a white car.

On April 19, Anthony’s nude body was found in a shallow grave 110 miles away in the desert near Indio, California. He had been raped and beaten to death and his skull had been crushed.

After his arrest in the Idaho killings, Duncan confessed to interrogators that he had killed a little boy in California. He also quite closely resembled the composite drawing of the suspect in the Martinez case. Cops then looked into the Martinez case and amazingly found a match for a thumbprint on the duct tape used to bind Anthony’s body and Duncan’s prints.

August 27, 1997: Sentenced to Three Years in Prison for Parole Violation in Kansas City, Missouri

In May, Duncan was back in Northern California. On June 2, he met Dr. Richard Wacksman (see below) at a coffeehouse in San Francisco. At this point, he seemed to have been living on the streets. Four months later, on August 27, 1997, Duncan was arrested by the FBI at his sister’s house in Kansas City, Missouri for a parole violation and sent to prison for three years.

At the hearing for the parole violation, a Fargo, North Dakota doctor, Dr. Richard Wacksman, testified that Duncan was not dangerous anymore and that upon his release, he could stay at Wacksman’s home in Fargo. The parole board disagreed and sent him away. Upon his release on July 21, 2000, he moved to Fargo, North Dakota, but I believe it was not long before he started killing again.

After his release, in 2000, he visited Wacksman at his home in Fargo. The neighbors found out about it and confronted Wacksman. Duncan did not return to Wacksman’s home, and Wacksman soon moved to Florida. Duncan then visited Wacksman numerous times at his Florida home, where Duncan liked to scuba dive.

I do not think this Wacksman fellow is a bad guy. Psychopaths are often very charming and have the ability to convince all sorts of decent people that they are really ok, including Dr. Wacksman. However, it should be noted that Wacksman, while married and with family, was bisexual. It seems certain that Wacksman and Duncan had a homosexual relationship.

After he moved to Fargo, Duncan began attending North Dakota State University there, working on a BA in Computer Science. He would have graduated in May 2005, but he decided to go on a homicide spree instead. At the university, he worked in software development for both the college and a local business called iCat.

He also worked as a teaching assistant at Edmonds Community College where he taught introductory programming courses. He frequented at least one Korean Personals site where he said he was looking for “something more than just sex.” At the time, he was also taking karate lessons at the university (photo from his karate class in Spring 2003). While Duncan was living in Fargo from 2000-2005, I believe that he did not stop killing.

February 12, 2001: Disappearance and Probable Murder of Steven Earl Kraft, Jr., 12, in Benton Township, Michigan

On February 12, 2001, Steven Earl Kraft, Jr., age 12, disappeared while walking his dogs between 8-9 PM about 1/2 block from his home. The dogs were found later, but Steven is still missing. Duncan may have been involved in this kidnapping and probable homicide.

On April 21, 2001, Duncan set up his Jazzi-Jet gay website on the Pridesites gay website. Although the links have been deleted, on one page he was shown in a black dress and makeup talking about how much he liked to get fucked in the ass. Oh, well.

Duncan talked about how much gay sex he had in Walla Walla Prison, getting screwed by 50 different guys in there, getting gangbanged once by seven guys, being the “queen of the prison,” and being owned by a great big Black inmate named “Al”, all while posing in suggestive gay poses. On another deleted photo, Jazzi-Jet was once again done up like a woman. In one picture, he was masturbating, but you couldn’t see that very well. He touched up one of the pics to make it look like he has breasts.

On February 12, 2002, Duncan created this online resume. He was obviously highly intelligent and it looks like he was also a good computer programmer (I never could figure out Java programming myself). In March 2002, he created this page of a fake Time Magazine and Duncan praising Arnold Schwarzenegger.

July 12, 2002: Disappearance and Murder of Russell Turcotte, 19, in Grand Forks, North Dakota

Russell Turcotte, age 19, a Turtle Mountain Chippewa, was last seen at a truck stop in Grand Forks, North Dakota, on July 12, 2002, after spending the night with friends in Fargo, North Dakota. He was returning to his home in Wolf Point, Montana from a Rainbow Gathering in Michigan.

Surveillance cameras have now revealed that Duncan was at that truck stop hours after Turcotte was there. Turcotte was hitchhiking with a backpack home on a desolate stretch of Highway 2 west of Grand Forks at around 2 AM. I believe he was picked up by Duncan and taken to a side road near Grand Forks Air Force Base. He was probably raped there. He was then taken to Devils Lake, 90 miles west of Grand Forks, where his partially nude body was dumped and covered with brush. His possessions vanished, probably tossed into one of the area’s many rivers and lakes. His skull had been crushed.

The previous day, his mother had wired him some money. He was living with a girlfriend and running low on cash. Months later, in November 2002, his skeleton was discovered by a rancher in a clump of trees.

Objections have been made to the notion that Duncan committed this crime. First is that he would have had to drive 85 miles north from Fargo to Grand Forks and then another 90 miles west to dump the body.
However, I believe that since 1997, Duncan had started killing quite a ways away from where he lived. His first two killings seem to have pretty close to where he lived. The Seattle girls were abducted while Duncan was living in Bothell, 20 miles away.

Deborah Palmer (assuming he killed her) was killed in Oak Harbor, 30 miles from his home in Bothell, and her body was found nearby. He’s clearly capable of driving 80 miles away from his home to kill someone. Similarly, Beaumont was about 85 miles away from his father’s house in Vista where Duncan was staying.

Anyway, the surveillance camera had Duncan at the truck stop within hours of when Turcotte was there, so the distance question seems to be ruled out. Furthermore, July 12 was a Friday, so Turcotte was last seen on a Friday night. I believe that Duncan picked him up hitchhiking about 2 AM on the morning of Saturday, July 13 and killed him soon afterward. At some point he drove 90 miles east to dump the body.

Duncan was a college student at this time and was probably working too. It’s certainly possible that he had the whole weekend off. He had lots of free time and was always traveling to the Lakes Country in Minnesota to go scuba diving. Also, Turcotte’s skull had been crushed in the same manner that Anthony Martinez, Sammiejo White, Carmen Cubias, Slade Groene and Mark McKenzie had been dispatched.

Another question about the Turcotte killing is that Turcotte seems old for Duncan’s tastes. However, it has been pointed out that the 19 year old looked very young for his age. A photo of him taken before his death seemed to belie that, but another picture taken by his girlfriend shortly before he died showed him very thin, unhealthy, and quite young-looking.

Hunter Bear, an American Indian retired university professor and leftwing activist, had a webpage up about Turcotte. Here is a description of who he thought the killer is, written in 2003 before anyone knew about Duncan:

I continue to feel that Russ’ killer is an Anglo, maybe in his late 30s or early 40s, a so-termed “professional” person with a quite good, reassuring kind of car and out-of-state license plates. It’s obvious that he is a criminal psychopath.

Not bad, huh? At the time he wrote that, Duncan was 40 years old (!), White, and though not a professional, he could certainly come off as one. It seems like he liked to drive nice cars too. About the out of state plates, I have no idea. Hunter Bear said that the cops did not try very hard to find the Turcotte’s killer, at one point saying that they had no interest in a routine store surveillance camera tape that filmed Turcotte at the last place he was seen.

Hence, the tape was destroyed. Hunter Bear made a good case that the population and the police in North Dakota and Idaho were very racist towards American Indians. We don’t see much of it out here in California, but it seems to be more of a big deal back there. Some people are still looking at Seattle, Tacoma, or Portland as the connection between the killer and Turcotte, but I am pretty certain that this is a Duncan crime.

This is a Web Archive cache of the original Jet Gazette, Jet’s own online magazine that he made all about…himself! This page is dated July 29, 2002, and that would have been about 17 days after Turcotte was killed.

March 26, 2003: Disappearance and Murder of Dalton Mesarchik, 7, in Streator, Illinois

On March 26, 2003, Dalton Mesarchik, 7, of Streator, Illinois vanished from the front yard of his home. His body was found the next day in creek. His skull had been crushed with a hammer. That’s Duncan’s style. In June 2003, Duncan began going on trips to Minnesota and Michigan to scuba dive. He went on dives all summer.

On October 3, 2003, Duncan was visited by three police officers who accuse him of harassing women downtown. The women knew who he is from the Sex Offender database, and they had photos of him. He was accused of repeatedly asking them out and not going away when they told him to. That doesn’t sound like much of a crime to me. The cops said they knew who he was and they watched him all the time. Guess they did not watch him enough. He wrote about this incident later on his blog, The Fifth Nail.

Here is the final edition of the Jet Gazette, with photos of his scuba diving trips and videos that he made.

