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.

9

Alt Left: Final Word on the Virginia Giuffre Versus Prince Andrew Bullshit

At most Andrew is guilty of statutory rape if he indeed had sex with her in Florida. Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl (and a high-flying, globetrotting, high priced call girl at that!) by a 40 year old man is pretty much a joke of a charge. He definitely didn’t rape or abuse her. The sex was 10

The rape and abuse was so horrendous that she called up her friends and bragged to them about how she just had sex with Prince Andrew! Later on, she wrote a book about what a blast it had been to be a $$$$high-priced, globe-trotting call girl to the rich and famous. Throughout the book she talks about what a blast it was to live this $$$$$lifestyle.

Then comes the Epstein affair and she and the other little whores (because that is exactly what they were – teenybopper whores) decided that they had all been raaaaaaaaaaped and abuuuuuuuused and cried all the way to courthouse hoping to $$$$cash in on payouts of $$$$$$tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for all the raaaaape and abuuuuuuse they suffered.

The rape and abuse was so horrible that many of them went back to be raaaaped and abuuuuuused over 40 different times! To give handjobs for $$$$$400 a shot! How traumatizing! Poor babies! In fact, it was so horrible that most of them went out and recruited a bunch of their little whore girlfriends to get raaaaaaped and abuuuuuuused via handjob for $$$$$400 a shot.

Just a bunch of lying, scamming, crybaby whores trying to $$$cash in and get their $$$$tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from this guy’s estate. It’s all a gigantic $$$scam.

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

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.

9

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 9

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 9

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, 9

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 8

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 8

Attraction to very young girls under 13 is not necessarily pedophilic either. Normal men are attracted to little girls at 6

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 10

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 9

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 5

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.

Alt Left: Discussing Adult-Minor Sex, Chronophilias, Child Molestation, Rape, Child Porn and Other Taboo Subjects

What’s the message here? I don’t know the exact science of whatever men really feel, but they should be quiet, and especially they should know if they do something with kids, the consequences could be fatal, and the vigilante etc., might not be punished.

Yeah, I refuse to keep quiet about this stuff. My conscience is clear. I’m a teleiophile and I’m no more interested in little girls than any other man. I’m not even into junior high girls. Looks like way too much of a young girl. Of course I don’t molest little girls and I’ve never done anything like that in my life other than some weird childhood sex play with girls who were around my peer age around puberty. We were 13 and she was 11, if you want the details. My conscience is clear.

I advocate that all men not molest little girls and not collect obvious child porn because you can harm the girl and also I think it’s weird and you can go to prison hard. I don’t care much about CP except that the real thing is evidence of a crime. The main thing is if you have that crap on your drive, you can get arrested and you will go down hard.

I advocate that all men respect the statutory rape laws of the state or country where they reside, if only because I don’t like to see my brothers going to jail on this stuff. And I’m not wild about men having sex with 13 year old girls. A lot of places call it child molesting and let’s face it, that’s an awfully young girl.

Other than that, of course you can think anything you want or do anything legal you want to with any willing minor of any age.

This is what I advocate. Why would I get murdered by a lynch mob for advocating something reasonable and law-abiding like that? I don’t get it. And no one who kills or hurts me over this stuff is going to get off the hook by some judge because he talked about weird stuff like pedophilia, child molestation, rape, child porn, and statutory rape. So what! Anyone can talk about anything. No judge is going to let someone of the hook for “killing some guy who talks about weird stuff.” Forget it.

As you can see below, the things I do in my life are pretty much legal and I don’t do anything outrageously bad or illegal. I don’t download and save CP on my drive. I don’t engage in any sort of sexual behavior with jailbaits. Sometimes I talk to them as they are in those Kik groups below. But in California it’s perfectly legal to talk to teenage girls. I usually don’t want to get too sexual in my conversations with them though.

I don’t know if it’s my looks, but if I talk to one of those girls for 20 minutes (and I’m very careful how I talk to them), I can guarantee that the devious little nympho seductress will figure out a way to shift the conversation over to sex! See? They go after us men! A lot of those jailbaits are horny as Hell and they love men. I prefer to see them more as dangerous than anything else. They’re almost a menace.

I’ll talk to them after that. A few have sent me pics, but the pics were mostly legal as far as I’m concerned. Erotic but legal. I try not to get into actual sexting with them, though I did it a lot (mostly with women but also with a few 14-17 year old jailbaits) in Yahoo groups 20-25 years ago, but all this stuff was way more wide open back then. Nobody was worried about anything. The situation has completely changed now 20-25 years later. Everyone is paranoid, cops are arresting men on all sorts of vague, weird, and stupid sex law bullshit, and this whole area has gotten a whole lot scarier.

I absolutely like to look at 15-17 year old girls because they are highly sexual to me, and they really turn me on. I haven’t touched a jailbait since I was 21, and I don’t anticipate doing so in the remainder of my life.

I don’t collect child pornography and when I see the really bad stuff, I report it right away. I have pics of teenage girls on my drive. Most I knew were 18 or 19. I get photos like this quite a bit. I have a huge folder full of pics young women, mostly 18-23 but up to 27, sent me.

A couple wouldn’t tell me their age. They just sent me nudes with a message, “Me Daddy” and went away. I look at it closely, and if she could possibly be 18 by any stretch of the imagination, I keep it. Once girls get into the 12-14 year old age range, it’s pretty obvious that they are way too young and I don’t touch that stuff and I block anyone who tries to send it to me.

I see that stuff posted in Kik sex groups once in a while, and idiots on Kik try to send me pics with that stuff that they are selling. I delete the pics and I don’t download any of those videos or photos. I’m not putting any of that stuff on my hard drive.

I was in a Kik group the other day and someone posted a video with a very young as in way too young teenage girl sucking her boyfriend’s cock and him cumming in her mouth.

The group was literally run by a teenage girl, a 16 year old girl. It was mostly just her, a few other mostly women and girls, and a bunch of men. Those groups are all called something like Younger Women for Older Men. Another group like that is run by a 13 year old girl!

These are just jailbait teenage girls who like to talk to adult men. They pose pics of themselves now and again to show off or get likes, but the pics are never pornographic. They tend to be cheesecake-like, maybe her in a bathing suit. Any kind of porn is rarely posted in the sites run by those girls because they’re not really into porn. If you post porn or dick pics in there, the girls who run the group throw you out right away. And the conversation is not supposed to stray into overtly sexual territory because the girls don’t really want to talk about that stuff.

But with a name like that, idiots post obvious CP or what we call “way too young” teenage girl (13-14 years old?) videos and photos now and again.  The girl who runs the group will say, “Whoa that looks way too young,” and they usually just throw the guy out right away. I might look at it, but Hell if I am putting that crap on my drive.

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, 1

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.

7

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 2

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 10

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.

Does Anyone Have the Slightest Idea What Any of This Means?

I read this whole thing but I still can’t really make sense of it. I like to read things that challenge my mind and make me think, especially things I don’t know the answer to. I like to read opinions that are opposite mine, and then I go over to my side and see what our people are saying against these arguments. I even spend time on my enemies’ sites. I spent quite a bit of time on pro-Israel sites recently. The weird thing about that is that after a while, it starts to get under your skin. You get brainwashed. I found myself starting to support Israel for a while, so I stopped reading. I encourage all of you to do this, though.

Consider reading the material of the other side that is completely opposite to what you believe. If it starts making you want to support them, you may want to quit, but at least expose yourself to their arguments. And I have found by doing this that conservatives are actually right on a few things these days, mostly in the cultural sphere. And I am almost a Communist! But I’m not going to reject an idea just because it’s conservative. If conservatives are right, so be it! Hell, if the fascists are right on something, I’ll support that view.

Thing is they’re hardly ever right on anything, but I’m always willing to consider that they might be. Also if you understand your enemies’ arguments, you can understand their motivations and them themselves better. And when you understand them better, you understand your own side better.

Most stuff I read doesn’t really challenge my brain too much. So I do like to read mindbenders that are hard to read or hard to understand. For some reason, I find literary fiction to be among the hardest things that I read in terms of truly understanding it. There’s so much packed in there and you have to pay attention to every sentence and make little pictures in your mind. You really have to pay attention to every word, every sentence! Nothing quite taxes my mind like literary fiction. Pure theory also taxes my mind.

Recently I have been reading sociology theory. I’ve dipped into Durkheim’s Suicide and The Division of Labor in Society. They were both very hard to understand, but they were both quite intelligible. Same thing: they both packed in so many ideas in so short of a space. Each sentence was packed with ideas, often more than one at once.

So when I saw this, I decided I would tax my brain with this stuff. Problem is I hardly understood any of what this guy is talking about. These are reviews of a book Morris Raphael Cohen called A Preface to Logic. It’s philosophy, hardcore philosophy. I must say that philosophy is the most taxing of all. It’s taken me til my 60’s before I could understand Hegel, Nietzsche, and especially Sartre. I still hardly understand Sartre. And I even understand a bit of Kant, and can’t nobody understand that guy. This goes to show you that in some ways you indeed do get smarter as you age.

If any of you dare to read this, let me know if it makes any sense to you at all. It’s Philosophy, particularly the branch of Philosophy called Logic.

Morris Raphael Cohen (1880-1947) was an American philosopher, lawyer, and legal scholar who united pragmatism with logical positivism and linguistic analysis. He wrote other books such as Reason And Nature, An Essay On The Meaning Of Scientific Method, The Faith of a Liberal: Selected Essays, Studies in Philosophy and Science, etc.

He wrote in the Foreword to this 1944 book, A Preface to Logic :

“This volume does not purport to be a treatise on logic. Whatever slight contributions I have been able to make to the substance of logical doctrine have been made elsewhere. What is attempted in the studies that form this volume is an exploration of the periphery of logic, the relations of logic to the rest of the universe, the philosophical presuppositions which give logic its meaning, and the applications which give it importance.

If this voyage of exploration does not settle any of the domains surveyed, I trust that it may at least dispel some doubts as to the existence of these domains and perhaps persuade some who are now inclined to waiver that here are fertile fields which will richly repay honest intellectual labor.” (Pg. x-xi)

He explains in the first chapter:

“The employment of special symbols instead of the more familiar symbols called words, is a practical convenience rather than a logical necessity. There is not a proposition in logic or mathematics that cannot be ultimately expressed in ordinary words (this is proved by the fact that these subjects can be taught to those who do not start with a knowledge of the special symbols). But practically it is impossible to make much progress in mathematics and logic without appropriate symbols.” (Pg. 8)

He states:

“Mill’s method of agreement and difference has a limited usefulness as a method of eliminating the circumstances which are not causal, and thereby helping somewhat in finding the true cause. But it is to be observed that the efficiency of this method depends on our fundamental assumption as to what circumstances are relevant or possibly related causally to the given effect. If the true cause is not included in our major premise the ‘canons of induction’ will not enable us to discover it.

If anyone thinks that I have understated the case for these canons of induction as methods of discovery, let him discover by their means the cause of cancer or of disorders in internal secretions.” (Pg. 21)

He comments on the Logical Positivism of Rudolf Carnap:

“Carnap and others deny that any unverifiable proposition has meaning… We do not ordinarily think that the meaning of anything is identical with its verifiable consequences. All sorts of statements are ordinarily deemed significant or meaningful without it ever occurring to us to undertake their verification.

Such is the case, for example, with ordinary suppositions, invitations, statements of problems, expressions of doubt, questions, statements of immediate perception, and statements of logical implications. Surely these and other types of intelligible statement have meaning without being verified. I say to someone, ‘Consider the case of a man drowning.’ This is an intelligible statement that does not call for verification.” (Pg. 57)

He observes:

“Recent psychology seems to justify the doubt, expressed long ago by Burke, as to whether people who understand what is meant by right, liberty, justice, etc., have any corresponding images other than the words or sounds, and whether even more concrete concepts universally arouse any other images in the course of ordinary rapid conversation or reading.” (Pg. 68)

He points out:

“Consider the usual illustration of induction given in our logic texts, viz., that of the sun rising. Is it true that the more often we have seen it rise the more probable it is that we will see it rise again? If that were the case there would be a greater probability of the man who has been it rise 36,000 times living another day, than the man who had seen it rise 3,600 times—which is absurd. Mill, himself the strongest defender of the claims of induction, admitted with characteristic candor that in some cases a few instances are far more probative than a much larger number of instances in other situations.” (Pg. 106)

He argues:

“Conclusions are necessitated by the premises because if we follow certain rules of logic all alternative conclusions are shown to be impossible. By ruling out certain possibilities of premises and conclusions we achieve determinate results. In this development of limited possibilities lies the fruitfulness of logic. Mathematics is thus productive as well as deductive. It is an exploration of the field of possibility just as truly as astronomy is an exploration of the field of stellar motions.” (Pg. 181)

Cohen’s book, though more than seventy years old, may still interest modern students of Logic looking for an introduction to the “principles” of the subject. Although Cohen was unrivaled in contemporary American philosophy for the diversity of the subjects with which he occupied himself, it is from Logic that he draws the basic principles that enable him to survey so wide a domain with such a unity of view. Early in life, through the study of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics, he became convinced of the reality of abstract or mathematical relations.

That pure mathematics asserts only logical implications and that such logical implications or relations cannot be identified with either psychological or physical events but are involved as determinants of both seemed to him to offer a well-grounded and fruitful starting point for philosophy. It at once ruled out for him the empiricism of Mill, since relations if they exist in the mind only, cannot connect things external to the mind; it also ruled out for him the Hegelian effort to locate relations in an absolute totality that is beyond human understanding and therefore of no explanatory value.

On the positive side, the doctrine, since it constitutes a ground for the procedures of scientific method generally, permitted him to take full advantage of the remarkable developments of modern scientific thought. It led him also to return to what constituted the concern of classical philosophy before it became preoccupied with the problem of knowledge – mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, ethics, law, art, and religion.

In philosophy proper it enabled him in the course of his extensive writings to raise almost every metaphysical question of importance, and it resulted in the composition of his book Reason and Nature, one of the few inexhaustible philosophical volumes written in America.

When the second edition of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics appeared in 1938, Russell pointed out that the Pythagorean numerology:

“…has misled mathematicians and the Board of Education down to the present day. Consequently, to say that numbers are symbols which mean nothing appears as a horrible form of atheism. At the time when I wrote the Principles, I shared with Frege a belief in the Platonic reality of numbers, which, in my imagination, peopled the timeless realm of Being. It was a comforting faith, which I later abandoned with regret.”

Many of the disciples, however, refused to give up the faith and have busily defended the doctrines of the first edition against those of the second. Cohen long before the appearance of the second edition had detected this shift in Russell’s thought. He remarked that with the publication of the Principles, Russell became his Allah, and that Mohammad has kept the faith, even though Allah himself has perhaps somewhat departed from it.

Perhaps no more bitter controversy has been engendered in the mathematical-logical field than the dispute touched upon briefly by Russell in the passage quoted above.

“What is all this frog-and-mouse battle among the mathematicians about?”

even Einstein paused to ask. Its ramifications were extensive, and the militancy of contemporary Logical Positivism is current evidence that the questions still evoke strong partisanship. Cohen in the present volume pays his respects once again to this and numerous other controversial matters, related more to the metaphysical foundations of logic than to the traditional technical themes.

Logic, for him the most general of all the sciences, attempts to isolate the elements or operations common to all of them. From this it follows that the laws of Logic have no contraries which possess meaning or are applicable to any possible determinate object, a condition which is not true of the special sciences, the systems of which have contraries which are abstractly possible. Cohen’s view is that the distinctive subject matter of Logic is formal truth and that such truth is concerned with the implication, consistency, or necessary connection between objects asserted in propositions, the relations generally expressed by if-then necessarily.

This conception of the subject matter of Logic, although an accurate description of the basic content of classical Aristotelian Logic, has many assailants. In fact it is argued today, so unsettled is the whole matter, that there is no ground for asserting that Logic has any subject matter. Against such a delimitation of the subject matter of formal Logic as that attempted by Cohen, the objection is offered that it is a deduction from a particular philosophy and that the field of Logic should not be determined by such partial considerations.

Cohen’s position avowedly is an expression of his philosophy of Logical Realism. But since his conception of Logic can be deduced from many philosophies – although not all the interpretations which Cohen puts upon the various logical doctrines can be so deduced – the validity of the conception should be judged by other considerations. If a true philosopher is one who has grounds for his belief, then Cohen assuredly in the present case qualifies for that distinction; however, since a true conclusion can follow from a false premise, his understanding of logic is not undermined by a disproof of his philosophy.

The argument that there is no ground in the present condition of logical knowledge to hold that Logic has a distinctive subject matter is an admonition of caution and as such undoubtedly has merit. But in the absence of the construction of a non-Aristotelian Logic in which the contraries of the principles of contradiction and excluded middle are assumed to be true and from which valid inferences can be drawn, we may assume that logical truths have been discovered and that their study is the subject matter of Logic.

Notwithstanding the fact that Cohen’s emphasis is upon the abstract qualities of Logic, he has always been careful to disassociate himself from Logical Positivism, which maintains that formal Logic deals with linguistic expressions without any reference to sense or meaning. This attitude of the logical positivists is a development of Hubert’s Formalism, according to which mathematics is a game played according to simple, definite rules with meaningless marks on paper. Mathematics is held to be comparable to a game of chess.

It is said that chess players do not ask what a particular game “means,” although at some future day, the game may acquire a meaning if it should be interpreted in terms of law, economics, or religion. However, the analogy is not strictly accurate, since today the result of a game of chess may mean that A is better than or equal to B in chess-playing ability. In his application of Hubert’s Idea to Logical Inference, Carnap uses the example of meaningless symbols: From “Pirots karulize elastically” and “A is a Pirot,” we can infer that “A karulizes elastically” without knowing the meaning of the three words or the sense of the three sentences.

Cohen denies that this is so. He points out that Carnap admits these are sentences only because we assume that “Pirots” is a substantive, “karulizes” is a verb (both of these terms being plural in the first sentence and singular in the others) and “elastically” is an adverb describing a way in which a process takes place.

“These expressions [Cohen writes] are therefore not entirely meaningless as would be undiluted gibberish. If instead of “Pirots” we put “the members of any class of objects” and instead of “karulize elastically” we put “are members of another class” we have as an inference that “a member of the first class is necessarily a member of the second class.” And this I submit is the actual meaning which Professor Carnap’s example suggests to anyone to whom the inference seems a valid one. This statement applies to all possible objects irrespective of any of their specific or differential traits but assuredly is not therefore entirely meaningless.”

But is this Carnap’s point? His position in fact is that in order to determine whether or not one sentence is a consequence of another, no reference need be made to the meaning of the sentences; it is sufficient that the syntactical design of the sentences be given. Cohen seems to admit this when he grants that “A karulizes elastically” follows from the premises. Before he made that concession, surely it was not necessary for him to translate the nonsense words of Carnap’s syllogism into his own meaningful sentences.

Although Carnap’s position is not answered by a demonstration that if a certain consequence is deducible from the manipulation of sentences possessing only a syntactical meaning, then a meaning otherwise than syntactical can be read into the sentences, it does point the way to the principal defect of Positivist logic. All that Carnap says may be true, but we are still faced with the problem of giving language a material application. It is of the essence of language from the point of view of science that it communicate meaning with respect to matters which are true or false.

If we start with, “If X, then Y,” the problem is to arrive at, “If Socrates, then mortal,” and not, “If Socrates, then immortal.” If Carnap’s conclusion that Logic is nothing but syntax were true, Logic would lose its scientific significance. Professor Carnap’s effort to meet this problem through his method of obstensive definition reveals the real difficulties of his position. Cohen’s importance in contemporary thought is due as much to his application of the methods of science to problems of human existence as to his technical contributions to philosophy.

Since Hegel, Cohen and Jordan were the only philosophers of standing who concerned themselves extensively with the problems of the legal ordering of society. Thus he rejects altogether the view that since science can deal only with the facts of existence, judgments of what ought to be are so arbitrary that no science of norms is possible. He insists that the essence of science consists of the formulation of hypotheses based upon the best available knowledge and anticipating new situations which can be experimentally tested so that greater determination can be achieved. He maintains that this procedure is open to ethics.

An ethical system, he argues, can achieve the status of a scientific system if adequate hypotheses as to what is good or bad or what is necessary in order to achieve certain ends are developed. This position seems unassailable as far as it goes, but does it answer the real difficulty? It disposes of those who maintain that facts are the starting point of inquiry, but what of those who admit that facts are the ends to be achieved by inquiry and who still deny the possibility of a science of ethics on the ground of the complexity of the subject matter or that of the ultimate irrelevance of ethical judgments to life on this earth?

The hypothetical-deductive system has yielded extraordinary knowledge of the physical world, but that process has been successful in part at least because of the ability of the physicist to simplify and deal only with ideal entities. Where the scientist has not been able to simplify he has failed, as in cancer research. We do not know if the method of simplification, i.e., the pursuit of the implications or effects of one single aspect or factor of a situation, is available in ethical inquiry in any significant sense, since the nature of human conduct may be such that it will not yield to that technique.

Furthermore, since we see no ground for such action we do not today pass judgment on the goodness or badness of the universe, the evilness of volcanic eruptions, or the practice of slavery among the ants. Whatever our preferences may be, Cohen’s argument does not negate the possibility that ethical judgments of human conduct may be just as irrelevant as evaluations of the physical universe. This argument does not foreclose the possibility of a technology of ethics founded on unsystematized preferences and ends in which normative judgments to that extent possess relevance.

But a science of ethics demands as a prerequisite a determinate system, a condition which the complexities of conduct may make impossible. Cohen’s present volume is devoted, as can be seen from the foregoing, to an analysis of problems lying on the borderlines of Logic and not with the customary subject matter of the usual treatises. Since his writing is distinguished by an admirable clarity, his argument can be followed with ease by the intelligent reader. All the topics which he discusses are the subject of radical inquiry in philosophical circles.

They embrace such matters as the nature of propositions, the theory of meaning and implication, the overlap of logical classes, fictions, the statistical view of nature, Logic and the world order and a chapter on probability which is a valuable supplement to the discussion of the same topic in Reason and Nature. These topics may seem innocuous but they harbor questions the analysis of which has led within recent years to actual assassinations of human beings, and the framers of political programs have found it expedient to take official notice of them.

As a whole the volume is one of the best existing statements in the field of Logic of the point of view of that branch of American philosophy which deals with its subject matter through the methods of science.

Game/PUA: The Pussy Market: Basic Supply and Demand

Manuel Rodriguez: I just wanted to mention briefly how i was studying about Game and mating systems for a while and share some of my findings.

In summary, since men have youthfulness as an significant part on how they score attractiveness on a mate, some feminists are trying harshly to outlaw men from being able to have sex with young women (sometimes reaching ridiculousness), which would eliminate them (those girls) as competitors, increasing their own chances in the mating game. Under the logic of sexual market economy/mating market, women “sell” sex to men.

Much like oil producing OPEC countries have in their best interest to make oil as expensive as possible, is in the interest of women to make sexual access as expensive as they can. Under this logic, banning pornography serves to increase the price of sex. That’s not to say that some of their arguments and demands are invalid, like sex trafficking and enslavement in pornography. Still, one can’t deny that this might be a reason too.

I figured out that the people that attempt to ban prostitution, putting aside religious fundamentalists, are mostly upper middle and high class women, and they do it when they manage to get a majority political control.

Sure, but why do upper middle and upper class women wish to ban prostitution. A lot of them are basically the biggest whores of them all. How do you think they got all that money? You think they earned it on their own? LOL. A lot of them earned it on their backs by getting with rich men!

Yes, banning porn does increase the price of sex, or Pussy as I call it.

This is a perfect comment. I call it the Pussy Market. That’s crude, but that’s what it is. It’s in women’s interest to keep the price of Pussy as high as possible and furthermore to restrict the supply of Pussy as much as possible. As there is a chronic Pussy shortage, shortages of products always drive up prices.

Therefore, the more women restrict the supply of Pussy, the more the price goes up. That’s one of the main reasons they want to keep teenage girls, even 16 and 17 year old girls, off the market. Those girls compete with women and they go straight for the best of the best men in my experience. It’s hard for a woman to compete with a jailbait hottie, and hundreds of millions of men will fuck these girls if they get a chance.

In Sweden, feminists are trying to outlaw men taking mail order brides simply to dry up the Pussy supply and drive up the price of Pussy. Swedish women are such horrendous feminists now that Swedish men are just bailing on these bitches altogether. They are going over to Thailand to pick up traditional Thai women, who incidentally do make very good wives. Instead of quitting being such awful bitches so there men might like them more, they are outlawing the competition.

Feminists are also trying very hard to outlaw sex dolls. I don’t really care about these dolls and I’ve never used one. But it’s obvious that these things are used as Pussy substitutes, and men using them drives down demand for Pussy, which drives down the price. Men also use porn instead of having sex with women, so this also drives down demand for Pussy. Declining demand means declining prices. I’m not sure about prostitution.

I suppose if prostitution exists, men can buy prostitutes instead of dating ordinary women, so that might drive down the demand for Pussy. But on the other hand, that prostitution exists at all shows most women that they can get money for Pussy. If women find out you have even bought a prostitute, a lot of them will narrow their eyes, knowing that they have a sucker who pays for pussy. Women find allegiance with prostitutes. After all, prostitutes are doing what all the rest of them are doing, which is charging for pussy.

I had a Black girlfriend once whose eyes lit up when I told her I had bought a few prostitutes in my day. To her that meant I was a sucker idiot who paid for Pussy, and now she felt even more motivated to charge me than she already did. And boy did charge me. By the way, no race of women has a more whorish attitude towards sex than Black women.

As long as all these whores are out there charging top dollar for Pussy, a lot of women look at that and say, “Hmmmm, I should charge too, just like them.” It sets an example. I’m not sure if outlawing prostitution would affect the Pussy market in any way. Obviously it increases the Pussy shortage and increases the demand for Pussy, therefore, it probably drives up the price of Pussy. But I’m not sure if it works out that way in real life.

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!

Repost: They Were Committing Crimes!

Originally written 15 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. Chip Smith is a sick fuck, by the way. Not that that’s a bad thing! Nine Banded Books is his book publishing outlet for sick fuck books.

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 is the King of the Sick Fucks, and the King of the Sick Fuck Writers of Sick Fuck Books, and you know at the end of the day, 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 below are some guys I knew, or maybe I never knew, or maybe I made up, or maybe they’re really me!

There’s Thrillseekerman, an all around petty criminal and moral degenerate, Internetman, an Internet semi-criminal whose web history 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 15 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? The only important thing in this whole tale is he never got caught.

*****

Internetman went into a chatroom the other night, or was it 25 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. 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? The only important thing here is he got away with it.

*****

It was 10 years ago, or seven weeks ago, or seven months ago, or tomorrow, and 14-year-old girls came to talk to Internetman in the chat rooms and ask for cybersex. What’s a man to do? What did he do?

Whatever the Hell he did, sick fuck shit or not, I bet he didn’t get caught, which after all, is always the most important thing!

It was a while back, or the other day, or some time ago, or 20 years ago, or never, 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, all that matters here is he never got caught.

*****

In a chatroom, five days ago, or last year, or 17 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.

Anyway, even if he did it, 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 21 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. After all, that’s always the only thing that matters, right?

They Were Collecting Child Porn

Internetman went into these really evil chat rooms, 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 gets 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, good-looking 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? Of the rush of a crime, a rush like no other? Or of getting away with it?

Internetman went to chat rooms 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 never getting caught.

They Were Raping Women

Internetman went to this chatroom last year, or 22 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 his sole raison d’etre, 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 he 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 35 years ago, or yesterday, 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 away scot free? Gotten away with Murder One?

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 40 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 either one 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 cops. 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 three weeks from now, or was it 42 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 38 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. The smiling psychopath who robbed the store didn’t get caught. His friend the getaway driver in a robbery got away with it. And you know in the end, that’s all that really counts, right?

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 like that, 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. But it didn’t matter because he got away with it. Grand theft auto! GTO! Based!

They Were Vandalizing Businesses

One time, it was last month, or last year, or it was 45 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 difficult to steer the car after you do it. You will be terrified and thrilled both 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 43 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 all 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 to his evil neighbor’s house 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 scumbag’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. It was almost like he got away with it. Got away with smashing a door in with a baseball bat! Is that based or what?

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. Right? Thrillseekerman wears jogging shoes with N on them to claim Norteno, to represent, 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? After all that’s only question that really matters in life: Can you get away with it?

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, 1

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?

Teen 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, 1

8

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 8

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 10

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.

Alt Left: The Entire US Moved 10 Points to the Left between 2016-2020

Found on the Internet:

Not too long now. Arizona, Texas and Florida are going to be firmly Blue in the not too distant future.

Guess what, the fantasy of the Demorats will be in their grasp, total control.

I guess the poster doesn’t like Democrats, but other than that, I’m afraid the poster is correct. If we do get total control as he puts it, I hope we don’t abuse it. We don’t like the Republicans when they act anti-democratic, so we shouldn’t do it either. Two wrongs and all that.

Arizona’s barely blue as it is and heading blue fast. In 10 years, Arizona will be as blue as Virginia.

Texas is barely red (2-3+ red) and teetering on the edge. It is slowly getting more and more blue with time. The thing is, the Republicans lose Texas and it’s all over. They will never win the Presidency again. If all of those electoral votes go blue, there’s no way they can cobble together 270 electors under the present political calculus. It’ll be code blue for the Republican Party. This is why the Republicans in Texas are so frantically trying to seal in a minority rule dictatorship for as long as they can.