February 15, 2004: Disappearance and Probable Murder of Justin Phillip Edwards, 13, in Casper, Wyoming

Between late February 14 and early February 15, 2004, Justin Phillip Edwards, 13, disappeared. He was living at R. L Mills Home, a state-run facility, located at 116 East “H” Street in Casper, Wyoming since the summer of 2003. He was 5′ tall and weighed only 100 pounds and was retarded. He had the mind of a 6 year old. In his blog entry of February 16, Duncan said he went skiing for the first time that weekend, alone. Some think he may have been involved in Edwards’ disappearance.

July 3, 2004 Molestation of a Boy, 7 and Attempted Molestation of Another in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota

On July 3, 2004, Duncan molested a 7 yr old boy and tried to molest another boy at a school playground. He had a video camera with him. He was not caught until later.

March 4, 2005 Charged in Minnesota for the Molestation Incidents

In March 4, 2005, Duncan was charged with molesting a 7 year old boy and attempting to molest the boy’s young friend in Detroit Lakes, Becker County, Minnesota. On April 5, a judge set his bail at $15,000. This was the July 2004 incident above.

The same day, a Fargo businessman, Joe Crary, wrote a check for that amount to the court and bailed out Duncan. Crary said he befriended Duncan when they both rode their bikes on bike trails in Fargo. Somehow, Duncan gave off the impression of being polite, soft-spoken, and seemed sincere about wanting to turn his life around. Duncan also seemed sincere that he was innocent of the Minnesota charges.

I will never understand how psychopaths fool people like this, but they do it all the time. The ability to con and lie with a straight face in these people is amazing. Crary is now maligned, but I feel he was just another good person that this psychopath conned. It should be noted, however, that Crary is apparently a homosexual who had a sexual relationship with Duncan beginning in early January 2004.

After being bailed out, Duncan made plans for his crime spree. He purchased night vision goggles and a video camcorder at a Walmart. He also purchased a shotgun, shells, and a claw hammer. On April 15, 2005, he rented a 2005 red Jeep Cherokee in St. Paul, Minnesota.

After the rental agreement was up, he never turned it back in, and on May 4, auto theft charges were filed against him. On the same day, the key tag to the stolen car was found in Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area in Wyoming, so Duncan must have been here at some point in his travels.
Between those two dates, Duncan traveled all the way to the far southwest portion of Missouri, where it meets Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas. There, on April 27, he stole license plates off a vehicle and placed them on his vehicle.

Then he continued his travels. No one knows where he went during this period, but I believe that he was in Spokane using GPS to stalk young children at a preschool, Kindermusik, which has kids from toddlers up to age 7. While in flight, a warrant was issued for his arrest in Fargo for failure to appear in a court date stemming from the Minnesota case.
He stopped in the Wolf Lodge area eight miles east of Coeur d’Alene. This post from Duncan’s horrifying blog, The Fifth Nail, was somehow posted from Wolf Lodge just four days before he committed the Idaho crimes.

May 13, 2005 Murders of Brenda Groene, Slade Groene, and Mark McKenzie in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

On May 12 or 13, he ended up on Frontage Road at the home where the crimes occurred. He spent the next two or three days scoping out the house, and on Sunday night, he entered the home with gloves, night vision goggles, a claw hammer, and a shotgun.

He pointed the gun and Brenda, Mark, and Slade and tied them up or forced them to tie each other up. Brenda Groene called Shasta down to the living room from where she had been sleeping. Dylan also came downstairs. Duncan quickly hustled Shasta and Dylan outside and into his van. Then he went back in to kill the others. With blows of the claw hammer, he dispatched them.

Shasta heard Mark scream, then she saw Slade try to run out of the house, wounded. He was hauled back in and dispatched. The kids in the van did not witness the killings, but Duncan later told them how he had killed her family. He told her that the name of the hammer was a Fatmax and she learned to call him “Jet” for his initials, Joseph Edward Duncan.

After his arrest, Duncan started blogging again with the help of others from inside prison. The blog is here. Here is an undated picture of Jet.
Here are two awesome time lines (Timeline One, Timeline Two) on Duncan’s life on the great The Cellar blog which is devoted to this case. This is a website Duncan made, the usual whining stuff about how terribly society treats convicts.

I interviewed my friends Thrillseekerman, Doperman, and Sexmaniacman about Steve Groene, the father of the three child victims and Chris Groene, his brother. All these guys, Doperman, Thrillseekerman, Sexmaniacman, grew up together with me in Southern California, and we all ran with the same crowd. They’re scattered to the five winds now, but all still keep in touch by phone and Internet.

I can’t say where they are, but they’re all still in the USA! I grew up with all of them, but I don’t remember Steve Groene or Chris Groene. I think the Groenes and I knew some of the same people, but I don’t remember the Groenes specifically.

Thrillseekerman shared his reminiscences about the Groenes:

Hi Bob, this case really wears on my mind. It’s amazing that I know this guy, and I know his brother, Chris, too. I haven’t seen Steve in 27 years, and I haven’t seen Chris in probably 25-26 years. Doperman knows Chris but I don’t think he knows Steve.

We all grew up together, Steve, Chris, Sexmaniacman, Doperman, and me, Thrillseekerman! And all the rest of the gang! And you, Bob! Ha ha! I heard about the case and saw the strange name, Groene, and wondered if it was him.

I saw his pic and knew it was him, though at the time I had not seen him in 24 years. He looked like he’d had a hard life; I don’t know if there is any better way to put it. His sister now says he already had cancer at the time. I don’t know enough to comment. Life’s hard on all of us in one way or another. Hang in there, Steve!

Steve was into drugs when I knew him, but then so was I! Ha ha! We all were! Ha ha! I think I went to grade school with the guy in Orange County and he was in my grade, but I’m not entirely sure.

I never really knew him that well, but I went to see him play with a blues band at a party in an industrial park one night in 1980. He’s a damn fine blues musician and I have good memories of that party. I was drinking Heinekens and later on smoking some dope.

Later I got to know Steve better, and somehow in 1981 I was buying Thai weed from him. I realize that sounds bad, but I was a dealer too! For many years! Ha ha. All of us – my friends and I – were drug users and dealers for many years. Ha ha! Plus, Steve sold me some damn good Thai weed too! Eat your hearts out, puritans!

Steve was working in the carnivals, traveling all around as a carny, was in with the biker crowd, and he was doing methamphetamine, but I don’t think he was doing very much. He was just a recreational user. Back in those days, the only people doing meth were bikers and carnies, people like that. Now meth is this huge deal.

He used to come over once in a while, mostly to sell me pot. I was just a pothead at the time. That’s all I know about Steve Groene and dope. Pothead, occasional meth user. But that was Summer 1981, and I never saw him again. I won’t guess about the rest of his life.

I remember he came over once. I was living in an apartment and there was this young guy staying there. He was really mentally ill and he needed a place to stay. He was living on the couch. Ha ha! There was a guitar case owned by this guy, a great guitarist who was going through a manic episode.

There were cigarette burns all up and down the case, and I pointed to them, shocked, then to the guy in the midst of the manic episode. Steve gave a smile, of sadness,  wisdom, truth, and life itself. And then he said, “That’s the blues, man.” That’s right, Steve, you got it, man. The blues is life, and life is the blues. Ain’t that so true now, though? Damn.

I realize that I may be trashing his reputation here, but Steve has already admitted to being a heavy drug user as a younger man. Besides, what’s wrong with being a doper? Ha ha! I’m 50 years old, and I’m still a stoner! By the way, can you get me any good pot? Ha ha!

I want to point out that Steve Groene was always the nicest guy to me, a real warm and kindhearted person, always was. I value that, and I’ll always remember him for that.

I also knew Chris Groene, too.

That handsome face, beautiful long hippie surfer hair, and words of honey – no wonder the girls ate him up! Ha ha! Chris was a doper too, a pothead! Ha ha! We all were! He was a juvenile delinquent as a kid, but hey, a lot of us were. Even me! Ha ha! A nice, friendly, charming delinquent. I think Chris was probably a better thief than I was, though. Ha ha! I never was good at stealing.

Chris was also a real nice and warmhearted guy the whole time I knew him. I guess he outgrew that delinquent stuff. I still saw him later, into the early 1980’s, and he was still a kind, warmhearted person. I understand he’s got a really good job now.

I see in a recent pic Steve’s got himself a really nice looking new girlfriend. And he’s still a blues musician, which he always was. He’s a damn good musician, too.
I’m amazed that Steve has appeared to hold up pretty well in all this. Two of his kids and his ex-wife were brutally murdered, and his daughter was kidnapped and molested. But in the last pic I saw of him, he seems to be holding up. I think I would have snapped a long time ago.