And on a national level, that’s what’s with all of the vote suppression, the slowing down of the mail, and ultimately the attempted coup de etat in the capital on January 6. Not to mention that Trump tried everything he could to overturn the results of a democratic election and install himself instead in an electoral coup. That’s why Republicans packed the stolen Supreme Court with ultra-rightwing freaks, so the court could rule in hack rulings to allow a Republican minority rule dictatorship. That’s why they are packing the lower courts with the same.

That’s why the Florida Legislature overturned the amendment passed by the people enfranchising 775,000 felons and enabling them to vote.

 

That’s why Georgia just passed a law allowing the Republican legislature to throw out any county vote commissions that they want. These are the people who count and certify the votes. If they don’t like the outcome of the democratic vote in some county, they can simply fire the commission and put in their own Republican hacks and overthrow the Democratic win by declaring the Republican the winner even when he lost. That’s why the Republicans are working overtime to gerrymander as many legislative and House of Representatives seats as they can based on the latest census which was fraudulently counted by the Trump Administration.

All of this boils down to righting authoritarian rule or a rightwing dictatorship, basically along the Latin American model. Generally speaking, nowadays rightwing authoritarian regimes or dictatorships are referred to as fascist. Fascism means a rightwing dictatorship in current parlance.

So we see now that the Republican Party is now an openly fascist political party, modeling itself on the rightwing fascist minority rule parties in Latin America.

Back to Arizona and Texas. Both states are being swarmed with Californians. This is what is tipping both states blue. Almost no new conservatives are moving into either state.

Let’s look at Florida again. Florida is the ultimate purple state. Looking at polls, Florida strikes me as a very rightwing state. It doesn’t seem to be getting bluer or redder but if all those felons voted, Florida would be bluer.

An infusion of retiring mostly liberal northerners is balanced out by continuous infusions of rightwing Latin Americans, especially Cubans, Venezuelans, and to a lesser extent Nicaraguans. The continuous Latin Right infusions keep it purple, otherwise it would have gone blue some time ago. Also, the Cubans are moving to the Right, mostly the younger ones. They moved 16 points to the Right under Trump. In addition, the retirees, though they come from the liberal Northeast, may not be as liberal as you think because the type of retiree who moves to Florida is often attracted to the low state taxes, so Northeastern retirees may be more Republican than the ordinary Northeasterner.

Screw the votes. They’re all being stolen now anyway with voting machines since 2003 when voting went digital with Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff’s Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Since 2003, we have seen one bizarre poll failure after another and all of the failures are in one direction – Republican. Both pre-election and the even more accurate exit polls have been going off.

Prior to 2003, pre-election and exit polls had been so accurate that some people were suggesting that we do away with elections and just decide electoral contests on polling numbers. Then suddenly all of the polls started failing all over the country, and they’ve kept failing for 17 years. There’s no way that this is happening by chance, especially with all of the failures only going towards the Republicans. The only conclusion is that Republicans have been engaging in massive electoral fraud since 2003 by stealing elections with voting machines.

I calculated national polls for all 50 states and then plotted them against the 2016 results. The results were stunning. The entire country went 10 points blue from 2016-2020. Even the reddest states like Wyoming and West Virginia went ~10 points blue and of course, so did the bluest states. Some states like Ohio and Florida are reliably purple for decades for whatever reason.

But not even one single state got redder from 2016-2020.

The Republicans will either have to become a rightwing dictatorship and engage in minority rule (apparently that is the goal with all as outlined above) or they will have to move to the left with the rest of the country if they want to be relevant at all. Since 2000, the US electorate has moved on average 5-10 to the left. The only reason this has not shown up in voting is due to election fraud. The Republican Party either have to move left or die.

The problem is that that the Republican Party cannot move to the left. That’s because if Republicans move to the left, they won’t really be Republicans anymore. The Republican Party is one of the most rightwing major parties on Earth. It’s an outlier on a world scale. Most of the world is basically socialist in some way or another or at least social democratic.

Oligarchic political parties that represent the aristocracy instead of the people like the Republican Party are anti-democratic by their very nature because few majorities (other than Americans, oddly enough) anywhere wish to vote for a party that represents the aristocrats instead of the people. Which begs the question of why Americans routinely vote for aristocratic rule and reject democratic rule. Do tens of millions of Americans literally think they are aristocrats? Is that it?

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.

9

Critical Race Theory Is So Bad That It’s Not Even Wrong!

Critical Race Theory or CRT is much in the news these days. Unfortunately, the lying about it, almost totally on the part of the Left, has been as bad as a 100 year flood.

But let’s take a look at just where CRT started. Its onset was in 1976 with the publications of papers from Black legal scholar Derrick J. Bell.

He noticed that anti-discrimination laws got passed, so discrimination, at least overt discrimination, was over. This was acknowledged by Bell himself. Many people had assumed that once discriminatory barriers against Blacks were lifted, they would match Whites in various areas where they were serious discrepancies. But the problem persisted. I would say the problems persisted because discrimination wasn’t the cause of all of it anyway, but people were still troubled because anti-discrimination laws didn’t fix the problem.

Blacks were still behind in so many areas. This caused a lot of reflection by antiracist scholars. First, they assumed that all discrepancies between Blacks and Whites were due to racism, something which has never been proven! But it was a comforting thing for these people to believe. So what was causing the discrepancies? What gave? Obviously the problem could not have been Blacks themselves due to some deficiency either inherent or acquired on their own part. It had to be some type of racism! But since overt racism had vanished or been reduced to low levels, what sort of racism was this? Clearly, it had to be some weird type of invisible racism that people cannot even see, sort of a ghost racism.

This is where he and his cohorts came up with the weird notions of invisible racism such as societal, structural, and institutional racism, the theories of which are all nonfalsifiable and therefore junk theory because all theory must be falsifiable.

Except in the social sciences, but they usually aren’t doing science there anyway. Instead they are doing politics. You are either doing Politics or Science. If you aren’t doing Science, you are doing Politics and vice versa. The variability of humans and the fact that social issues are so bound up in politics and extreme emotion means that empiricism is often an afterthought if not doomed from birth in the social sciences. The extreme emotion that theories of the social sciences provoke is because these theories are about people. Humans tend to get pretty emotional about any scientific ideas involving themselves. You might say it hits a bit too close to home.

The problem is that the extreme emotional atmosphere in which the social sciences operate tends to doom any empirical enterprises. It’s hard to come up with a positivist conclusion about much of anything when everyone’s shouting at each other. And of course politics is dishonest by its very nature and its practitioners tend to be at least somewhat psychopathic. Politics is as sleazy and dirty as life gets. Once your science gets infected with politics, just kiss it goodbye. The quest for knowledge is dramatically slowed by all the lying and infighting if not arrested altogether. Karl Popper himself made some remarks along these lines in 1934 when he said that when science starts defending all of its paradigms to death, this is the end of knowledge creation.

So the problem with CRT is not that CRT is not true. Yes it is not true or at least it cannot be shown to be true, which is the same thing. But the problem with CRT is so much worse than that. CRT is such bad theory that it’s not even wrong.

Computers Are Flagging Me and Banning Me from Social Media Sites

All right, this is really damned stupid.

I got flagged for “advocating sexual assault” or something. But the post was against sexual assault, and it was actually very much pro-consent. I think the SJW’s reported me because when the computers flag you, it is almost instantaneous. And SJW’s are about as vicious and dishonest as (((those people.))) In fact, they are remarkably alike. They both have an apocalyptic, take no prisoners, hardball, ends justifies the means, “if we don’t stop them now we’re all going to die” mindset. They’re both tribes of fanatics who believe they are in a life or death war all the time and the rules have to be thrown out to deal with the ever-present emergency.

I appealed the decision and Twitter thankfully reversed the decision.

Twitter is getting a lot better about flagging and banning people. They’re not doing it nearly as much.

Later, some (((typical lousy person))) reported me for “inciting violence.” There was a video of a kid throwing a Molotov cocktail at an Israeli jeep. I cheered it on and said that this was a war, and all Israeli soldiers were legitimate military targets. The (((typical disgusting maggot))) reported me (((very dishonestly))), but you know, that’s what those people specialize in – lying, cheating, stealing, and just general out and out dishonesty. He reported me for “inciting violence.” Twitter flagged me and said my post was removed for “inciting violence.” “You are not allowed to incite violence against other persons.” Wait a minute. Not even in a war? Not even versus enemy soldiers in a war? See? These policies lose all sense of nuance.

I just got flagged again and this made me even more mad because instead of a (((typical pathological liar))), this time a computer itself flagged me!

The post was about a Nicaraguan arrested by the government for taking money from the US to set off a violent coup that attempted to overthrow the government by force. 300 people died in this coup attempt. The Nicaraguan government recently passed a law that says you can’t take money from foreign governments to use it to try to overthrow the democratically elected state.

In most countries, trying to overthrow the government by force is considered high treason. These people are seen as traitors all over the world. The usual punishment for the crime of treason is hanging.

So I commented that he was a traitor and I said, Hang him high! I don’t actually advocate that this man get hanged. So what, right? He’s a traitor, he committed treason against his homeland, so all over the world, the response to that is…execution, right?

Well as soon as I said, Hang him high!, a damned computer flagged me and banned me for 12 hours. I was banned for “inciting violence against other persons.” “You may not incite violence against other persons.”

Isn’t that a bit ridiculous though? What’s wrong with inciting violence (execution) people guilty of high treason? Is that really what we think of when we think of inciting violence?

What if a serial killer is in court and someone says, Fry him in the electric chair! Do they get flagged for “inciting violence?” Why should they? What’s wrong with advocating violence (execution) for multiple murderers? I don’t agree with capital punishment, but advocating that the worst criminals be executed is hardly what we think of when we think of “inciting violence,” is it not?

What if Hitler was alive and you wrote, Kill Hitler! Indeed, that would be “inciting violence” against this man. But what would be wrong with that? “Inciting violence” is often problematic, though it’s usually legal in the US as protected speech. But should calls to kill Hitler, were he alive, be listed under incitement of violence? That’s a bit dumb, no?

A computer banned me! That computer is obviously programmed to look for that phrase among other unwanted words and phrases. But what was wrong with what I said?

As you can see, these computers are dumb as rocks. They have zero ability to do nuance, gradation, the spirit of the law or rule and not the letter, a sense of proportion, on and on. This is what our system of law is supposed to be all about. Each case is supposed to be judged on its unique particular merit. A computer can’t do that and probably never could.

Faceberg just banned me for 24 hours. Once again, a computer banned me. Apparently I got banned for using the word tranny to describe trannies. Apparently tranny is hate speech, according to trannies anyway. Very quickly after I made that comment, the ban hammer came down. There was no way that anyone reported me that fast. A damned computer was simply searching for the next sucker to type the word tranny so it could lay the ban hammer down.

I got flagged twice in 30 days, so I am banned from Faceberg for 24 hours. Earlier, it said I harassed or bullied someone. Actually, this was a false charge too, and this must also have been flagged by a computer. I wanted to type someone’s name without putting their name out there, so I wrote Fat Clown because that is what their name sounds like.

Although I bullied or harassed no one, the idiot computer, dumb as a rock again, assumed that I was calling someone a fat clown, and therefore I was bullying or harassing someone. Once again, the computer has no common sense. Any human with basic common sense would have reversed that ban right away. But computers lack nuance, the essence of common sense, so they can’t do that.

There is something rather awful about the feeling that one is being banned from social media by a Goddamned computer! It feels very creepy. Like HAL2000 himself banned me. Of course, Fuckerberg could always hire more humans instead of having idiot computers banning people, but he’s a capitalist shit, and that cuts into his bottom line.

I really don’t like where this is headed. We are getting towards the point where idiot computers are disciplining and imposing punishments on us. What’s next? Will they be arresting us? This feeling is a particular sort of awful, like we are living in a dystopic science fiction novel.

PUA/Game: The Underage Girl Sex Scam

Dating sites are full of these scammers in the last few years.

A friend of mine almost got nailed for this. Admittedly, hers was a little different.

She out and out told him that she was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday. AOC in California is 18. Well, to a lot of men, “two weeks shy of my 18th birthday” means you’re 18 years old. I don’t care that he did this. In fact, I worry if I would have enough self-control not to.

However, several years ago, a miracle happened, Jesus came back down to Earth briefly and dropped an 18 year old girl in my lap to be my girlfriend. Then he flew back to Wherever.

Truth is she was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday when we started dating or hanging out. We held hands, put our arms around each other, hugged a bit, and kissed pecks on the lips, but that was it. We figured that was legal, but I was really scared to take it any farther at all. But she kept bugging me to take it further and it was really hard to say no. She ended up falling head over heels on love with me, wanted to marry me, have my kids, the whole nine yards, then three months in, she dumps me. Anyway, dating’s not illegal. Anybody can date anyone. It’s having sex that might be illegal

They figure, “Fuck it, she’s basically 18.” I have no idea how the pigs would treat it nowadays. I assume the FBI pigs would probably put you on the Sex Crimes most wanted list for doing it with a girl two weeks shy of her 18th birthday. That’s how deranged the pigs and the system are nowadays, all thanks for feminists.

I grew up in the 1970’s, and no one gave two shits about jailbait teenage girls. They were known as “dangerous” because they’re horny as Hell, don’t have a lot of experience, often think boys their age are immature, and not a few of them love men. Not boys, men. College age men dating high school girls was an absolutely normal back then, but at some point, you might want to knock it off.

They let you get away with it for a few years, but as the man got older, they started cracking down. I remember a case of a divorced 53 year old man who had with  a number of 15 year old high school girls in trade for pot and coke. Of course the little sluts knew exactly what they were doing. Most of them love to fuck and they were freely screwing this guy for dope of their own free will. No girl ever got harmed by this nonsense, which is consensual anyway.

Well, he got caught, and even though people were notoriously laissez-faire about this stuff back then. I don’t even recognize this planet anymore in regard to this issue as it seems like I’m living among pod people who are barely even and probably not human. That’s how different things are from 40 years ago. Anyway, this guy got three years in prison. Nowadays he’d probably get beat up as a “chomo,” but back then, prisoners were sane, and he’d probably be the hero of the prison for being an old dog and banging all those hottie JB’s. Yep, even prison convicts have gone insane. Back then, you were marked if you went after little girl children, but no inmate cared about jailbaits.

The interesting thing is that everyone in my family, including me, thought the guy deserved it. Three years seemed about right. There wasn’t really anything wrong with what he did, but we thought the age gap was too extreme. 18-23 year old guy and 15 year old girl, no one really cared. 30 year old guy and 15 year old guy would raise eyebrows, as it was very uncommon, but no one cared about that either. But 53 and 15? Not just one 15 year old girl, but several? Hey, wait a minute. There was something unseemly, disturbing, not quite right, etc. about it. Society has a right to any sort of reasonable morals it wants, and even back then, a lot of people thought 53 and multiple 15 year old girls went over the line.