All of us, me, Doperman, Chris, Steve, and all our friends, and you, Bob! Ha ha! We were bad boys, rebels, longhairs, surfers, stoners, mavericks, and trillseekers. Badass middle class dopesmoking White boys! Ha ha! We were White Punks On Dope ! Ha ha! Those were the days, man.

I’ll always remember Steve and Chris Groene. Whatever else they’ve been in their interesting lives, they were never mean. They both have hearts as big as the ocean. You don’t see that a lot in this world. Even, with the ravages of time and an unknowable future, if my heart becomes cold and hard, there will always be a tiny warm place there set aside just for Steve and Chris Groene.

Steve and Chris Groene, presente!

Doperman reminisced about Chris Groene:

I was working at the local elementary school as a janitor when I was 16. It was 1974. One night Chris, then age 15, came up to me and wanted me to give him access to the auditorium so Chris could steal a microphone. I guess Chris was a musician too? He almost talked me into it, but I eventually chickened out.

Chris was more of a charming type, and he had natural good looks, really long hair, and he got all kinds of girls and women. He could charm the poison right out of a cobra. This dude had style, man! He was one slick guy! I liked Chris Groene, Bob.

He was always really good to me, even when he was trying to convince me to participate with him in a juvenile crime! I think he grew out of that delinquent stuff, and I hear he has a great job now. You go, Chris! A ghost from your past!

Sexmaniacman recalled Steve Groene. The only recollection he had was one night 30 years ago when he was out of mind on LSD:

“I remember one time, it was the summer of 1978, it was around 10 PM, and I was flying on LSD! I think I was with my buddy Craig L. Anyway, we were headed to this party at Alan B’s place. We came to the street where the party was, and there were cops there! I was on acid, driving a car, and I looked right into this cop’s eyes! With my huge saucer eyeballs! Scary!

Well, we went inside, and I was flying on fucking LSD! Oh man! Steve Groene was there! He had this big, friendly, warm smile, enough to light up the whole room, like always. It was Alan B’s party, an Italian guy. A hippie and an acidhead! Ha ha!

Well, I walked in and there’ was this beautiful Mexican chick, about 20 years old, sitting on the couch. She was kinda big, but not too big. Just big enough, baby! Lotsa curves! Well, she was looking at me the whole time. I was kinda looking back, but I didn’t really know what to do.

So after a while Steve Groene said, way too loud, “Hey! Sexmaniacman! Why don’t you get her a beer, Sexguy? She wants you to get her a beer, Sexman!” He was smiling and laughing, but he was also like, “You idiot! Pick up on the chick! She likes you! Go for it, dummy! Like, duh!” So I go and get her a Heineken. I forget what happened after that. I fucked up; I don’t think I even got her number. I was so stupid sometimes.

Later that night, I was in Alan’s bedroom. I told him I was on LSD. He said, “Hey, Sexmaniacman! Let’s do some more acid and go to Black Star Canyon and fry all night!” I opened up a box full of blue LSD tablets. But we never did it.

I love Steve Groene, Bob, I really do. He’s a good person, and his heart is solid gold. He ran with a rough crowd, and he looked like a pretty tough guy, but he was good people all the way. A shout out to Steve Groene! Blast from the past!

Delphi Murders Update August 18, 2021

First, a pitch for supporting this website and our sleuthing group:

People are donating lots of money to Delphi podcasters like Mike Greeno and Gray Hughes. Gray makes over $100,000/year from his podcasts. 

What shocks me is how little these men give their audiences in return for their purchases. Gray’s videos run to 3-4 hours and may contain five minutes of useful material. Greeno’s videos are almost completely worthless, and we believe he doesn’t know more about this case than anyone else.

Our group is clearly the best Delphi sleuthing group on the Internet by far and has been since it was founded four years ago in 2017.

Unlike any other sleuthers, we have determined the main suspect in the case and have a good idea of what happened during the crime and what the crime scene looked like. Best of all, much of our information is via solid sources such as search party members, official case documents, and detectives in other areas of LE who have some knowledge of the case. No one else has come close to uncovering the amount and quality of information we have.

Why not join the 230+ members who have already signed up for the best Delphi sleuthing team of all? How about getting your money’s worth? There is a small fee of $20 to join, which includes lifetime membership.

Support the best Delphi sleuthing group of all!

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank CA and RVS, without whom this blog would not even possible. As in it never would have even been born in the first place. These two are near and dear to me, almost as close as my own parents. University seems like a distant memory, but 10 years can feel like an awfully long time. Wait, why did I mention university and 10 years? No idea, but I say all sorts of silly things for nor reason.

By the way, have you ever heard of the word doppelganger? Look it up some time. Just throwing that out there, not mentioning it for any particular reason.

I don’t have much new information to report, so this report will simply be dedicated to rejoinders against some of the crazy accusations against me. As you will see, all of these accusations are false, as they usually are.

As if I didn’t have enough enemies as it is, it seems I’ve acquired a number of new ones.

Via the execrable LibbyandAbby subreddit, an hysterical woman named “Xanaxarita” complains:

1. I am sex pervert because I took crime scene pics and drew circles around the bodies of two naked teenage girls (Teenage Girl Sex Panic). How dare I do this!

The screen capture from the helicopter footage of the crime scene in question. I did not create that image, zoom in on it, or draw lines around it. Those actions were done by a theoretical physicist and a 43 year old woman I work with. Abby in green and Libby in blue. Plush bear to the right of Abby. Knife in log to the left of Libby’s head.

Response to this shrill harridan:

1. The crime scene pics did not come from me. They came from screen captures from a video done by a theoretical physicist analyzing the crime scene with graphics software. I spoke with the theoretical physicist, and I regard him as credible. The screenshots were done by a 43 year old woman I work closely with. I know this woman very well.

There is no way she manipulated those photos. It was this woman who also drew the lines around both girls’ bodies. I had been staring at those pics a while and had not been able to see either body until she did that.

Anyway, I didn’t zoom in on, capture, apply filters to, or draw lines around those photos. A 43 year old woman drew the lines. Obviously she’s the sick sex pervert. So go take it up with her. As far the prudish accusation that I posted “two photos of naked teenage girls,” you can’t see anything. They just look like stick figures. They could be wearing clothes, they could be naked. There’s no way to tell. So it’s irrelevant whether they have clothes on or not.

Of course, the bullshit couldn’t possibly end with a few idiotic charges. They’ve always got more.

The latest comes from a thread on that same LibbyandAbby den of iniquity on Reddit.

1. This allegation is similar to 1 above. The allegation is that I deliberately manipulated graphics software to create a fake and fraudulent image of a large plush bear.

This is the image of the plush toy before a filter was applied to it.

2. The leader of that group, A True Lady, who’s not exactly a friend of mine if you catch my drift, alleges that I am being trolled by people who are feeding me false information. She’s been alleging this for some time now. Apparently she saw a woman posting around some thread, apparently a conversation with me (?) in which she is trolling me by deliberately feeding me false information. There were a group of people laughing along with this woman who said she was trolling me.

Update: This may be a reference to the first Search Party Woman who gave us the crime scene information that we originally ran. Apparently, like Leaker, she may be cutting and running and saying that she never said any of those things about the crime scene, and in fact, she was just trolling me the whole time with a bunch of crazy lies.

3. A True Lady also says the testimony of my search party member I used for crime scene reports is a lie because she thinks she knows the search party member in question, and this woman says she never spoke to me.

Responses to these charges:

1. As far as manipulating the helicopter photos to create a fraudulent photo of a plush bear, that’s just false. The truth is that I have no idea how to work any graphics program, and I’ve never used one in my life. I’m unable to do the first thing with any program like that, and I don’t even have a good graphics program anyway.

This is the photo of the plush bear from the helicopter footage after a filter has been applied to it. The original unfiltered photo is above.

2. First of all, deliberately pretending to be a source and feeding journalists information you know is false to make them look bad is about as low as you can get. We journalists want to flay you types alive. There’s nothing worse than that. And what is this supposed to prove anyway? We journalists are as good as our sources, and a lot of the information we get is impossible to fact-check anyway.

Of course, as a trained journalist (BA in Journalism), I work hard to develop and cultivate good sources. That’s one of the things they teach you. I’m thinking back to all of the information I have been putting out lately, and it’s all coming from good, trusted sources, almost all of them middle aged women who I work closely with. I trust them all implicitly.