See, back then, people were sane, not like nowadays when everyone’s a shithead. They believed in degrees and sliding scales and continua and extenuating factors and the spirit of the law, not the letter. Now everyone’s a black and white dipshit twitching with mass hysteria and wild-eyed with moral panic.

Here’s the write-up of the scam I found on the web. It matches what my friend went through.

1. You are on some kind of adult dating or chat site — either heterosexual or gay– where a person says they are over 18, and either sends you (or lures you into sending them) sexy pictures.

2. Then they say that they are actually 16, or 14, or some other age under 18.

3. Next, the “father”, the “mother” or a “detective” calls or texts you and demands money to keep them from filing charges. Often, the money is supposed to replace a “smashed phone”, “computer”, or something else… even a car that the “minor wrecked while going to meet up with you”. Sometimes they “send the minor to a juvenile military boot camp”.

4 The tip-off is that they want payment by Western Union, MoneyGram, iStore credit, Paypal.Me, Snapcash, Zelle, CashApp, money order, or gift cards BUT NOT by cash or checks. 5. Don’t buy gift cards and give them the numbers. Don’t Zelle or CashApp money. There is no minor child, no father, no mother, no detective, no wrecked car, no damaged garage door, and no ruined computer.

6. You are not alone. Questions about this scam come up several times a week here on AVVO.

7. Just to be clear: THIS IS A SCAM. THIS SCAM HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. THERE IS NO FATHER, NO GIRL, NO FBI, NO DETECTIVE, NO COUNSELING, NO THERAPY, and NO EARLY TERMINATION FEES ON THE PHONE, and the “girl” does not have a hospital bill from “her” suicide attempt.

8. The best thing to do is block their numbers and ignore them. You can report them to the police for fraud and extortion, but without an ID that is a dead end. They use “burner” phones and spoof caller ID to make you think that it is the police number.

9. If you want to fool around with them, offer to send a check, or offer to meet them somewhere with cash. They WILL NOT give you their name or address, and will not meet with you. Green Dot cards & MoneyPak, Western Union, Target and Walmart gift cards, Cash App or Zelle, Bitcoin ATM machines, eBay, Google Play, iTunes, and Amazon prepaid/reloadable cards and the like are all ANONYMOUS ways to receive money, and the scammers will not identify themselves or they would risk being arrested for EXTORTION.

 

Alt Left: The Standard View of Psychiatry on Statutory Rape (Sex between Adults and 13-17 Year Old Girls)

It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 2

I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.

I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.

In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 10

You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.

Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.

Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 5

The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?

Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.

Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t. Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?

Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.

Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!

But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!

From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.

The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.

It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!

Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.

In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal. Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.

So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.

But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.

The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.

So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.

Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”

The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.

Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.

That’s unconstitutional on its face.

The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.

Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.

So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.

So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.

Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.

How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!

One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”

But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!

There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.

But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.

They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.

Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (

But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label all the rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.

DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.

Alt Left: The Sheik Jarrah Evictions: Background to the Current Crisis

The Teen Sex Panic and the Law Bullshit

As you can see, in Matt Gaetz’ case, the whole case is completely fake. The guy literally did nothing wrong. Furthermore, he lacked mens rea, or a guilty mind, so he’s innocent on that basis alone.

He committed the crime of buying a teen whore, except she lied about her age, and told everyone she was 19 when she was really 17. Actually it looks more like 17 1/2 now that I’m looking into it. By the way, she’s still whoring away. Once a whore always a whore. As soon as Gaetz and friends found out, they got furious at her and ended all contact.

Buying a Whore Means You are a “Sex Trafficker”

At 17, in most states she would be legal, but even there, if you pay her, you just committed “sex trafficking.” Yeah, if you buy a whore, you’re a “sex trafficker.” What a bunch of crap. Because the state, in the midst of an idiot moral panic, decided that all teenage prostitution is “sex trafficking.”

Not just the pimps. Indeed, one can make an argument that most pimps are sex traffickers.

Sex trafficking was supposed to mean women who were sex slaves and forced to prostitute themselves and were not able to escape. This is literally the case with most pimps, though most whores are quite willing to whore themselves out. But most pimps won’t let them leave.

So anytime you see an hysterical headline about “sex trafficking,” it just means whores and pimps, which is like, most whores. Whores have had pimps forever. So there’s nothing new going on here, just the same old same old.

But now all teen prostitutes are supposedly being “sex trafficked” too because that’s how they wrote the stupid law in 2012. Even if they’re doing it on their own, which I assume many are. In that case, apparently they are trafficking themselves! See how none of this shit makes sense?

And now if you’re unlucky enough to buy the services some teen whore is freely offering you, instead of just buying a teen whore, you’re a “sex trafficker”! Yep buying whores is “sex trafficking”! Isn’t that stupid? I would say if you want to make a crime out of it, calling it “Purchasing an Underage Prostitute.” It shouldn’t be much of a crime really, but at least the law would make sense.

In many US states, you can freely fuck all the 16 and 17 year old girls you want, but as soon as you hand her a dollar bill (or I guess a penny) for her services, you broke the law! You’re now a “sex trafficker.” Isn’t that stupid? And you go on the idiot Sex Offender List as a “sex trafficker.”

Also, don’t take a picture of her. You can have sex with all the girls you want as above, just don’t take pictures of any of them. Because if you do, you “manufactured and possessed child pornography.” You know, when we made the kiddie porn laws, I don’t think this is what we were thinking of. And you go on the Sex Offender List as a child pornographer.

Kids are getting busted all over the country for manufacturing, distributing and possessing child pornography when they do their sexting. I don’t have the solution to teen sexting but this insanity doesn’t seem to be it.

By the way, those lists are getting really stupid. There are now 3 million people, almost all men, on these stupid lists. Anyone feel any safer? Somehow I think when we came up with the idea for these lists we didn’t imagine putting 3 million Goddamned men on the list!

By the way, if you commit statutory rape, you go on the idiot list too.

And most states have Sex Offender laws that make it almost impossible for sex offenders to live anywhere except maybe under a bridge. Which is exactly where most of them end up living. I’m sure that’s going to rehabilitate them real good and I’m sure they won’t be more likely to commit new offenses! The worse you treat these guys, the more the offend. Well, that’s the case with child molesters anyway and even with non-offending pedophiles.

These Sex Offender Lists and laws have gone completely out of control. I don’t know what to do about this either, but this ain’t it.

Delphi Murders Update April 13, 2021: Stunning Rumors about the Murders and Related Matters Now Officially Proven!

Long, 22 pages. Deals with gruesome matters concerning the brutal sex murders of four female minors – mostly about two young teenage girls aged 13 and 14 but also a bit about related murders of two little girls aged 8 and 10. If you can’t handle such material, don’t read!

The first sections deal with somewhat extraneous material that you may or may not find interesting. If you want to get to the real meat of the post, scroll down to Facts of the Main Suspect in the Case – Mr. X.

First, a pitch for support for this website and our 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!

On Accuracy

I estimate that 8

Bottom line is our theories now are dramatically more accurate than the 8

Thing is, over time your information tends to get better. You learn which rumors have promise and which have not panned out. Also, you develop better sources. We now have search party members who saw the crime scene; official case documents; the testimony of Leigh Kerr, a man who claims to have seen official case documents; accurate crime scene photos; and the best LE sources we have ever had. In the first four years, two LE officers only affirmed one rumor each. But now we have an excellent regular LE source close to the investigation giving us regular updates, the best LE source we’ve ever had.

Bottom line is the quality of our sources has increased dramatically over time. Consequently, the accuracy of our statements should go up a lot too. Our error rate at the moment is probably under 5

Qualification of Claims

You will see below where we regard certain things as Proven. That is because we got these statements either directly from LE, official case documents, or the same conclusions reached independently by two different sources (for this to be false, both sources would have had to make up the exact same lie), or from direct statements from one of the girls’ guardians. These are the only claims that people can hold us to because with all the rest, we openly admit that the claims are Unverified, so we should not be held to any of those claims.

The category below Proven is ally called Unverified with Different Qualifications. Keep in mind that we are not claiming that anything listed below as Unverified is true, although some it has a good chance of being true.

Unverified but Likely. In these cases, we have 4-5 separate sources, usually vaguely referred to as inside sources, testifying to the truth of something. Because of the number of people saying this rumor is true, it goes into the likely category.

Unverified with Some Likelihood of Being True is a common qualification. Most of Leigh Kerr’s and the search party member’s testimony has gone into this bracket because unfortunately, while we think they are right, we cannot regard their testimony as probative.

Unverified. Some claims are listed as unverified. These are simply unverified rumors.

Unverified and Probably Not True. This claims are quite dubious and we don’t suggest anyone put any weight into them.

The Uselessness of Most Delphi Murders Podcasters and Reddit Groups

Few of the illustrious Delphi Murders Youtubers has touched the real truth about this case as laid out in this website, probably because they are all narcissists who hate each other and hate anyone stealing their thunder. However, Mindtruth has done a number of episodes on our information and I thank Bruce for that very much. Remember how all these Youtubers trashed Leigh Kerr? That’s because he was competition. See? These guys are mostly narcissists and they don’t believe in cooperation. It’s all about the zero-sum game. One person wins and everyone else loses. I like some of these guys.

John Kelly has some good information. Indiana Cold Cases is similar and so is True Crime Jesus. Most of the rest are not bad people, but they are showboats, loudmouths, and boasters with egos the size of small planets. Every podcast is all about them! Obviously this is the only type of personality that is capable of podcasting – an egomaniac – on the other hand, their personality pathology limits the usefulness of their shows.

I tune in to their broadcasts and most of it is these narcissists collecting narcissistic supply, which is being doled out by their worshipful audience. Furthermore, almost nothing of consequence is being said, and it reminds you of a night with your friends drinking, and no one says one thing of importance for hours.

Most of these podcasts are silly speculation or talk about POI’s who are all ruled out. There is endless silly speculation in the comments about BG – “I think BG was a teenager…What if BG escaped on a hand glider?…What if BG is dead?…What if BG escaped to a deserted island where he now renamed himself Lord Jim and is now king of the savages?…What if BG is really a woman in drag?…What if BG is Mafia hitman?…Bla bla bla bla.”

I’m sure it’s very interesting to posit your wandering speculation about what if this or maybe something or possibly why, who or what, but at the end of the day, it’s writing words in the air with water vapor to be blown away with the next wind. Idle speculation at its finest. Apparently there is a human need to wonder, guess, and posit. Otherwise why do we have religions? Why do kids play make-believe?

I guess this need continues into adulthood, but I like a little meat on my bone.

The Reddit sites are pretty useless too, mostly because most posters regard the best sources on this crime as false. They’ve been doing this from the very start, so this is nothing new. These are mostly hate sites. Little if any good information comes out of these places. R/LibbyandAbby is awful, but it’s a lot better than r/DelphiMurders. And there are some good posters on r/LibbyandAbby; it’s just that they happen to be in the minority and all the best posters get downvoted to Hell and the people who are dead wrong get scores of upvotes!

R/DelphiMurders is completely useless due to their “no rumors or speculation” rules, which means that you can only discuss what is proven about the case, which after four years, is just about nothing. R/LibbyandAbby does allow rumors and speculations, so at least they get some good posts and posters, while the overall mood is still a downer.

However, there are some good posters, especially on r/LibbyandAbby. In particular, user/tobor is excellent.

The scope of this investigation in terms of who the police think did it and how it unfolded has been dramatically narrowed. We have the basic outlines of the crime sketched, and we’ve even filled in a lot of the blanks.

Questions Regarding My Credibility and Professionalism

Answers to questions about my credibility. I am creating a special article about this to link to in order to deal with the constant hate comments in this regard so I don’t have to keep going over this stuff in every update.

Finally, after Four Years, Acquisition of Good LE Sources

It turns out that we have acquired a sleuth who is a former detective. He’s bored and has nothing to do, so we recruited him to sleuth for us. He is happy to do so. He has connections with current LE officers.

We sent him off to dig into Mr. X. He went away for a bit and came back a while later with proof from LE that some of the things we have been reporting as rumors here are absolute fact. This source close to the retired detective will be referred to as an LE source close to the investigation.

Mr. X Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty

I am not revealing the name of the main suspect here and will only refer to him as Mr. X. I also request all commenters to also refer to him as Mr. X. I do this as a simple measure to try to protect his identity. I do not feel comfortable using his initials or certainly his name. I do not want to see this man or his family harassed in any way. No one knows if he did this crime or not. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t.

Yes, this man is the prime suspect at the moment, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. Twice in the the Evansdale Murders, LE thought they were certain that they had the right man. Twice they were wrong. They have thought they had the right guy several times in the Zodiac case, but all of the suspects fell through.

Mr. X has is not even at the Person of Interest stage in this case. Person of Interest is a much higher standard than unnamed suspect, and he hasn’t even risen to that level yet. No one knows if Mr. X is guilty or not. I happen to think he probably did it, but what do I know?

LE doesn’t have much in the way of good, solid evidence against Mr. X. They have enough suggestive evidence to make them think he did it, but if you look a the nature of their actual evidence, it’s awfully thin. In fact, the rumor is that LE simply does not have enough evidence against Mr. X to take the case to court. DA’s require a very high standard of evidence to bring a homicide charge against someone. If the DA does not think he has enough evidence in a homicide case to win in court, they won’t take it to trial. At this point, they don’t even have enough for an arrest.

Say for instance LE arrested Mr. X and charged him with the double homicides of these two girls. If they tried to take it to court, I am almost certain that the judge would throw it out before it even got to the trial stage. The judge would say you don’t even have enough evidence against this man to take this case to court and throw it out of court. That’s very embarrassing.

Furthermore, homicide is the most serious thing you can charge anyone with. The judicial system likes to make sure that they get it right, if only to protect the due process rights of the accused.

There are cases like this all over the country.

A famous one is the Lewiston Killer in Lewiston, Idaho in the late 1970’s. He killed at least five people, specializing in young women. The police chief says he is 9

There is a suspected child killer in the Bay Area who is responsible for 5-10 child murders. They don’t have enough on the main suspect him to take him to trial, but they enough to think did it. A book has been published accusing this man of this crime. The main suspect is brazen, openly admits to being a pedophile, goes to the victims’ graves and leaves flowers, and visits the victims’ families to offer “solace for their losses.” See the sort of games these guys play? A police chief in Martinez accused the man of committing these crimes, and the man sued the city and won $50,000.

This is why you don’t hear LE openly accusing people of committing serious crimes like homicide unless they have enough evidence to take them to trial.

And those are just a few of the suspected serials running around free. There are many cases of homicides or attempted homicides in the same category.

If Mr. X Were on Trial for These Murders Today and I Were in the Jury, I Would Vote to Acquit Him

Yes, I think Mr. X did this crime. But my opinion isn’t worth anything. And if Mr. X was being tried today and I was on the jury, I would certainly vote to acquit. Because it doesn’t matter whether I think he’s guilty or not. The state has to prove it. If I were on the jury, the only thing I would care about was whether the state had proved that Mr. X committed this crime. And with the evidence they currently have, they haven’t proven it. So I would definitely hang the jury and let Mr. X walk, and in all probability, BG would be free to walk the streets again. That’s the price you pay to live in a free society.