Of course I get people coming to me all the time feeding me all sorts of information and showing me their latest POI in the case, which is never Bridge Guy because I know who Bridge Guy is. So people feed me junk, mostly unwittingly, all the time. As a rule, I tend not to run that stuff. It goes in the round file in my head. Nobody is trolling me and feeding me bad information. All of my sources are excellent. They are almost all women, and I have good relationships with all of them.

Update: If this is in fact the original Search Party Woman who first gave us that information now taking it back, that’s unfortunate, but there is a precedent for that. Leaker’s testimony obviously named Mr. X without stating his name openly. After people figured out that he was talking about a certain POI, he went back on his word and said that person was innocent. The reason he did this is obvious.

After it came out that Mr. X was a suspect and was identified, a big hullabaloo was created, and Leaker felt responsible and probably guilty for shining the spotlight on this man. So he took it back like a big coward and said this man was innocent, thereby resolving himself of responsibility for outing the man.

Something similar may be happening with the Search Party Woman. She went public to us via three separate sources with the same story about a bizarre crime scene. It may well have come out that she was the one leaking this information. Perhaps she got some heat for that. As in the Leaker case, she may be doing damage control by saying it was all lies anyway, and she was just making stuff up and trolling me. Anyway, see the answer to question 3 about why we don’t think she was making up lies and trolling us.

For one thing, she gave this information to three separate people: a popular podcaster and two separate women I work closely with, a 45 year old woman and a 64 year old woman. She trolled all three of us with a pile of lies, including two of her middle aged female colleagues? I doubt it. Also, we checked this woman out before we ran her stuff. Our determination was that this was a middle aged housewife with a couple of kids, absolutely ordinary in every way, and not the sort of person you would ever expect to make stuff up.

3. I doubt if A True Lady has met this search party member because the Search Party Lady is the one who told us about dolls, huge plush toys, etc., all of which A True Lady dismisses as nonsense.

I need to clear some things up here. The testimony of this search party woman came to me via a popular crime podcaster. Later this search party member spoke to two other middle aged women I work closely with. What she told them lined up perfectly with the information relayed to me from the podcaster. One thing you need to understand. I hardly talk to any of these sources you see me quoting. I get almost zero first-hand information. All of the information in my Delphi posts comes to me second or third hand.

In addition, another female member of the search party, a younger woman this time, came to one of my female colleagues above and told her separately what she saw at the crime scene. It lined up very well with what the first woman told us via three separate sources, all of which lined up well.

Energy Never Dies and Always Wants to Go Somewhere

I’ve been arrested by cops a couple of times, been in jail a few hours, and seriously hassled as in questioned for a serious crime and threatened with having a confession beaten out of me, so you could say I’ve seen cops at their very worst, and boy are they monsters, or at least they can be when they want to. Sadistic, monstrous freaks out of a de Sade novel.

I actually think they’re not that much different from criminals in terms of cruelty, sadism, and lack of morals. It’s more that they’ve taken all these antisocial and sociopathic traits and channeled them towards victimizing bad guys. I’m sure they get a moral superiority kick out of it too. I guess I’d rather have psychopaths channel their evil towards harming bad people than victimizing us good people.

Energy exists. It doesn’t really dissipate. Werner von Braun noted that there is no extinction of energy and matter in nature and that all energy and matter is simply transformed into other forms of energy and matter. In other words, nature knows no extinction. It only knows transformation.

The problem with energy is it doesn’t want to just sit there. Energy is movement and it likes to move. It gets bored if you sit on your ass all the time. So energy tends to move in particular directions into or out of our bodies. When it moves out of our bodies, we can choose where do direct it. Sublimation is a thing. Churchill could have been Hitler.

And as you can see, it’s not so much whether the particular energy in you is good or bad but more the direction in which you aim it, as in a prosocial way or an antisocial way. I suppose I’d prefer people to direct their bad energy in prosocial ways as long as they are going to push it out at the world at all.

Energy tends to go either in or out. As I noted, it doesn’t like to sit there. Energy comes in good and bad forms, and we all have plenty of both somewhere inside of us. Bad energy either gets pushed out at the world or gets shoved inside of oneself as self-hatred, self-abnegation, low self-esteem, depression, suicidality, etc.

In another post, I talked about sex energy and how it doesn’t want to stay cooped up either. Sexual energy in particular wants to go outside the body and attach to objects, probably because the very purpose of sex energy is to attach itself to an object. I’m not sure bad energy wants to do that. It wants to go somewhere, but I’m not sure it has a preference for where.

Alt Left: Humor As a Way of Dissipating Homosexual Feelings in Straight Men

Polar Bear: Being called gay, faggot, etc. often means nothing. It’s how Mexican guys say hola.

Sure. “Hey fag, what’s up?” We used to greet each other like that. I’d see a couple of my friends together and walk up to them say loudly great them with hearty cheer like long lost relatives, “Hey! What are you fags up to?” This always served to produce a lot of good laughter.

I was reading a story about two White guys in prison for selling LSD. They were basically good people as most such criminals are. They’re low in sociopathy. They just got caught doing something society doesn’t like is all.

One inmate came into another inmate’s cell. The first thing he said was, “Hey fag, what’s up?”

I thought about that and noted that that was the perfect greeting. Both of those guys are trying to stay straight in an environment where opportunistic homosexuality is everywhere. They’re also trying to stay masculine, to stay men. When straight men call each other fags in jest, it’s like rocket fuel to their masculinity. It makes you want to sit up straight. It hardens your body and sculpts your face like stone.

There’s no doubt a lot of what you might call “homosexual tension” in a place like prison or even perhaps a Navy ship. Men have sexual energy churning inside of them all the time, demanding a release. It wants to go somewhere.

I’ve recently thought that sexual energy always wants to go outside of the body and do what I call “attach itself to objects.” It’s always seeking some object to attach to. If there are women around, that’s nice for straight men’s sexual energy because the sexual energy attaches to them quite nicely. But if straight men are deprived of female objects to attach their sex energy to, their energy is going to wander around like a radio signal looking for a tower and not finding one. What does the signal do? It keeps wandering forever.

Lately I’m thinking that if there are no preferred female objects to attach to, straight male sexual energy will attach itself to the next best thing, male objects, perhaps in particular a pretty or effeminate man who looks and acts like a woman. Perhaps it may attach itself to a female child. Obviously it easily attaches itself to pornography; in fact, the attachment is almost too strong, like an addiction. Perhaps it might attach itself to an animal. I believe that 15% of boys raised on farms end up having sex with some animal by age 18.

So if you are in a prison, your straight sex energy will be floating around all the time, looking for a signal (a female) to attach itself to. Not finding one, it will have a tendency to try to attach to whichever other human objects are around, in this case a bunch of men. It matters not that this straight man is not attracted to men. It’s more a matter of his sex energy trying to attach to any suitable object around.

So there will be in the minds of many incarcerated men a tendency on the part of his sex energy to try to attach to the men around him. “Go ahead and do it,” the energy is telling him. “We have to do it with someone! Come on!” Many straight man, like the two men doing time for dealing acid above, try to resist this but this causes a lot of dissonance and tension. A good way to relieve this homosexual tension is by calling each other faggots. It takes the pressure away, like lifting a boiling kettle off a stove.

Also it keeps straight men straight. I had one group of friends who all considered homosexuality to be absolutely ridiculous and were always teasing each other on these grounds. It was all good fun and games until one day I realized that I could never have gay sex even one time because these guys had made it the stupidest, lamest, most asinine and unthinkably ridiculous behavior on Earth. Do it one time and you will be a laughingstock for the rest of your life.

I never really wanted to do it anyway as men turn me on 0%, but I used to think about it, and I think all straight men think about this at some point. “Could I ever have sex with a guy? Could I ever do it with a guy? Could I ever have gay sex?” Then they try to imagine it and see what comes up in their minds.

Frankly, if you offered me a gun and said, “Have sex with that man over there or I pull the trigger,” I’d say, “Shoot me.” I’ve now met 5-10 straight men who told me the same thing. They’d prefer to die rather than have gay sex. People fail to release the extreme revulsion straight men feel towards this type of sex. A recent study found that straight men showed more indications of revulsion to gay sex movies than to videos of live maggots. Gay sex is worse than maggots! That’s pretty bad.

You say, “Well, only gay men have gay sex,” But that’s not true. Throughout my life, I’ve met and known a number of basically straight men who hinted that they had had gay sex or simply came right out and admitted it. They were often handsome men, horndogs with high sex drives. One friend was a merchant marine. “Yeah, we had a fag on our ship. He liked to suck men’s cocks. I guess you could say he sucked a lot of cocks on that ship.” This shows straight men’s extreme capacity for gay sex, especially if they get to play the male role because apparently many to most of the straight sailors on that ship, including apparently my friend, let this gay men suck their cocks to relieve them of their sexual tension.

Straight men have a tremendous capacity for this behavior, even if they are turned on by men not at all or at most only a little bit. From the time he is an adolescent, a straight boy hears about other straight guys he knows, perhaps even his friends, engaging in this nonsense. A recent study found that 25% of males had engaged in homosexual behavior before 18.  93% of men are maximally attracted to women, so the vast majority of these men were basically straight.

Homosexual behavior among straight men is as common as grains of sand on a beach. In early adulthood, I saw idiotic straight men, including some pretty good friends of mine, doing this garbage quite a few times, typically when there weren’t any women around. They even tried to rope me in on it and threatened to beat me up if I wouldn’t join in the faggy fun and games! I was propositioned for gay sex by a few of my very best friends, too. I simply pretended that I didn’t hear them say that. I’m still not sure why they did that.

I figure most women have probably considered lesbianism too. Thinking “Could I do it with a woman?” and then trying it out in their imagination and see where it goes is probably a ubiquitous experience for women. The woman who have never done it have simply tried it out in their heads

 

Alt Left: Bad Men Do What Good Men Dream

I’ve considered just about everything.

Suicide and a thousand different ways to do it. Aggressive homicide all the way up to serial murder, rape, molesting kids, torture, every sex crime you can think of, robbing banks, burgling houses, mugging people, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, setting forest and brush fires, arson of homes, executing prisoners and civilians in wars, dropping bombs on people, you name it, I’ve thought of it.

Thing is, I’ve been imagining myself committing all of these acts since adolescence and yet I’ve never committed any of these acts even one time. But it was almost always like, “Can I do this? Do I have it in me to do this? What if I did this?” It wasn’t really a fantasy in most cases

I imagine it in your brain and typically the fantasy is not able to play itself out. I start to do the crime and then my brain steps in and says, “Forget it, man. I just can’t. No way in Hell. No way in a million years.” Quite a few times I have imagined myself committing one of these crimes and I have a knife or gun in my hand, menacing the terrified victim. That scene right there feels pretty bad. Most of the time, in my fantasy I simply drop the weapon on the ground or floor, say, “I can’t. I just can’t,” and then start crying or plead with the victim for forgiveness. I can’t even imagine doing something like that. My mind won’t even carry though the fantasy.

Sometimes I imagine committing some horrible crime, and then I imagine escaping or trying to escape afterwards.

However, probably since I am a good person, my mind always says, “Wait! You might get caught. You need to imagine getting caught if you are really going to do something like this.” So then I imagine getting caught. In a lot of cases, the getting caught part looks and feels real bad. It’s a horrorshow. My mind makes me exaggerate it to make it as horrible as possible, probably worse than it would be, probably to keep me from doing it.

I think this type of thinking is completely different from what people call fantasy. Fantasy is something you want or might want to do. You typically carry out the act in the fantasy. This is more of a “Could I do this?” type of “experimental thinking” where you are trying to figure out what your limits are behaviorally.

Once you consider you might get caught and you imagine the Hell you will have to pay with the cops afterwards, I think a lot of people will conclude that a lot of crime isn’t worth it.

Actually, it keeps me from doing these things because whenever I consider actually doing something bad for real, I’ve usually thought it over in my head and concluded that I didn’t have it in me to do it. I think we should test ourselves regularly with bad temptations just to clarify our moral boundaries. If you don’t do that, you don’t know what you are capable of, and you may just do something you regret for the rest of your life.

I’m starting to think there might not be a lot of difference between good people and bad people except that bad people act on their antisocial tendencies and good people repress them.

Bad men do what good men dream!

Alt Left: Shut Up, Virginia Giuffre

Serial liar, faker, and professional victim Virginia Giuffre has filed a fake lawsuit against Prince Andrew, lying like a bitch that Andrew raped and sexually abused her repeatedly when she was underage at 17 years old.

Problem? Nobody raped anyone and Virginia (The Liar) Giuffre never got raped one time.

I suppose you could argue that Andrew may have committed statutory rape, but that’s not rape at all. Instead it’s simply illegal intercourse.

Second problem? Virginia Giuffre is a whore. A lowdown, lying, scamming prostitute of the lowest variety, lower even than most disgusting whores, and that’s pretty low.

What happened?

Giuffre decided at age 17 that her goal in life was to be a whore! That’s right, a prostitute. Such a noble calling. She somehow got in with Epstein and Maxwell’s blackmail ring, and she was basically offered a job working as a little teenie whore for Epstein’s Mossad spying blackmail ring. Of course, since her life dream was to be a lowly prostitute, she jumped at the chance.

Epstein et al were soon pimping her out to famous people, except it’s hard to call it pimping because they let her keep all the money.

The one famous incident with Prince Andrew occurred in the Virgin Islands. Giuffre was paid a measly $15,000 to have sex (excuse me, to get raaaaaaped) by Andrew. She reportedly had lots of fun screwing the guy, since by all accounts she was a little teen nympho slut.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was not underage! She was legal in the Virgin Islands, perfectly legal fresh teen pussy.

Now we move on to the other fake charges.

Turns out she had sex with Andrew several more times in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the UK.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was perfectly legal teen snatch in New York, New Mexico, and the UK. No rape. No statutory rape. No any kind of rape, except in her ditzy teen whore brain.

Now, moving on to Florida, we do have another matter. If she had sex with Andrew in Florida, she would have been underage, because the Age of Consent there is 18. But notice she was legal and of age in four different states or countries and illegal and underage in only one state? Big deal! That’s barely even a crime.

Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl is a garbage crime anyway. 17 year old girls are perfectly legal to fuck anyone they want to, even a 90 year old man, in most of the world. They’re only illegal in a few backwards places like Florida.

It’s perfectly reasonable to set an AOC at 16 or 17. Most of the world has it at ~16. Most of Europe has it at 15! There have been absolutely zero problems reported in any of these places by setting the AOC at 15-17.

Now, setting an AOC at 15 is sketchy in the US because we are too backwards, puritanical, and weird to handle that low of an AOC. Europeans, being civilized, can cope with, it but Americans are uncivilized backwards boors and sex-hating super-prudes, so we can’t deal.

However, there is an argument for making a Romeo and Juliet clause for 15 year old girls. In many states they are legal for men up to 18 or 19. Colorado is particularly reasonable in this regard, as 15 year old girls are legal for men up to age 24. I dated a lot of 15 year old girls as a boy and for few years into adulthood. They’re horny as Hell and from the point of view of a young man 18-21, they seem quite mature, about as mature as you are.

Now the problem is that wherever you put that AOC, men are going to start fucking those girls. Put it at 17? Men will fuck 17 year old girls. Put it at 16? Men will screw 16 year old girls. Put it at 15? Men will gleefully bonk 15 year old girls.

And if you put it at 13 or 14, men will jump on 13 and 14 year old girls. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, though sex with 14 year old girls and 18-21 year old men doesn’t bother me. The thing about this sort of sex is it seems a lot more ok when the man is very young because after all, college boys and young men have been screwing high school girls forever. It’s so natural it’s almost set in stone. But as the man gets older than, say, 25, a lot of people start getting a lot less comfortable with it for all sorts of reasons. And as he gets older and older, it gets less and less ok. This is fine with me and I understand people’s distaste for this sort of thing.

I’d like to keep the 13 and 14 year old girls illegal for most adults, though we definitely need a Romeo and Juliet clause for both of them. I’m not sure where to put the limits though.

I met some 14 year old girls at the store a while back. They were fooling around like teenagers. I looked at them real close and I thought, “You know what? These girls need to be protected from us men. And even more so, we men need to be protected from those girls!” We both need to be protected from each other. A good way to do that is with an AOC law because most men beyond age ~21 will start to seriously think twice about underage girls, and men significantly older than that will avoid them as if they’re radioactive. Which they are, in a sense. Teenage girls are dangerous!

I think 13-15 year old girls ought to be legal for boys 13-17 though at the very least. We really need to stop putting kids in jail and on sex offender lists for having sex with each other. Guess what? Teenagers have a sex drive, often a raging one. And many, many of them engage in sexual behaviors and even have intercourse before age 18. It’s as common as dirt.

Now we do run into problems with Andrew and Giuffre due to the fact that Giuffre was more than just a teen slut. In fact, she was an out an out real thing teenage prostitute! What a noble, morally elevated female!