Time to Give up on All These POI’s

This is getting ridiculous. No one has to believe me when I say LE has a main suspect, but there are number of suspects that ought to be put to rest.

Ron Logan: Enough already. Give it a rest, dammit! How many times has he been cleared? 242? Maybe we need to clear him a 243rd time then just to make sure! However, an interesting theory is that BG may have attempted to frame Ron Logan with this crime for obscure reasons. BG was dressed in clothes similar to what Ron wore, and he took the girls to Ron’s land and killed them there.

Mike Patty: Just stop, ok? Stop. He’s innocent. Leave this poor man alone, for God’s sake. Hasn’t he suffered enough? No, he didn’t kill his own granddaughter. Come on, people.

Becky Patty: Obviously they’re not accusing her of the homicides! The accusation is that she “knows something” or “knows way too much” and is covering for someone, presumably the killer. I doubt it. No one’s been hurt by this case more than Becky Patty. It’s as if she took the grief of a whole town under her breast and pledged to suffer for them all, Jesus-like. Not quite sainthood, but getting there. I heard that at the 2019 conference, she burst into tears. Of course she did. She still hasn’t been able to process this, assuming such a thing can ever be processed. She has channeled her pain into grief and sadness.

Others close to the victims, who I will not name, have channeled their grief into rage and lashing out at everyone around them. It’s an understandable reaction, but they’re not pleasant to be around. This person is externalizing their pain into rage and projecting it outwards at the world. I won’t reveal who I am talking about here though it should be obvious. I will say that Libby’s birth mother has also dealt with her loss by turning rageful. Both of these people were probably ragers before, so it’s not like they did a U-turn. Of course, we empathize with their losses, but sympathy wears thin when someone is screaming in your face. Let’s hope they find some peace.

The last person on Earth to “protect the killer” is poor Becky Patty, God bless her mortal soul.

Derrick German: Libby’s father, meth dealer, convict who served time in prison and supposedly ratted people out to get a lower sentence. He has dealt with his grief with silence and hiding himself away. I don’t know this man very well, but he wasn’t in on this crime.

Kelsi German: Sister of Libby. Kelsi’s DNA was the only DNA found on the bodies. Kelsi has been investigated quite a bit, and she has been interviewed a few times by the FBI, including a couple of times at her school. For whatever reason, she confuses facts all the time and can’t keep her stories straight. I have no idea why she’s doing this, but it’s not because she killed her own sister. Kelsi German has been cleared.

FSG, or DMC: Probably shouldn’t use his real name, but he’s on everybody’s suspect list. He was one of the original witnesses who saw BG and gave a description. Now he says he never saw BG at all. I guess he can’t make up his mind. He’s also thoroughly lawyered up, and he’s not saying a word. I get it. He’s a greedy businessman with dollar signs in fluttering eyes that sound like clanging cash registers every time he blinks. His favorite color is green: like the woods, like the loot. Hey, it’s a capitalist country, right? The theory is that he was in on these murders for mercenary reasons, such as a malign desire to purchase Ron Logan’s land. Sure he’s a greedy businessman, but I doubt if he’s that greedy.

FSG along with others present at the bridge have been investigated as possible lookouts for BG. Not because there’s any evidence that they were lookouts, but more because everyone in that situation at the time of the murders is being looked at that way. I’d be surprised if he were in on this, but stranger things have happened.

Paul Etter: A 55 year old local man of many interests. One of his many interesting hobbies was abducting and raping young women. But alas, he raped one lass too many, and the law closed in on him holed up in his home, which now resembled Dodge City. He saved society a lot of money by eating a bullet, freeing up some fresh air and making the world the tiniest bit of a better place. He raped women, not young teenage girls. He was the right age, but he doesn’t look like BG. LE has already looked into him quite a bit, and I assume he’s cleared.

CM: Not even going to bother to reveal his name. Professor at a local university, known for the Geocaching Theory. Some connection with Libby via geocaching. I was never aware that anyone had any good evidence against this harmless-looking fellow. Lawyered up, not talking. He’s afraid he’s going to be framed with these murders, a reasonable fear.

CN: Middle aged man, resident of Delphi. Well, he’s the right age anyway. Never knew what the case was against this man other than that he had property near the bridge, and he and his wife’s alibi of being out of the state traveling got a bit mangled. We all stumble over our words sometimes. He’s a local executive of a government function or perhaps better yet a nonprofit of some sort. Possibly works with kids. I’ve looked this man over and I can’t think of anyone less likely to commit this crime. His wife has taken to social media lately, pleading with people to stop harassing them and insisting he had nothing to do with this crime. Good advice. How bout taking it to heed, everyone?

Garrett Kirts: Local man, all around run of the mill bad person. He killed a woman. So he’s a murderer. He’s in prison where he belongs. I never knew what evidence anyone had against this guy except, “He kills chicks! So that means he killed these girls because they’re chicks too!” Doesn’t sound like a logical progression of thought to me. Empiricism is a thing. Besides, he’s the wrong age, 27-28. BG is a 50 year old man. Give it a rest, everyone.

Brad Holder: Brad’s son, Jason, was Abby’s boyfriend. Brad was a suspect for a while, and one of the detectives working on the case even stated off the record that he thought Brad did it. Holder has an alibi that he was working out at a gym at the time. In general, the less said about the other aspects of his life the better, and they have no relationship to this case anyway.

The point is that that Mr. Holder had nothing to do with this crime. And although he’s no no saint, I don’t think he has it in him to commit a crime like this. We wrote an article a while back pointing out that we felt Holder was innocent, and that set off a spate of hate mail and threats from him and his son, which we found odd. You write an article saying some guy’s not involved, and you get swamped with threats to track and hunt you down? I don’t get it.

Clearing Up Some Recent Attacks on Our Theories

It is being said that we are claiming all sorts of odd things about this crime, what happened, and the crime scene. We openly admit that much of what we are saying about this crime are unverified rumors. See below for which rumors we believe are proven and which are unverified.

Furthermore, when people say that I, Robert Lindsay, have no sources, no documents, on and on, please keep something in mind. “Robert Lindsay” isn’t just one guy. “Robert Lindsay” is the leader of a sleuthing group that presently has ~230 paid members. They all go off and do their own work. They have their own sources. On and on. These people are from all over the country and have expertise in all sorts of different areas.

So when you are saying, “No way does Lindsay have inside sources or official documents,” do you think it’s possible that a team of 230 sleuths all working together could have come up such things? Something to think about.

Specifically, we are getting much of the the following information straight from the cops themselves. Got it? Instead of bashing us, why don’t you ask why the cops are telling us this stuff? Are they deliberately lying to us? If so, why? Are we making up lies about getting information from police when we actually have no contacts with them? Why would we do that? We don’t do that on here and never have. For one, it’s a gross violation of journalistic ethics, and I was trained to be a journalist – I have a BA in Journalism and worked as an editor of a large magazine, among other things.

Facts about the Main Suspect in the Case – Mr. X

The motive is apparently lust murder motivated by sexual sadism combined with psychopathy, the classic formulation almost all serial killers have. The motive was sexual. This was a sex crime, a sex homicide.

We now know a lot of things about the main suspect, including the name, age, height, weight, marital status, possible offspring, address, names of wife and children, and history of his life.

These are the facts about the man LE suspects is BG. An asterisk means the information is proven via LE information leaked to us. A double asterisk means the information is proven by case documents in our possession.

Items known to be carried or worn by BG at the time of crime:

Loaded handgun in right jacket pocket, type unknown, possibly a rare .40mm collector’s item.

Members Only jacket, blue.

Old style 501 blue jeans from the 1980’s – Dad jeans.

Indiana Packers boots.

Camouflage hunting cap.

Go Pro camera on waist.

Deer kit on waist with five hunting knives.

White scarf covering the lower half of his face.

Bottle of toilet bowl cleaner in left pocket.*

Binoculars.**

Known facts about the personal life of the main suspect, Mr. X.:

Birthplace: Illinois.

Residence history: Unknown for first 18 years, possibly Illinois. Delphi, Indiana from at least 1984-2021. Resident of Delphi in 1984-85 at minimum.

Important residence periods: Moved to Evansdale, Iowa in 2011-2012 to work at a slaughterhouse possibly aligned with Tyson Foods there. Was present when the Evansdale Murders occurred. Homeless for a period in the 2000’s, where he resided at a homeless shelter.

Education history: Primary and junior high unknown.

Senior high school: First years unknown but graduated from Delphi High School in 1984-85.

Age at time of crime: 49-50 (uncertain).

Present age: 53-54 (uncertain).

Race: White.

Hair color: Dark brown.

Facial hair: Goatee or trimmed beard.

Height: Approximately 5’8.

Weight: Approximately 180.

Sexual age orientation: Pedohebephilia, nonexclusive, AOA 8-14.

Sexual object orientation: Heterosexual.

Residence at time of crime: Delphi, Indiana since 1984. Recently moved to a small city nearby, possibly due to the heat of being a suspect in the crime. Lists a factory as place of residence.

Employment history: Unknown prior to 2011. May have worked at Tyson Foods slaughterhouse in Logansport, Indiana and sister facility in Waterloo, Iowa in 2011-2012. Employed at two factories in nearby towns as a machine operator in recent years.

Occupation: Handicrafter making wooden signs.

Distance of residence from crime scene at the time of the crime: Less than 2 miles to the east along the creek.

Familiarity with crime location: Extreme. Friends with Ron Logan on whose property the crime occurred. Frequently hunted deer on Ron’s land. Clearly very familiar with the area of the crime and perhaps knew it as well as the back of his hand.

Marital status: Married, rocky and tumultuous marriage with breakups where they go live on their own and later get back together. At least two prior marriages.

Children: Two daughters, one ~22, another ~30. Ages approximate. One stepson, age 21 with the same first and last names.

Relationship with younger daughter: Excellent, she is very fond of him.

Relationship with older daughter and stepson: Unknown.

Important friendships: Very casual friend of Mike Patty, father of one of the girl victims. Possible Harley buddies (friends who ride Harley-Davidson motorcycles), as Mike is an avid Harley rider. There is a rumor of a falling out between the two men at some time before the crime. What that has to do with anything is not known. Hunting partner of Anthony Greeno, podcaster who has reported on the case avidly.

Hobbies: Raising goats, riding and fixing up Harley-Davidson motorcycles, very avid deer hunter, handicrafting wooden signs.

Specific Information about the Crime Confirmed to Us by the Police

Doll thrown in with flowers at the memorial at the bridge. This is about a year after the crime, and you can see some of the flowers deteriorating. As you can see, a doll has been thrown into the mix. I don’t know what that means, but perhaps it is odd. Did BG put that doll there? He scattered dolls all over the crime scene, we know that much.

Numbers 1-4 were told to a retired detective who works with one of our team members us by an LE source close to the investigation. The LE source didn’t work on the case. Henceforth, he will be known as LE Source A.

Number 5 was told to JM, an excellent local sleuth, and then to us by an Indiana detective who works in Narcotics based on crime scene photos he had seen. The Narcotics detective did not work on the case. We also heard it from someone very close to a detective who was working on the case who had confided in them.

Number 6, an extremely controversial statement, was told to JM and then to us by a sheriff in a nearby county. The sheriff’s deputy did not work on the case.

Closeup of the doll at the crime scene. Maybe it’s something. Maybe it’s nothing.
  1. Both girls were posed. Keep in mind that they did not say how they were posed, if they were posed in a sexual manner, etc. Source: LE Source A (see above).
  2. Doll(s) were scattered about the crime scene. We have two LE sources for this information. The first source, the same as above, said there were quite a few of them. He said, “There were so many dolls scattered around that it looked like he had gone to the Goodwill store and bought a bunch of dolls.” This also answers questions about why the cops have been using phrases like “odd,” “peculiar,” “strange,” not your average crime scene,” “many signatures,” etc. It fits right in with all of that. The second source was asked if there was one doll or more than one doll and would only state, “at least one doll was found at the crime scene.” Sources: The first source is LE Source A. The second source is brand new information from a high-ranking figure from directly inside the investigation!
  3. A bottle of toilet cleaner was found at the crime scene. Presumably it was used to throw bleach over everything, which solves the riddle of why no usable DNA was collected in this case. Source: LE Source A.
  4. The girls were “violated with inanimate objects.” Source: LE Source A.
  5. Sticks, twigs, and branches were jammed into the girls lower orifices. Presumably this is what the “violated with inanimate objects” statement above refers to this. Note: A new rejoinder is that both of the girls were found clothed. This is not true. Libby was nude. Abby may have been naked below the waist. Sources: A narcotics detective in Indiana and the wife of a detective working on the case, who posted this on the Internet.
  6. One girl was in the early stage of pregnancy. This is one very old rumor that started up within a few weeks of the murder. The first person who told me that was a middle aged woman who lived in the area. Just saying that for everyone who accuses me of making this up. This rumor just would not die. We hated reporting on it, but it kept popping up over and over, so we had to keep reporting it. We were never sure if it was true or not, so it was always just another unverified rumor. We didn’t want to bring this up because we’ve caught so much crap for it, but we felt we had to because an Indiana LE officer stated to us that this  was actually true. When we get information straight from the police, we feel we must report it. This is not something we relish reporting. His exact quote was, “One of the girls was in the very early stages of pregnancy.” He did not state which girl it was.  We have an idea which girl it might be, but we are not going to upset people even more by naming the girl. If this is true, then the girl was 6-8 weeks pregnant, when pregnancy is hard to diagnose but can be confirmed on autopsy. Specifically, there will be a thickening of the walls of the uterus that can be determined at this time. Our information is that at least one girl was sexually active. We don’t know which girl that refers to. That’s all we know. One girl had PIV sex at least one time. This is important to know if there is a question of one possibly being pregnant because in order to get pregnant, you have to be sexually active. People are furious with us for reporting this because they say we are sullying these girls’ reputations, thereby disqualifying them for posthumous sainthood. We do not feel that inexperienced 13-14 year old girls have some sort of purity that can be dirtied, nor do we feel that a girl this age sullies her reputation by engaging in PIV sex. People who think like this are prudes, Puritans, and sex haters. We do not feel that it is immoral for 13-14 year old girls to have PIV sex or to get pregnant. It’s stupid for them to get pregnant, but it’s not immoral. ~1

Specific Information about the Crime Confirmed to Us Via Official Case Documents in Our Possession

Update: We can now state that one of these documents is a search warrant, specifically for the Maxwell home. We also have at least one other search warrant for another home. In addition, we may have more documents. For information on these documents, see the special section below where their nature and provenance is explained. The search warrant list a number of items that LE is looking for.

A pair of binoculars. This lines up nicely with Leigh Kerr’s testimony where he said that BG used binoculars in this crime.