Now the problem is that in most of the US at least, it was perfectly legal to screw Giuffre for free, but automagically, one you pay her, you’ve committed a crime. You can screw them all you want, but you just can’t pay them for it! I sort of like this law. We should extend to all women, not just the teenies. It sure would save us men an awful lot of money!

Now, buying a teenage prostitute under age 18 is illegal in the US. It doesn’t strike me as much of a crime because there are many enthusiastic schoolgirl prostitutes. But I don’t see how you make it legal either. Make it a misdemeanor. Instead, it’s a serious crime and worse that, it’s somehow or other sex trafficking!

Now sex trafficking is a completely abused term once the US Justice Department got a hold of it after Congress made a retarded law in the midst of a Sex Panic. Sex trafficking used to be pretty serious. It meant more or less sex slaves. These women are out and out sex slaves, being imprisoned or locked into service by evil pimps, mostly men. A lot are literally locked in and can’t escape while they are ordered to have sex with man after man.

It’s really gross and it’s a very serious crime. And the truth is that most pimping probably is trafficking. If the prostitutes are free to leave the pimp, it’s not, but when are they ever free to leave? Not real often. Pimps threaten to harm, hurt, or kill any prostitute who leaves their harem, so most prostitutes with pimps feel locked into them. Obviously, pimps are one of the dirtiest aspects of this dirty business.

However! The Justice Department decided to somehow include all underage teen prostitutes under the rubric of “trafficking,” which is quite dubious. I don’t mind a crime called Prostituting a Minor, but it sure as hell isn’t “trafficking.” Even worse, any man who patronizes an underage teen prostitute is himself somehow guilty of trafficking! You paid this 17 year old whore for sex, did the deed, and walked out. Turns out you just committed an act of sex trafficking! That’s absolutely ridiculous, but that’s the crazy new law.

As expected, the feminists took the ball, ran away with it, and were never seen again. The feminists have somehow decided that not only are sex slaves and teeny prostitutes being “trafficked,” but in fact, every single woman who is engaged in prostitution is engaged in sex trafficking! More properly, since feminists insist that women have no agency, they are “being trafficked (by others, basically men).”

Notice how when feminists talk, women never have any agency? That means that they’re basically children and not responsible for any of their actions. Women never do anything. Everything that happens to a woman is not because she did it because I guess she can’t do anything, but instead it got done to her by someone else (typically an evil man).

I would say that according to this silly logic, prostitutes in business for themselves, which is lots of them, are apparently trafficking themselves! But feminists logically say this is not possible, and I agree. Instead they are argue that prostitutes in business for themselves are being trafficked by the male customers who purchase their services! So every time a man buys a whore, he’s “trafficking” her. Ridiculous, huh?

So it appears that the morally upright Ms. Giuffre, now older, wiser, and probably a lot less horny, was never raped even one time, ever. Statutory rape doesn’t count. It’s a bit hard to argue that she was being trafficked, but Maxwell and Epstein caught her trying to leave them a couple of times and brought her back and threatened her. Ok, now they’re trafficking her, so she was trafficked some of the time.

Giuffre was working very profitably for as a prostitute for the rich and famous from ages 17-23. So for most of her career, from ages 18-23, she was an adult, a grown woman. Giuffre claims that during this entire time, she was being “sexually abused” or “abused.” She never had real sex the whole time. Instead she had some weird abuse masquerading as sex. Are you sure you didn’t like it, Ms. Giuffre? A lot of women like that sort of thing, you know.

“Sexual abuse” is a term that has been tortured, raped, and murdered by sex-panicked morons for a very long time now. It used to refer to child molestation, which involves adults and children under 13. From 13-17, depending on the laws, there is no sexual abuse. There’s just statutory rape or illegal intercourse. It’s not possibly to sexually abuse a teenage girl and you certainly cannot abuse a grown woman because no matter how infantile her silly little brain is, she’s still an adult, at least chronologically. Sexual abuse literally means child molestation and I don’t mind referring to child molestation and sexual abuse. It’s a logical way to see it.

Somehow now teenage girls with ravenous, nymphomaniacal sex drives get “sexually abused” a good part of the time when they have sex, even when it’s consensual. In other words, the term for child molesting got inflated by dumbshits all the way to teenage girls and from there all the way to so-called adult women, assuming there even are any in an emotional sense.

It’s bullshit. It’s nonsense.

Poor Virginia suffered through the horrific ordeal of getting paid $15,000 to fuck a hot, sexy older man. It boggles the mind. No doubt this indignity was inflicted on the poor virginal Virginia endless times. How did she ever recover from getting paid $15K to get laid by some hot dude? Obviously, she’s a survivor. How she survived such a horror is simply beyond me.

Poor girl! Girls are crying! Poor Virginia! Virginia is crying! Poor women! Women are crying!

She never got sexually abused even one time except in her tiny little pea brain. And of course she never got raped even one time except in the   fever dreams of her mind. Now she may well have been trafficked.

Virginia, I will take time out for abusing your sorry ass here to tell you that I am very sorry that these low lifes basically imprisoned you as a sex slave. I really am truly sorry.

And I hope whatever damage this may have caused you – and it may well have done so – you are able to get over it and move it. I’m sorry you got taken back and threatened when you tried to run away. At that point, Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking you. That’s a serious crime, and I hope you can make peace with it, and I mean that with all my heart, dear.

Now that I am done addressing Ms. Giuffre, back to the story.

95% of Virginian Giuffre’s story is a pathetic joke. It’s not even true. She’s just another silly bitch trying to milk us men for everything we’ve got like so many of her sisters. I hope she decides to do something more productive and dignified with her life than act like a baby, be a permanent victim, and make a living scamming men.

Game/PUA: Bad Boy Game and Thug Game

Game/PUA: Bad Boy Game and Thug Game

My advice to any Black readers would be if you have any sense at all to stay as far away from that ghetto culture as possible. I understand it might be appealing for a Black man who wants to run Bad Boy Game or Thug Game as a PUA/Game strategy to get laid to be a part of that culture or pretend to, but I don’t think it’s worth it. We White men are attracted to the bad boy aspects of our culture, and I am convinced that a lot of us act bad and commit crimes simply because women love bad men and criminals so much, so pretending to be somewhat sociopathic is a good way to get laid. If women demand sociopaths, fine! Then I will act like one! Is the thinking.

I’ve told women about my criminal past, and they often seem to get excited. They hardly ever act turned off. When I tell them I never got caught, they look amazed. They act like it makes them horny. I’m convinced that women like dangerous men. The trick is to act like enough of a dangerous man to get laid but then to make it fake enough so you stay out of jail. It’s not so much “be a criminal” as “act like a criminal without committing many crimes.” It’s like being an actor.

Women love dealers too, at least pot dealers. Tell a woman that you’re a drug dealer and she often acts very excited. They seem of like to be partners in your criminal enterprise too for some reason. It seems to make them excited. I think women want to be “bad girls” in the same way that a lot of us men want to be “bad boys.”

Lie Down with Dogs, Get up with Fleas

In response to the Bold Shooter post, I would like to add a couple of things.

I thought the shooter was White, but it looks like she’s Black also. Perhaps simply of the more light-skinned variety with died blond hair. By her clothing and jewelry belt, we can see that she’s pretty ghetto. The victim absolutely did not deserve to die, but looking at her photos, she was rather ghetto herself, albeit of the higher class sort that likes to appear classy and moneyed. I’m not trying to say she was a bad person because I have no idea how she behaved in her life. Thing is you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Be careful who you befriend and hang out with!

The point is if you are involved in that ghetto culture at all as a Black person, you’re already in danger, and you might be a menace yourself. It’s not just that that culture is full of lousy and dangerous people. It’s more that even the better ones as perhaps this victim was are also in danger merely by being part of that culture. It puts you at risk just being in proximity to those people.

I have heard LE people say that many homicide victims were not particularly bad people themselves, but they were often hanging out in some pretty shady and dangerous places. In other words, a lot of victims do sort of bring it on themselves a bit by going out of their way to put themselves in harm’s way.

Of course I’ve done this myself hanging out in punk rock clubs and living a drug dealing criminal* for 14 years. But the White soft drug dealing culture I was part of was hardly violent at all, although once I bought thousands of dollars worth of pot in a garage from some ~18 year old Hispanic kids.

The pot had reportedly come from the Eme or the Mexican Mafia. It was quite scary but it was also an incredible danger rush of the kind that only committing crimes gives you. I also learned in living like that what an incredible rush committing crimes and being a criminal is. The danger and exhilaration rush, a mix of terror and excitement) is hard to match. I understand why men do it just for the testosterone rush and the bad boy credentials you get. I don’t know what to say except be careful and try not to victimize innocent people.