Photos, videos, cameras, videocameras, and film. In other words, LE are convinced that BG filmed or videotaped his crime. The only way they could know this is if the rumors about BG sending photos or video of the crime to Abby’s phone after the crime occurred are true. So the rumor that he filmed the crime and sent the film to a victim’s phone is proven. This proves more of Leigh Kerr’s testimony where he said BG sent photos or video to one of the girl’s phones after the crime.

43 seconds of audio. It is interesting that they are looking for precisely 43 seconds of audio. LE must know that BG recorded 43 seconds of audio, presumably of his crime. But how could they possibly know this? Only if he had sent this much audio to one of the girls’ phones after the crime.

A handgun, in order to do ballistics tests on it. This means that they have at least one fired cartridge. BG must have fired his gun at some point in this crime. The rumor that there was a spent cartridge at the scene is therefore confirmed. The gun is a rare collector’s item, possibly a .40mm. In the case of the search of the Maxwell home, a gun was taken from the home in order to do ballistics tests on it. The gun failed the tests and was returned to the home.

Knives. He is wearing a deer kit, which contains five different types of knives.

Clothing soaked in blood, seen and unseen. This blood will probably will not come out with the wash. The documents state that the wound to one of the girls was so brutal that the blood splatter would have been dramatic, drenching the killer’s clothes in blood.

Specific mention is made that the girls were abducted at exactly 2:13 PM. The crime occurred on February 13, or 2/13. As you can see, the numbers are the same. People are saying this is a coincidence, but apparently LE does not believe it is coincidental.

Some Aspects of the Crime Scene Not Verified by LE But Instead Verified by Two People Working Independently and Coming to the Same Conclusion, One Sleuth and One Witness or Two Witnesses

Those aspects of the crime are the following:

Assuming that there is a giant stuffed bear at the scene – a big if – it would be one of these here critters, for sale in a…toy store? They do look rather cuddly.
  1. Both girls were posed with their legs spread wide in a sexual posing. Source: A female member of the search team and our analysis of the crime scene photos.
  2. There was a knife sticking out of the log next to one girl’s head. Source: A female member of the search team and our analysis of the crime scene photos.
  3. There was some sort of a large object, apparently of toy, at the crime scene that was too large for BG to have had it with him on the bridge. That is the statement from the woman on the search team. While we see a giant plush bear, that’s too weird, so we will defer to the search party lady and agree with her statement. Source: A female member of the search team and our analysis of the crime scene photos.
  4. Dolls were hanging from trees at the crime scene. Source: Two female members of the search team.
  5. Cause of death of one girl was a deep cut to the throat. Source: A conversation with one girl’s guardian and a photograph of this victim’s funeral, which we have chosen not to release, backing up the guardian’s statement.
Everybody keeps asking where the giant stuffed bear is. Well, here it is. Straight from the crime scene photo from the helicopter. And to us that looks like a giant stuffed bear. It’s next to one girl’s body, and via measurements, we concluded that the damned thing must be 5 feet tall. If you don’t see a bear, you need to get your eyes checked.

We feel that these facts are validated because in 1-3, they were seen by us in the crime scene photos and also by a female search party member at the scene, in 4, they were seen by two separate female search party members who had never talked to each other, and in 5, it was verified by a conversation with the girl’s guardian herself backed up by a postmortem photo.

Here’s whole bunch of those bears mixed in with a bunch of humans.

In all four instances, people arrived at their conclusions independently of the other party. What are the odds that both parties made up these specific lies on their own? Almost zero. That’s good enough for us to be probative.

One wonders, how the Hell does one cart a five foot bear to a crime scene? The bear comes in a totally flattened out and easily transported package when you first get it.

Interpretations of Some Aspects of the Crime Scene Photos Now Proven (Crime Scene Photos Now Proven to Be Actually That)

The crime scene photos have been widely trashed as paraedolia. Nevertheless, as you can see above, three things that we spotted in the crime scene photos have been verified by independent sources in the search party, so the fact that these are crime scene photos is now proven.

Rumors That Are Now Confirmed Via LE Source A, an LE Source Close to the Investigation

LE Believes Mr. X is BG

Via LE Source A, LE has a main suspect in the Delphi Murders, Mr. X, and the case is focused on him. All other POI’s are dropped or cleared at least as being the killers themselves. However, it is still not clear that Mr. X did this on his own or if someone helped him. LE would also be interested in anyone who may have helped Mr. X after the crime, perhaps burning evidence or whatever.

It is important to note that you are under no obligation to tell the police anything. I could know that some guy was a serial killer with 10 victims, and I don’t have to go to the police. He could have even confessed to me, but I am still not under obligation to tell the cops. The one thing I cannot do is help him get away with his crimes, that is, be an accessory

Anyway, LE believes that Bridge Guy is Mr. X. They’re not looking at anyone else. They think he did it.

LE Believes that Bridge Guy (Mr. X) Is a Serial Killer and Was Also Responsible for the Evansdale Murders

Via LE Source A, we learned that LE has only recently started to believe that BG (Mr. X) is also responsible for the Evansdale Murders. Much more on that below.

LE Believes There Are Similarities Between the Evansdale and Delphi Double Homicides

Via LE Source A, we have learned that in both crimes:

  1. There was posing. So, yes, although the Evansdale girls were mere skeletons when found, LE believes they were posed.
  2. Girls in the pedohebephilic age range (8-14 years old) were brazenly abducted two at once from trails in busy parks in rural Midwestern towns in the middle of daytime with many people around.
  3. The bodies were dumped near flowing water, creeks or rivers.
  4. A number of strange objects were found around the Evansdale girls similar to the bizarre images decorating the Delphi crime scene.

Unconfirmed Rumors Not Validated by the Police

The following are unverified rumors with at least some probability of being true:

  1. A sheet with a smiley face on it at the crime scene, possibly hung from a tree. Source: A female member of the search team.
  2. Phallic objects, specifically a log and a doll, placed next and perpendicular to the genitals of the girls to give the impression that they were being sexually penetrated by these objects. A log was placed in front of one of the girls, and a doll was placed in front of the other girl. Source: A female member of the search team.
  3. A girl’s hand wrapped around a knife which was plunged into a log that she was resting her head on. The knife in the log was located near the girl’s right shoulder. The girl’s hand was wrapped around the knife to make it appear that she was stabbing herself. Source: A female member of the search team.

Rumors About the Crime Scene Not Verified by Indiana LE and Hence Still Mostly Unconfirmed, with Varying Confidence Levels

Indiana LE did not validate the rumors about some aspects of the crime scene such as:

  1. Presence of a crucifix. Source: A female member of the search party.
  2. A series of events where one girl screamed and then was quickly hit on the head with a blunt object, which we believe is a gun butt. Source: Leigh Kerr.
  3. Stabbing of one girl in the neck artery at some point after the above events. Source: Leigh Kerr.

More Weirdness Abounds: 2/13, 2:13, and 2-13

This is probably one of the flat-out weirdest aspects of the case of all. The crime was committed in February 13 or 2/13. In the documents we have, it is openly stated that BG abducted the girls at precisely 2:13 PM. Some insist that this is merely a coincidence, but apparently LE do not think it is coincidental. If so, this proves that this crime was planned nearly down to the minute. The date of the crime and the time of the abduction are both 2-13. Apparently he planned this abduction to occur at precisely this time, which is shocking. In addition, note that he abducted two girls on the 13th, 2-13.

2/13, 2:13, 2-13. What is this guy, another Zodiac? Is he into numerology? Is there any meaning to these numbers or is he just playing sneaky, tricky games with us like these guys often do. These crimes are often a great big game to these guys, and they often try to insert clever little coincidences into their crimes, probably just to freak people out and make themselves seem diabolically clever, evil geniuses.

It is interesting to note that the Evansdale girls were also abducted on the 13th. And two girls were abducted there also. 2-13 again.

The DNA and Fingerprint Questions

The main suspect’s DNA is found in the forest around the crime scene. However, he was one of the searchers who found the bodies, and he was also known to have searched the area in the dark the previous evening. Hence, none of his DNA from the forest around the girls is usable.

BG threw toilet cleaner over the girls and every object at the crime scene, thereby eliminating most if not all of the usable DNA. The only DNA found on the girls was that of Kelsi, sister of Libby. Kelsi has been cleared.

There is a rumor that LE has a partial DNA sample from an unknown male from one of the girls. Problem is they only have nine markers on that partial sample. That’s not very many. Conceivably, perhaps ~1

These partial DNA samples are useful to LE. For instance, if LE have a suspect, and they have a partial present in 1

About those fingerprints.

LE themselves have admitted that they have one smudged fingerprint. They don’t say where they collected it from, but that’s an important question. However, smudged prints are of very dubious value. They’re generally unusable. We wish people would stop talking about fingerprints.

The Lady Walking Her Dogs at the Bridge at 12:30 PM on the Day of the Murders

This is a rumor that a woman walking her dogs on the bridge at 12:30 PM on the day of the murders, a full hour before BG probably appeared on the trails at 1:30 PM, saw a man who looked like the Young BG sketch. She described his eyes as dark and evil.

Quit Referencing LE’s Statements at the 2019 Press Conference (The “Fakeference”) As Factual

BG is obviously a middle-aged man around 50. You can tell by many things – gait, body shape, manner of walking, voice, etc. LE actually believes BG was 49-50 years old when he committed the crime. If LE actually believes that BG was 50 years old, why did they put out this statement that he looks like this ridiculous sketch of a very young man or even an 18-40 year old man? Why would they deliberately contradict their own beliefs? Easy, they were lying!

Pay no attention to the first sketch, which looks like a middle aged man, Mr. X. Instead pay attention to this new sketch, some kid.

Not BG. Nope, nope, nope. How could anyone on Earth believe this is BG? Because the cops told you so? LOL. Quit listening to the police. They tell all sorts of lies as dirty strategy in extremely important homicides like this.

And at the end, Carter says, “He may even be in this room right now,” (he was in fact) and then looks in the complete opposite direction of Mr. X.

The truth is that some of the things LE said in that conference are true. The sketch of the younger man is the catfish of the 19 year old boy used to lure in Libby from Snapchat.

And Mr. X or BG is the one who used that catfish to bring Libby in. So when LE said the younger sketch is the one who committed the crime, they were correct! He did commit the crime because the younger sketch is just BG in catfish form, his other younger personality that he used to snare victims.

And when they said BG was actually better described as a combination of both sketches, they were correct too. BG himself is both the catfish young man and the older man who is the actual killer, so he is “both sketches at once,” obviously.

Also note that LE are now acting like they think the young catfish did the crime, not the older BG.

Granted, we don’t have any evidence that this is true other than Leigh Kerr’s statements. We regard Leaker as credible, but we now demand sources beyond his level to be considered probative. Hence, formally, everything Leaker said has gone into unconfirmed rumors other than the things we were able to confirm from other probative sources.

We currently feel that this is the best explanation of the facts. Can we prove it? No. But all theories must be judged against their competitors (Occam’s). Put the competing theory to the logic test. Is there any way on Earth that BG could look like the young man in that sketch or even an 18-40 year old? Get real. When we line the two theories against each other, ours wins hands down. Hence, following Occam’s, our theory is the best explanation of the facts.

Mr. X’s Employment at a Packing Plant in Indiana and Possible Connection to the Evansdale Murders Verified by LE Source A

Via LE Source A, Mr. X ‘s roommate in 2011-2012 in Delphi told LE that BG was absolutely Mr. X. The voice was a good match, the clothes “looked familiar,” and the walk was dead on. The roommate also said he suspected Mr. X of the Evansdale Murders because during the time of the Evansdale Murders, Mr. X and the roommate were both over in Evansdale being put up in hotels for months while they worked on a plant there.

Many people from the Delphi area have gone over to went over to Evansdale to work on plants over there. These seem to have been packing plant workers in the Delphi area who get transferred over to the Evansdale area for periods of time to work on sister plants over there. The two men may have been working at the Tyson plant in Logansport, Indiana and may have been shipped to the sister Tyson plant in Waterloo, Iowa, where they were put up temporarily in motels for months at a time.

If this roommate is correct, it looks like Mr. X worked in 2011-2012 at as packing plant in the Delphi area, and he was moved to near Evansdale, Iowa for a period during these two years to work on a sister plant near Evansdale.

BG made a deep cut to the throat of one victim, probably with a hatchet, that resembles the deep cuts made to the throats of pigs at some slaughterhouses. Notice that BG committed his crime with large knives or hatchets, his preferred weapon. Mr. X also cuts up a lot of deer that he shoots for food. To do this, he uses the knives the deer kit that BG has around his waist. So it looks like Mr. X is using to cutting up dead and possibly living animals with large knives. And humans are animals too.

The Mystery of BG’s Indiana Packers Boots

There was an early raid on the Indiana Packers plant in Delphi that was done by LE. Remember that they came out with a pair of boots? They showed the boots in an evidence bag to the media later on that night, and they said, “Oh, this is nothing. Don’t pay any attention to that.”

It turns out that BG’s shoes are dead perfect matches for Indiana Packers workboots. If he is wearing Indiana Packers workboots, this solves one more question. How did BG get across that knee-high stream in the middle of winter without nearly getting hypothermia and needing a change of clothes? Indiana Packers workboots go up to knee-high, and they are waterproof. So if he wore Packers boots to do his crime, he would have been able to cross that cold stream where the water is knee-deep. He could have worn those boots over his jeans, and he wouldn’t have gotten wet.

However, we presently lack evidence that Mr. X worked at Indiana Packers. There is evidence that may have worked at a Tyson packing plant in Logansport in 2011-2012.

Which begs the question, if Mr. X is BG, how did he come to acquire a pair of Indiana Packers boots, which is what he appears to be wearing during his crime?

Weird Behavior of Mr. X Surrounding His Truck at the Crime Scene

We now have a better time frame for Mr. X’s truck being parked at the cemetery. Note that it was parked in head first. We believe he staged the crime with these elaborate props either before or after the crime from this exact location. We don’t know why he asked permission to search Ron Logan’s land at 6:30 PM, but this is also a huge red flag because he asked to search the land a full half hour before the fire department had even announced the formation of a search team.

Not only that, but Mr. X’s alibi is that he was in another town from 2:15-3:15 PM on the day of the crime. That would mean he would have had to drive back to Delphi by at least 3:45 and possibly later, depending on what town he was in and when he left. The problem here is that before 5:30 PM, no one knew the girls were missing other than the families and a few friends.

He could have called his wife, who was friends with Becky Patty, and the wife could have told him about the girls going missing. But that would mean that Becky Patty would have to say that she called the wife. We doubt if she did contact his wife. They weren’t that close.

After 5:30 PM, news of the girls going missing went out over the police scanner. We suppose if was listening to a police scanner, he could have known that early, but what’s the likelihood of Mr. X listening to a police scanner between 5:30-6:30 PM on the day of the crime? We would say it is low.

He parked 1,000 feet away from Ron’s door, almost a quarter mile away. Why didn’t he pull up to his front door? We don’t know about you all, but when we go visit our friends, we generally don’t park a quarter mile away and hike in. We park right at the front door.

We also don’t know what he was doing searching down there that night. We also do not know why out of all of the places to search, he happened to pick the exact location where the girls were killed. However, this early searching meant that he could use his “lost my keys” excuse as a reason why his car just happened to be parked for 18 straight hours soon after the crime and right above where the girls were found because he could say the next day that he lost them during the previous evening’s search.

It is interesting that Mr. X appears to have stayed with his truck from 6:30 PM to on Monday, February 13, to 12:30 PM Tuesday, February 14 when the girls were found. That’s a full 18 hours. Why on Earth would someone stay next to their truck all through one evening and night through the next early AM and morning into the afternoon? It doesn’t seem like a normal person would stay at that location for all that time.

We believe he could have been staging that elaborate crime scene during that time. Where his truck was parked was a five minute walk to the crime scene. If he had those objects found at the crime scene in his truck, he could have easily carried them down to the crime scene and used them to stage it with the objects.

Mr. X needed the lost his keys excuse to explain how he stayed in that spot for 18 hours. If he didn’t have his keys, he could not move his truck. He could have gone home, but for some reason he stayed with his truck. Did he eat? Where did he get the food and what was the food? Did he sleep? If so, where and when? Urinating is no problem, but what if he had to defecate? That would have been quite a problem. It doesn’t seem reasonable to stay out there all that time for no good reason.

But it’s even worse than that.

Even after the girls were recovered, Mr. X stayed around through all of the media and police hubbub for the next eight hours, from 12:30 PM to 8:30 PM, so his truck was out at the crime scene for 26 full hours, with Mr X presumably with it the entire time. Why on Earth would anyone hang around near their vehicle for a full day just because they lost their keys? Were they are waiting for God Himself to come bring the keys?

We believe Mr. X stayed with the truck all that time in order to watch it. If he left, LE might tow it or search it. He stayed to guard his truck. We believe he did this because there may have been incriminating evidence in there.

Another reason he stayed is we believe that he enjoyed the drama. Everyone was crowding around to look at the crime he had committed. He was right in the middle of all the police and media, and no one suspected him. I’m sure that was a LOL feeling for him. “These idiot cops. They’re swarming all over this crime scene, and the killer is standing right here under their noses in the midst of the chaos for hours, and these coptards can’t figure this out.” We think he likes to fool and troll LE. “I’m fooling the cops, ha ha!” is the thinking.

Why did Mr. X not drive his truck away when it was in the way of all of the police cars? He had his keys with him, so why didn’t he move his truck when they asked him to instead of lying and saying he couldn’t because he had lost his keys? LE asked him to move the vehicle. He said he had lost his keys and was going to call his wife to bring a spare set of keys to him.

Three problems with that story:

  1. We believe he never lost his keys.
  2. We believe he never called the wife to ask her to bring a spare set.
  3. We believe there was no spare set in the first place.

At 8:20 PM, the police scanner said that A., Mr. X’s wife, was coming to bring Mr. X a spare set of keys. This has been misrepresented by doubters as the scanner saying to let Mrs. X into the sealed off area because she’s bringing Mr. X his keys. We believe he just told LE she was coming, it went out over the scanner, and she never showed up.

There are unconfirmed rumors Mr. X’s truck was towed after his wife never came to bring the car keys and that Mr. X’s truck was never searched by police.

Mr. X’s wife, his daughter, and Becky Patty are now putting out a story that Mr. X never lost his keys in the first place. We agree with that because we think they were sitting in his pocket the whole time! Also, a copy of the police scanner is available showing that Mr. X’s wife is supposed to be coming to the site to retrieve Mr. X’s truck. The only reason his wife would be coming to the site to retrieve his keys is if he lost his keys and she was coming to deliver a spare set.

We believe that his truck got towed later on when his wife never showed up with the keys, that Mr. X searched Ron Logan’s land that evening with two other men, and that he left his truck sitting in that same spot for 18 hours until the next day when the bodies were found. However, these are all unconfirmed rumors.

LE caught Mr. X in the lies about losing his keys, calling his wife to bring him a spare, and a spare even existing in the first place. LE doesn’t like being lied to, especially when they are investigating a double homicide. This what first aroused LE suspicions of Mr. X.

The rejoinders also say that either he never lost his keys or he did and he called the wife to bring a spare, and she did, evidence being the police scanner. But the scanner doesn’t say she came to bring the keys. It said  she was coming to deliver the keys. We believe she never showed up, he never called the wife, he never lost his keys in the first place, and there was no spare set. We believe this because this is what we were told.

Mr. X’s Traumatic Reaction upon Discovering the Bodies Appears Staged and Fake

Mr. X not only discovered the bodies, but he ran away in terror afterwards. Like a coward, we would add. Then he needed 2-3 months of therapy to work through this traumatic experience. We believe that those reactions were overblown. No one else reacted that way. Not even Becky Patty and she was probably more devastated than anyone and probably still is.

So Mr. X was more traumatized by this crime than anyone else, including the victim’s grandmother who was hurt more than anyone. We believe that the running away and months of therapy were also “staged.” In other words, they were faked. Faked to make it look like he could not possibly have committed the crime because he was more devastated than anyone else.

We Don’t Have a Copy of the Gag Order Supposedly Issued about the Towing of a Truck from the CPS Building on February 14

People are saying that we have a copy of the gag order that was issued on the towing of the truck at the CPS building. We believe that this happened in the first place because a photo exists of a truck being towed from the CPS building around February 14. We do not have a copy of that gag order, but we were told that one had been issued by the courts. We have no idea why the order was issued. The idea that a gag order was issued on this truck is an unconfirmed rumor.

Nature of Case Documents in My Possession

We do indeed have documents from the case. A man was a suspect in this crime, and one document, a search warrant, are from LE’s investigation of him. The doc is his property. He ran off for s copy for us and sent it to us in the mail. He got turned in because two brothers for some reason were saying that he was BG. There are signatures on the document. The sigs are from the FBI and a court official.  you’re smart enough you should be able to figure it out by these bomb-sized hints we keep dropping.

The man who owns the document is not happy with us going public with these docs. He doesn’t want to get uncovered revealing official case documents to the media.

Another document we have is another search warrant, this time for the Maxwell property. We obtained this document via a public records request.

We may or may not have from 1-8 more official case documents from this case.

Mr. X’s Criminal Record

The only crime on Mr. X’s record is an expunged conviction for statutory rape from 1984 in Indiana when he 18 and the girl was 14. Mr. X was a senior in high school at the time. The girl could well have been his high school freshman girlfriend.

The conviction is expunged. Expunged just means taken out of public records. LE still has access to the conviction. One of our team members talked to a detective in Kentucky a couple of years ago who told us about this expunged conviction.

Alt Left: Stupidity about “Sex Trafficking”

This term has been grotesquely abused lately, starting with feminists, who equate all prostitution with “trafficking” and then the federal government, which passed a rather silly law 5-10 years against “sex trafficking.” Increasingly what you are seeing in the media is a complete conflation of  prostitution and “sex trafficking.”

In particular, anyone pimping minor females is said to be “trafficking” no matter whether there is any coercion at all. Trafficking was originally supposed to mean women who were being essentially enslaved, kept prisoner, held against their will, and forced to prostitute themselves for others. Basically sex slaves. There are a lot of forms of this coerced and imprisoned sort of prostitution in  the world, and it is an ugly thing to be sure!

But that silly federal law conflated that with any prostitution of minors. So “sex trafficking” is not just sex slavery but it’s also prostituting of minors. Which seems a bit silly. How are minors being “trafficked” if they are not being held against their will? It’s ridiculous. The crime should be something like Prostituting a Minor, along those lines. Perhaps that’s a serious offense, I have no idea. But it sure isn’t “trafficking.”

Increasingly I have seen articles, many coming out of Texas, about big roundups of “sex traffickers.” They were rounding up 50-60 men at once and the guys looked pretty ordinary. That’s an awful lot of “traffickers” to round up at once. When they do round these guys up, they usually only catch a few at a time as they are hard to catch and not particularly common anyway. So I did some research. It turned out that of those 60 men, only one of them actually trafficked in prostitutes, and even he was just prostituting minors. I have no idea if coercion or imprisonment was involved. The other 59 men were guilty of…get this: buying a teenage prostitute!

Look I’m not saying that buying an underage prostitute should be legal. But you should have to prove that he knew that she was underage or by her appearance, she could not possibly have been 18. The bizarre thing about these laws is that in many states, it is perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16-17 year old girl as long as he does it for free and doesn’t pay her. The minute he gives her some money for her treasures, it’s a crime!

Even knowingly buying an underage prostitute is not “trafficking” in any way, shape, or form. It’s a crime called “Buying a Minor Prostitute.” How in the Hell is buying a whore “trafficking?” It’s absurd.

To tell the truth, many prostitutes with pimps may be being trafficked. That’s because many pimps won’t let the girls in their stables free. They threaten to hunt them down, beat them up, or kill them if they run away from the pimp. Any prostitute in a situation like that with her pimp is indeed being trafficked.

Now buying a teenage prostitute is an odd crime. Minors are not allowed to legally prostitute themselves, but many do it anyway. And 5

A lot of them are simply criminals and ripoffs and all sorts of petty thievery and female prostitution go hand and hand. In my opinion, a prostitute and a thief are the same thing. This is what the female psychopath becomes: Histrionic Personality Disorder, the “Mata Hari” or “femme fatale” disorder. Basically what I would call a thieving whore. Many female strippers, porn stars and other sex workers are also female psychopaths or have high scores on the PCL.

Many male porn stars are the same. This was observed as far back as the 1970’s and 80’s. If you look at those old porn movies, look at how mean and evil so many of those male porn stars are. And look at how crass, loud, brassy, and cold the women are. That’s the typical whore personality: hard, cold, brassy, callous, cynical. It looks like a damaged woman. Their emotions look shut down and they’ve gone hard.

Alt Left: The Rind Et Al Study on Long-term Effects of Child Abuse: Its History and Ramifications

A famous study on childhood sexual abuse was done 20 years ago by Rind et al. I think I still have a copy of it on my desktop here.

It provoked wild outrage. Even the idiotic American Psychological Association denounced it, notable as one of the most anti-scientific statements this anti-scientific organization has ever issued. Even the US Congress got in on the act. The Congress passed a resolution condemning the study! Congressmen, mostly Republicans, stood up and denounced it forcefully.

The problem? The study came up with the wrong answer. In other words, the truth was wrong and society preferred to believe pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, so the paper was condemned for discovering the wrong facts.

Usually when theory and facts do not match up, we say that the theory was wrong and go back to the drawing board.

However, in this case and with all ideological arguments by ideologues and politics types, when the theory and the facts don’t match up, the facts are wrong, and the facts are not the facts! Why? Because the theory is said to be automatically a priori true. The theory must be true. It cannot be false. So the facts must be wrong and we need to change the facts, wipe out the truth, and say that reality isn’t real, instead, what is real is some fantasy world that doesn’t  exist.

A number of fake “studies” were undertaken by other behavioral “scientists” taking about the Rind findings and finding fault with this or that conclusion. None of the fake studies denouncing it were worth a hill of beans. That they made it into the journals at all shows that pathetic anti-scientific nature of the social sciences, sadly also including Psychology, which has been trying to become more of a science for a long time now.

But by the very fact that it is a social science means that Psychology will always be a fake science in some ways because its findings have to do with people, and the science of people will always be twisted by politics, ideology, bias, and mostly emotional reaction.

It’s hard to get emotional about a new finding in math or physics. Who cares! But findings in the social sciences are inherently emotional because we are always emotional about ourselves and our fellow humans, and anything people are strongly emotional about will always be tainted by bias, propaganda, politics, and ideology. In other words, lies. This is why the social sciences will always be doomed to the charge of being fake sciences and will always carry the guilty burden of physics envy.

Ritter et al conducted a meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on children as adults. Child abuse was mostly defined as sexual abuse below age 13, so sex with teenage girls and boys, a massive minefield, was left out.

The available evidence shows that consensual sex with teenage girls and boys and adults causes little if any damage to teenagers. This behavior is illegal not because it is harmful to the teens, as I doubt that it is. Instead it is outlawed because society’s morals say that members of society do not wish to live in a society where adults are free to have sex with teenagers of various ages.

It’s seen as unsavory, unpleasant, disgusting or revolting, and often morally wrong. But this behavior is not psychologically disordered in any way. This is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

Unfortunately we are now in the midst of a truly insane mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls in which 9

In fact, the people who quote the science and the facts about this question are attacked as pedophiles! Because I guess only pedophiles believe in science and truth when it comes to this sort of thing. If you don’t want to be called a pedophile, just spout the usual lies about this subject. As long as you keep lying and don’t ever resort to facts, you’re in the clear!

Fact: nothing published in an academic journal has ever produced evidence suggesting that teen/adult relationships are harmful or predatory. Literally not even one. Anthropological and historical studies all over the world have found that such relationships are common in many societies and no harm was reported in any society ever studied.

How do I know this? I’ve studied them. A particularly large one was done out of Germany in the 1950’s. You can find this evil science of banned truths on the Net, though I can’t tell you where to look. The pedo advocate sites have links to it, but I don’t want to send you there. I suspect the motives of those who wrote this study, but the science seems good.

Furthermore, historically speaking, I’ve learned from the Psychohistorian sites that teen/adult relations were normal in most of the world including the West up until 1900. Zero harm was reported.

Sadly, mass molestation of children was also reported in the West from Roman and Greek times until 1900. Under the crowded urban conditions that arose with the onset of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, where families were packed together in tiny spaces, a great deal of molestation went on. I’m not happy about this at all, but it’s notable that no ill effects were observed in Greece and Rome until the pre-1900 West.

Perhaps the reason for this was that molestation of children was simply an expected fact of life. If you grow up as a female and get molested and all of your woman friends also got molested, it’s seen as a normal thing. There’s usually nothing inherently wrong with this behavior absent physical damage. Things that are normalized in any society tend to cause little if any damage.

I disagree here with some folks like psychohistorians who argue that all sexual abuse of children under any circumstances, normalized or condemned, results in inevitable terrible lifetime damage to the person. They also believe that many other things experienced in childhood cannot but cause horrible lifelong damage.

I doubt if that is true. If you grow up in a society that normalizes this or that behavior, outside of extreme perversion, aggression, and sadism, it’s probably seen as normalized and shrugged off. In other words, the damage of most of these things is relative and depends on the degree to which your society condemns or pathologizes the behavior.

However, for small children, the true victims of child molestation, it is quite different.

Granted, the victims were interviewed when in college so the abuse was a long ways away. Conceivably if they had interviewed them earlier as minors, they would manifested more damage. The findings were shocking:

Rind et al found that the long-term effects of child sexual abuse were typically neither pervasive nor intense, and men reacted much less negatively than women. Ritter et al also found that less than 1

To explicate that further, the effects were shame about having been abused, blame for themselves for allowing it to happen to them, and confusion about the abuse itself.