The thing is you start getting above street level dealing into say, selling pounds, and you are running with the big boys now, and things start to get shadier. Also these people often live restricted “Don’t want to meet any new people” lifestyles, and generally you hear about them all the time because you get your pot from them in a roundabout way, but then you almost never see them, and no way can you go over to their house and meet them. But generally the White pot-dealing culture wasn’t very dangerous even as you got into the higher levels. Whites just aren’t that violent. Even White criminals are not that violent.

My Life As a Criminal

I lived as a criminal for 14 years. I was a soft drug dealer who mostly sold pot and sometimes psychedelics. I didn’t deal with cocaine that much because as soon as that drug came out, it started getting a sleazy reputation and you ended up selling to addict types, which would make me feel guilty. Your buyers buy from you but resent you because you are the “cause of their drug addiction” because you get the stuff from them. Also the coke dealing scene was way more violent that the soft drug scene. The psychedelic dealing scene was very nonviolent.

I don’t feel bad about my past at all because we were hippies who thought the world would be a better place if everyone smoked pot and dropped acid sometimes. It was the Righteous Dealer thing. In addition, I wasn’t victimizing any innocent people because I can’t do that. I’m also quite proud of never getting caught. The rush you get committing a crime right in front of police (by, say, driving by police with a pound of pot in your car and them looking at you none the wiser) is hard to put into words.

I can also tell you that sometimes we got our pot straight from the police. And I had a relationship with narcotics detectives and turned in lousy people every now and then. I suspect they knew what I was up to, but if you turned in a scumbag now and then, they left you alone.

To tell you the truth, I’m such a good boy nowadays that I am terrified when I think of my past. I can’t believe I took the risks I did especially with the sentences they are handing out nowadays. I doubt if I would ever take risks like that again, or at the very least, I’d have to think about it real hard. Also I have far more to lose now than I did then. I did get arrested a couple of times on very light charges, but I’ve only spent six hours in jail, and it was long enough that my attitude is, “I ain’t going back.” I also sort of brought it on myself a bit by being an asshole and taunting and fighting with the cops like an idiot. I thought I was a badass back then.

It’s hard to describe how traumatizing it is for a middle class White boy to spend even a few hours behind bars. Plus some of the cops are really mean when they arrest you and some of the jailers are too. These cops were basically sadists in my opinion. Perhaps you have to be a sadist to be a cop. I have no idea. But I would think that non-sadist cops would be better than sadistic ones. My record is clean though. I only have one chickenshit conviction and I got it expunged. Summary probation is a joke, too. It’s not even real probation.

NSFW! Bold Shooter

Black woman walks up to a 42 year old Black woman, shoots her a few times and then drives away. Victim is apparently not involved in anything shady. Look at the man who comes around in back of the vehicle towards the end though. He looks at the license plate, then he comes to the driver’s window and looks in at the shooter. This guy knows who did it.
At five seconds after the shooting until 20 seconds after the shooting, people just up the street are walking around casually acting like nothing is wrong. Totally nonchalant.

The shooter looks pretty young, maybe 18-25, nice looking. Wonder what the motive was. Sad that that woman got killed though. So far it looks like she didn’t do anything wrong and wasn’t involved in anything shady.

Crown Heights, New York City.

New Delphi Murders Update! July 22, 2021: Police Actively Considering That There May Have Been Two Killers in the Case

First, a pitch for supporting this website and our private sleuthing group:

Our private group is clearly the best Delphi sleuthing group on the Internet by far and has been since it was founded four years ago in 2017.

Unlike any other sleuthers, we have determined the main suspects in the case, have a good idea of what happened during the crime and what the crime scene looked like, and have recently figured out the motive. Best of all, much of our information is via solid sources such as search party members, official case documents, and LE sources close to the investigation. No one else has come close to uncovering the amount and quality of information we have.

Why not join the 240+ members who have already signed up for the best Delphi sleuthing team of all? How about getting your money’s worth? There is a small fee of $20 to join, which includes lifetime membership.

Join the best Delphi sleuthing group of all!

Mr. X’s Stepson Bears a Shocking Resemblance to the Young BG Sketch

An interesting new theory has come up. It turns out that Mr. X has a stepson that looks remarkably like the Young BG sketch. The stepson is a 21 year old man who just graduated from high school and lives with Mr. X and his wife, Mrs. X. He has the same first name and last name as Mr. X. However, his middle name is different.

Stepson X is Mrs. X’s child by a previous marriage and may have been adopted by Mr. X. We say this because he has the same first and last name as Mr. X. We don’t know what his original first name was, but his original last name was not the same as Mr. X’s. Therefore, after Mrs. X married Mr. X, they must have gone to court and had his name legally changed to Mr. X’s last name. This happens a lot in remarriages.

Now onto the match. We recently obtained a photo of Stepson X. We age  regressed his photo to age 17, which he would have been at the time of the crime, and it’s a perfect match. It’s long been suggested that BG used his “son”‘s photo, and talk of a “father-son kill team” was actually the first rumor about the killer(s), dating to 7 PM the day they were found. And it’s never gone away.

At the moment,  there is no evidence whatsoever that this young man assisted Mr. X in his crime. It’s simply a possibility, a theory. However, a much better theory is that Mr. X used his stepson’s photo as Young BG, the 19 year old Catfish Boy used to lure Libby to the trails that day.

We agree with Leaker that Young BG’s drawing is based on the photo of the 19 year old Catfish Boy that was used to lure Libby from Snapchat. We also agree with Leaker that the girls were lured to the site that day. In addition, we talked to two other people who both told us they had “inside sources.” They told us that their inside sources (plural) had all told them that “there was some sort of luring of the girls to the site on the day of the crime.” So while this does not back up the catfish theory per se, it does seem that a lot of evidence is converging on the notion that the girls were lured to the bridge that day, including about five separate sources, albeit most of them being vague.

The stepson, even today, is a dead ringer for Young BG. We are concerned that Mr. X may have used his stepson’s photo, possibly without his permission, as the Catfish Boy used in the luring of the girls. At 17, he was the right age for a 19 year old Catfish Boy. In this case, Stepson X would be completely innocent and would instead have been simply used as a pawn by Mr. X in committing his crime. If Mr. X did that, we think that was a pretty lousy thing to do to his stepson.

On the other hand, there is a report from the south end of the bridge by a woman who said she saw Young BG there and scared him off her property. She said his eyes were “dark and evil.” It is unclear at the moment whether the Young BG sketch is from this witness or is the Catfish Boy used on Snapchat to lure in the girls, or if the drawing represents both the young man seen at the crime scene and the Catfish Boy lure.

However, the Young BG sketch was the first sketch drawn in the case and was drawn off of eyewitness accounts. It turns out that all of the other witness accounts of seeing BG – the 16 year old girl, the arguing man of the couple under the bridge (Daniel Pearson), and possibly Dan McCain – saw BG with the white scarf obscuring his face as can be seen in the BG video.

But this also why the Old BG sketch is no good. First of all, it bears no good resemblance to Mr. X, the main suspect in the crime. So why does the composite differ so much from the suspect? It turns out that the composite was fake in a sense. The witnesses could only see the top half of BG’s face. The bottom half was covered by the white scarf. So the composite artist simply filled in what he thought the suspect’s face may have looked like based on the description of the top half of the face. It looks like he got it all wrong. That’s probably why LE was saying at the presser that Old BG was no longer a suspect in the crime.

They said that because it’s a composite that was junk from the very start, and further, it looks nothing like the main suspect. There is no good composite of the main suspect because no one saw BG with his face fully revealed. Hence LE is refocusing onto the Young BG sketch, who looks like both the young man seen a the bridge that day and the catfish boy used to lure the girls. Whether those are the same person is not yet known, but it is possible. At the moment, we have no idea that the boy in the catfish photo is the same young man who was seen at the bridge that day. Perhaps he was, and that would be an interesting theory. But there’s no hard evidence that it is true.

Allow me to explain. We also have zero evidence that BG used his stepson’s photo to catfish Libby. Nor do we have any evidence that the stepson was at the crime scene that day or participated in the crime in any way. Clearly someone who looked like him was both the Catfish Boy and was seen as a suspect at the crime scene, but perhaps it was not this young man. Perhaps Catfish Boy and Young BG are two different people. This is all very confused. Also, we have not yet confirmed that there was more than one killer involved in this crime, but see below for more on that.

Stepson X being involved in either of these two ways is simply a theory based on the resemblance to the sketch, we are not accusing this young man of anything, and we request that everyone absolutely leave him alone. We simply think that he ought to be investigated for possible involvement in the crime, unwitting or not. So he would be a suspect, but half of the men in Delphi have probably been suspects at one point.

Possibility of More than One Killer in the Case

There is news via our LE source close to the investigation. He said the notion of two killers “is still in the arena.” He also said, “This has been an active theory since the first day of the crime.”

He added that they didn’t publicize it because the town was freaked out enough by one murder, and they thought the idea of two killers would make people panic.

Also, LE seem to have an actual suspect in mind as a possible accomplice, as he said the possible accomplice is considerably younger than Mr. X and has “a much greater ability to run.” They don’t want him taking off. We have no idea who they may have in mind as the possible accomplice, however, the statement that the suspect is considerably younger than Mr. X adds weight to the notion that the Young BG sketch is based on a person who LE feels may have been accomplice to the crime that day.

It sounds like they don’t have enough to think this possible accomplice was actually involved, similar to the case against Mr. X. Instead, it has been an area of active investigation for four years. He’s a suspect, as Mr. X is, as so many people have been. They don’t even know if there were two killers. But Mr. X’s position as a suspect is really up to the level of POI (a higher standard), as they believe he committed the crime. Possible Accomplice is at the lower level of suspect, and it’s not even known if he was ever at the crime scene that day.

I have been sitting on this information for 5 1/2 weeks because I was afraid that releasing this information might make the younger suspect run, but I have decided now is the right time to release it.

Two Female Search Party Members’ Reports on the Crime Scene Line up Very Well

The rumor that dolls were scattered around the crime scene seems patently ridiculous. Nevertheless, more and more evidence continues to pile up that this rumor is actually true.

Two female members of the search party contacted team members separately with revelations about the crime. One is a middle-aged woman in her 40’s with kids who is otherwise completely normal, and the new one who has come forward is a different woman in her 30’s. Neither woman has ever met the other, so this is independent confirmation from two separate sources.

Both said that dolls were scattered around the crime. One said that in addition to dolls all over the ground, there were dolls hanging from trees. I’m not sure if the second validated the “dolls in trees.” The first woman contacted two separate team members in addition to the first person, so she’s told at least three separate people so far.

When I first heard these rumors from the podcaster, we were both laughing over the phone because it was so ridiculous and insane. Sure, it’s a horrible crime but this crime scene was so insane and unbelievable that it made you want to laugh out loud that someone who ever go to such deranged lengths to stage a crime scene.

Later I found that this same search party member had contacted two team members, and in addition, the second woman contacted one of the same team members. The second woman largely corroborated much if not all of the first woman’s report. I will have to go back and look through my IM’s to see to what extent she corroborated the other woman. But they were both definitely on board via the sexual posing of the girls, the dolls on the ground, and the sheet with the smiley face on it at the very least.

The other elements were are not sure they agreed on are: a giant plush toy animal, possibly a bear; a crucifix hung upside down; dolls hanging in trees; and a knife plunged into a log with one of the girl’s hands wrapped around it to make it appear she had stabbed the tree.

Was the Crime Scene Staged as a Murder-Suicide as a Sick Joke?

I suppose  the staging of the crime scene was also meant to stage a murder-suicide based on the suggestion that one girl hand stabbed the other in the jugular vein and the heart, which would have been plausible at least, and then stabbed herself all over her body, after which she would have cut her own throat, which is impossible.

She would also have had to stage herself as well as the other girl, lay out the smiley-face sheet, hang dolls in the trees and scatter them on the ground, and somehow place a giant plush toy at the scene,. all the while not leaving any DNA behind. And at some point in the process, she would have sexually violated the other girl with sticks and twigs, while later, she would have to violate herself in much the same way, and then she would have had to have jammed twigs and sticks into the many stab wounds in her body, after which she would have cut her own throat. Obviously none of this happened, but BG may have wanted to stage it to look like a murder-suicide as of a sick joke.

Hatchet May Have Been Used as a Murder Weapon in One Homicide

As we noted above, one girl suffered a grievous wound to the throat. We now feel that the cut to this girl’s throat was with a hatchet, although we do not have confirmation of this other than what looks like a hatchet in BG’s right jeans area and reports that investigators went clear out of the state to check out two other hatchet criminals. Why fly all over the country looking at hatchet criminals unless the crime involved a hatchet?

Also, if he did cut her throat with one huge swing of a hatchet, it would have soaked BG in blood according to a search warrant from the FBI obtained. You need a huge knife to saw someone’s head off – almost a sword – you can watch any of the beheading videos out there to be sure. Also, a slow cut even with a big knife would not have drenched BG in blood. But a hatchet blow sure would have. The report of the girl’s head being only attached by an inch of skin implies a single huge blow with a hatchet because this is the sort of wound a hatchet, not a knife, would have caused.

At Least Four Separate Sources Now Confirm the Dolls Rumor, Two of Them from the Police

In addition to the two search party members’ reports, we also have a statement from an LE source close to the investigation that dolls were scattered all over the crime scene, and both girls were posed and sexually violated. He said there were so many dolls that it looked like he had gone to the Goodwill and bought up a bunch of dolls.

So now we have testimony from three excellent sources – two independent search party members and an LE source close to the investigation.

However, I just heard via DDcups, a man from Australia, and an excellent poster on the Reddit Delphi subs, that he contacted someone who knew a Delphi police officer, and this person told him his police friend had stated that dolls were scattered around the crime scene. So we have more evidence, albeit the third-hand source we have never talked to.

So we have four sources for the dolls story, two from LE and two from search party members. And as you will see below, we actually have five confirmations of the dolls story, three from LE and two from searchers.

We’ve Hardly Had Any LE Sources All This Time

Critics claim we have all these LE sources but we don’t. In four years, we only had two LE sources, and each of them told us one statement. We got these LE sources from local sleuth JM. This is what they told us:

  1. A sheriff’s deputy in a nearby town who stated: “One of the girls was in the early stages of pregnancy.” This would have been found on autopsy, and a statement like that usually means 6-8 weeks pregnant. Remember the social media photo Abby and Libby posted the night before the murders? It said, “We have a secret” and the photo shows both of them holding up their hands in secret signs. Was the secret that one of them had found out she was pregnant? If so, how did she find out? Girls age 13-14 are notorious for missing periods some months and may even miss them for months at a time. This is why it’s so hard to get girls this age pregnant. Girls stay in the “hard to knock up” stage from ages 13-15. From age 16 on, they’re fertile as rabbits. It almost seems you could knock them up just by brushing up agains them. This is probably evolutionary as pregnancies in 13-15 year old girls are notorious for having complications for both the mother and the child. It is not until ages 18-19 with the completion of the widening of the hips (Yes, girls’ bodies keep developing after 17) that a female is completely suited for pregnancy. From 16-17, females are very fertile but their hips are not wide enough to give easy birth to a child, hence the high rate of complications.
  2. The second statement was from an Indiana detective in another area, in this case Narcotics, who had seen crime scene photos and noted that both girls had been sexually violated with twigs, sticks, and small branches. So this rumor originally came from the police! Further, this rumor was first made after the wife of a detective working on the case posted online. The detective had had a hard time sleeping at night because the case upset him so much. He finally broke down and told his wife about the girls being violated sexually by natural wooden objects from the forest. She added that in addition, one girl has stab wounds all over her body which in which these wooden objects were also jammed into. So here the first two reports we heard about this came from the police. Also this rumor has been somewhat backed up by a third LE sources close to the investigation, who said “both girls had been violated with foreign objects.” Now we have three references to this statement, all from the police themselves!

First Leak Directly from the Investigation Confirms Dolls Rumor Once Again

But now we have a shocking new revelation. We just got our first leak from inside the investigation itself!

Yes, this is third hand We are very excited to report this news. The leak is from a very high-ranking person on that team. Turns out the brother of a team member is best friends with this high-ranking person. They were chatting at a party recently, and the friend asked the investigator about the dolls rumor, specifically asking if there was one doll or more than one doll at the crime scene. The man thought about his words for a bit before wording them very carefully. Then he said, “There was at least one doll at the crime scene.”

We now have three separate LE source both reporting dolls at the crime scene. And we have two independent reports from search party members who agree that there were dolls at the crime scene.

Retired Homicide Detective Joins Our Team

In what is the finest coup for our group of ~230 paid members, a retired homicide detective from Washington DC joined our group as a paid member! I spoke to him on the phone, and he’s a very nice fellow. Further, he knows the subject inside out. I can’t believe how any of these detectives do what they do. To me they are like magicians pulling rabbits out of hats. In the day since he’s joined, I’m already stunned at how much he’s done. Are these guys even humans?

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)