The confusion may manifest in various ways. A female friend of mine from 10 years ago was molested. Of course she absolutely hates my guts now, but that’s not an unusual reaction for women who get involved with me in some way or another. I’m used to it.

She told me that she was molested by a pedophile in her church group when she was 8 years old. The molester was a young man and he does appear to have been a pedophilic or preferential molester. She told me, “It’s confusing because it feels good but it’s wrong.” This is part of the thinking behind the confusion that kids experience after being abused.

She also told me that she had completely gotten over it by age 50, but she seemed to have gotten over it much before then. I knew two other women (I actually got involved with these two whereas with the other one it was more email and hot phone conversations) of the same age who were sexually abused as girls, one by a probable pedophile and the other by her opportunistic teenage older brother. They both told me that they had gotten over it by age 50 but implied that they had gotten over it much before then.

The shame, blame, and confusion are apparently short-term effects in most victims, and at the very least have dissipated by college age.

The implication is that children or minors may experience those effects for some time in their youth, but these effects mostly go away by adulthood, and there is no lasting damage in almost all (9

Unfortunately, pedophiles have gotten a hold of the Rind et al study and like to wave it around to try to push for legalization of child/adult sexual relations.

That’s not my intention here. I don’t care if most victims get over it. Good for them. I’m happy that they are not damaged in the long term.

Nevertheless, this behavior still needs to be outlawed because I don’t want to live in a society where adults are allowed to have sex with young children below age 13. I don’t have to have a reason. I just don’t like it. That’s all the reason I need.

Alt Left: Definitions: Rape, Statutory Rape/Illegal Intercourse

Rape: Non-consensual sex generally involving force, the threat of force, gross deception like pretending to be another person, or drugging the victim. Everything else is gray rape and most DA’s won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Realistically, if she is protesting and telling you to stop and you are forcing yourself on her, it’s rape whether a DA will take it or not.

Coercion is an odd word. Anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal. People have been coercing me all my life. It’s not very nice, but it’s hardly rape as long as she ends up willing. It’s important to limit our definition of rape because even stranger rape is rarely prosecuted.

Almost no one ever goes down on sex with an intoxicated woman, no matter what she is intoxicated on. The feminist line that intoxicated women can never consent to sex is odd.

By this logic, intoxicated men can never consent either. Conceivably, a sober woman having sex with an intoxicated man is guilty or rape!

By the same token, an intoxicated man and an intoxicated woman are guilty of raping each other! Except of course only the man will conceivably ever go down on it.

And what of alcoholic women and women are drug addicts? Apparently every single time they have sex with anyone, they’re being raped!

Also, no one even knows what intoxicated means? At what point is someone drunk enough to not consent? Who knows!

What about other drugs – heroin, cocaine, cannabis, hallucinogens? At what point is one so intoxicated on this or that drug that they cannot consent? No one knows!

Obviously this law is ridiculously vague. All vague laws are unconstitutional and illegal because no one knows whether they are breaking them or not.

As usual, the intoxication is rape argument makes absolutely no sense, like almost everything feminists say ever. Which is a good reason to abandon feminism. It’s nothing but lies!

If you wish to know, DA’s will only prosecute on intoxicated sex as rape if she is passed out cold or passing in and out of consciousness. And even then, some video evidence might be nice. Case in point: the Steubenville boys. If she’s passed out, leave her alone! What are you, a necrophile? If she’s passing in and out of consciousness, forget it. She’s too wasted to enjoy it and half the time, you’ll be having sex with a corpse. In which case, what the Hell is wrong with you?

Logically speaking, you can coerce anyone into sex legally. If you make a condition of a job, it’s not illegal then either, but you can be sued as it’s a civil offense. As I said, anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal as long as there is no force or threat of force involved. If by the time she’s in bed, she’s awake and enthusiastic, it’s not important how you got her there unless you used force or the threat of force.

All affirmative consent laws are insane and stupid because no man has ever gone down on failing to read a woman’s mind properly. But if she looks terrified and unenthusiastic in bed as if you are forcing her to do something you don’t want to do, I don’t know pal, but that sounds awful rapey to me. It may be legal but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

Statutory rape (illegal intercourse): Of course teenage girls can consent, but in a legal sense we say some cannot with certain different-aged partners for various reasons, mostly that society finds the idea of adults having sex with teens of certain ages to be unsavory. Where it is consensual, the harm is almost zero.

Nevertheless, men should be advised that these laws are enforced, and nowadays they put you in prison. It’s mostly a non-issue compared to the others here. AOC varies but tends to be ~15-16 in most of the world. In European countries with AOC’s at this level, problems are very rare. This isn’t even really rape. It’s better to call it “illegal intercourse.”

Child molestation: Any sex with an adult and a child under 13 is child molestation. It has to be sex. Backrubs and shoulder pats don’t count. There has to be some sort of genital contact. As I noted in a previous post, harm varies with the degree of coercion.

Feminists should wish to recover all victims of child molestation to live full lives instead of being victims. Child molestation is illegal and should never be allowed. Some kids actually like it believe it or not (I’ve met adult women who enjoyed being molested), but we still need to keep it illegal because we do not wish to live in a society where adults have sex with kids.

Child rape: Sadly it is important to separate child rape from child molestation. This is because feminists and moral scolds have taken to conflating all child molestation as “child rape.” They’re not the same thing. Yes, small children cannot consent to sex with adults but that doesn’t mean it’s rape when it happens. Instead we use the word molestation to refer to the fact that little kids can’t legally consent. There’s no need to muddy the waters here.

Child molestation is generally “consensual” psychologically. However it is not consensual legally because we say that kids can’t consent to sex with an adult. Almost all sex with kids is molestation, not rape. Child rape does exist and it is a severe crime. It often involves strangers, abductions, threats, weapons, and violence. It’s always non-consensual by definition. In some cases, the children are physically harmed or even killed.

The consequences can certainly be long-lasting, even affecting the victim over a lifetime. Nonetheless, women seem to be able to get over rape. I know a number of women who were raped and got over it fine. I’ve only met one woman raped as a child and she won’t discuss it. And yes, it was pretty bad. Two 11 year old girls raped at knifepoint. As bad as it gets.

Pedophilia: This is simply a sexual orientation like homosexuality that means the primary or sole attraction is to children under 13. Hebephilia (primary attraction to pubescents age 12-14) and ephebephilia (primary attraction to teenagers) are not included in pedophilia.

These men cannot help their condition and need to be helped to manage it so they do not offend. There are now organizations of virtuous pedophiles dedicated to pedophiles who have committed themselves to non-offending. Pedophilia cannot be combated or prevented because we have no idea what causes it. There’s no way to fight it because it simply exists.

Alt Left: “Child Molester” and “Pedophile” Are Not Synonyms

~7

There is nothing wrong with these non-pedophilic molesters sexually and probably even psychologically – their sexual interests are quite ordinary. They are “normal” in the way that most criminals are “normal” – that is, they are not the slightest bit crazy. The fact that criminals in general are not crazy and in fact are often remarkably sane is in part what makes them so dangerous. If they were crazy we could protect ourselves from them better. The fact that they are so sane is what enables them to get away with their crimes and also makes them hard to catch.

Rather these are simply bad men who are opportunistic and will have sex with females in general – women, children, no matter. A female relative or child is also a very easy target for these very manipulative men. In some cases it is an alternative if the wife has cut off the sex. The best description of these men is that they are simply criminals. They are users and their behavior is part of a pattern of control and abuse, often combined with verbal and physical abuse.

It is hard to say how girls how girls are effected, for it is mostly girls who are effected by intrafamilial child molesting in part because most gay men do not have children nor do they have access to them. Most molesting of boys does not occur in the family, and in fact such molesting is not very common.

Instead most boys are molested by homosexual pedophiles. And of course there are homosexual pedophiles  – the woke crowd claims that homosexuals and pedophiles cannot be one and the same and yet they can.

They tell this lie because sadly gay men do have a pretty high rate of child molesting, mostly probably of the pedophilic variety.

A logical explanation for this is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are probably developmental disorders, as is biological transsexualism. Something goes wrong developmentally with the fetus in the womb, hormonally in the case of male homosexuality and biological transsexualism but due to unknown factors in the case of pedophilia. It would stand to reason that developmental disorders might tend to overlap due to a common cause.

Pedophilia may be caused by subtle brain damage. Neurological soft signs – typically evidence of subtle brain damage – are very common in pedophiles. Furthermore, pedophiles tend to have lower IQ’s than non-pedophiles, once again suggestive of mild brain damage. 

In some ways it is worse if your own father is doing it to you. Nevertheless, most seem to get over it with time. The behavior of non-pedophilic molesters is outside the purview of mental health because we just talk about whether behavior or persons are crazy or not. And these men are not crazy. They’re just bad. We are talking about matters of morality and law, not matters of psychology and psychiatry.

There is often significant Cluster B Axis 2 Personality Disorder pathology as is the case with most men who use and abuse others. These men are fairly easy to rehabilitate absent significant psychopathy because significant guilt is not uncommon, and they are not pedophilic, so they can easily fulfill their sexual needs without resorting to children. Probably in India, Morocco and most of the Third World, most molesting is by non-pedophilic molesters because pedophilia proper is not well known in these places, and most men, even gay men, tend to marry and have children due to societal pressure.

Alt Left: Two Different Types of Sexual Orientations – Gender/Sex and Age

There are different types of sexual orientations.

Sex/Gender Orientation

First is the orientation to persons or objects of attraction. Heterosexuals are primarily attracted to the opposite sex. Homosexuals are mostly attracted to their own sex. Bisexuals have significant attraction to both sexes.

Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior Are Not Synonymous

Sexual orientation is somewhat independent of behavior. Heterosexuals are quite capable of homosexual behavior, and many homosexuals engage in some heterosexual sex. Bisexuals may be behaviorally heterosexual or homosexual for long periods of time.

Orientation is what you are primarily attracted to – behavior is who you have sex with. In cases such as ancient Sparta, the two did not line up very well at least for teenage boys and young men.

Age Orientation

The second is age orientation.

Teleophilia

Most people, including me believe it or not, are teleophiles – that is, they are primarily attracted to mature persons. This usually means age 16+ because 16-17 year old adolescents are almost indistinguishable from adults in terms of their sexual features.

As the age of the person declines below age 16, teleophilic attraction tends to decline, however, all men still have measurable but much lower attraction even to girls aged 7-13. Some studies show that normal male attraction to girls declines steadily from age 16 to a very low level at age 7, and below age 7, there is no measurable attraction. This is probably correct and any man with significant attraction to very small girl children below 7 is no doubt quite pedophilic.

Girls still have female features of women, especially after age 7, and these features grow more prominent from age 7-12. Around age 10-11, most girls develop very long legs; in short, the legs of a woman. Normal males are attracted to girls this age mostly to the extent that they like their legs, since their legs look like an adult woman’s.

The more a minor looks and acts like a woman, the more attractive she will be a normal male. The more a minor looks and acts like a child, the less attractive she will be to a normal man. The opposite is true for a man with a pedophilic or hebephilic attraction.

For instance, letting little girls under age 13 wear makeup is probably a very bad idea because many normal men say that when little girls put on makeup, they start to look a lot more attractive to men. I can concur that this occurs. It also makes me very uncomfortable. A little girl is not a sexual creature, as she has no sex drive per se. Why sexualize a non-sexual creature? Childhood for both boys and girls below age 13 should be sexless. Normal children have little or no interest in sex.

Note that since teleophiles react maximally in the lab to 16-17 year old girls and most Americans consider such a strong attraction to be “pedophilia,” the remarkable conclusion is that the current feminist and social conservative hysteria about “pedophilia” means that 10

Ephebephilia

There are also ephebephiles like Jeffrey Epstein who are primarily attracted to girls age 15-19 or mid to late adolescents. Girls this age often have significant to fully developed adult features and bodies. Psychiatry has decided that ephebephilia is completely normal, therefore, there was nothing wrong with Epstein psychologically.

Epstein was not a pedophile in any sense of the word despite continuous descriptions of him in this way. Nevertheless, most men are probably not ephebephiles.

Women reach their peak attractiveness to normal men at age ~23. Men reach their peak attractiveness to women at age ~27. As you can see, women prefer their men a bit older and men prefer their women a bit younger. This seems to be a natural tendency of the human race as even the Romans remarked up this fact of human nature.

A man can still have a child when there is snow on the roof (when his hair is White), but a woman’s time is short.

– Roman saying of unknown provenance.

Hebephilia

Hebephiles are primarily attracted to pubertal persons around the age 12-15. All attraction is gone by age 16. Hebephilia is quite a bit more normal than you might think. 2

In most cases there is strong attraction to mature females too, so most of these men never act on this attraction as adults. Hebephilic attraction is generally antisocial in adults, whereas attraction to mature persons is pro-social. Faced with strong prosocial and antisocial attractions, most probably focus on the prosocial attraction and repress or suppress the antisocial one.

Considering that idiot popular culture (9

It is important to note that hebephilia per se is not considered to be a mental disorder in any way. In other words, it is quite normal. Nevertheless acting on it is a moral and legal problem but probably not a psychological one as in mental health we don’t deal with crime as mental abnormality per se. We are only concerned if people are crazy or disordered or not.

Pedophilia

Pedophiles have a primary attraction to children under age 13. It is quite common.

Note that we don’t even bother to call all men who react maximally to children under 13 pedophiles! We would have to call 2

Here probably even more than with hebephiles, most of this 1

In contrast to hebephilia, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder if it is upsetting to the person or if they have acted on their urges with children under 13. It is interesting to note that pedophiles who have never molested children and are not bothered by their attraction are considered to be completely normal psychologically.

Alt Left: Evidence for Massive Republican Election Fraud in the 2020 Election

154 million votes exit and pre-election polls

Biden                            83.5 million votes 5 Trump                          71 million votes 45. Separation:                12.5 million votes 8. Pre-election polls: Biden +8. Exit polls:                    Biden 7. Match between pre-election and exit polls: Biden +0.

154 million votes actual results

Biden                            80 million votes 51. Trump                          74 million votes 47. Separation:                6 million votes Biden +3. Pre-election polls: Biden +8. Match between pre-election and exit polls and actual results:                                          Trump +4. Theft:                           6.5 million votes Trump +4.

This is a blatant example of massive election fraud by the Republicans via hacking of voting machines (mostly ESS machines) in almost every state because almost every state uses voting machines that in general cannot even be monitored or checked for election theft because the vote printout it gives you about your choices might be false. In other words, the machine would tell you you voted exactly as you did, but then it would mis-record your votes.

In states like Pennsylvania, it is even harder to prove election fraud. It necessitates actually looking at the hardware and software in a forensic sense. Recently, Virginia went to all hand-counted paper ballots for state elections. The next year there was a Democratic sweep of the state and polls and exit polls were right on the money.

It is important to note that aggregate polls and exit polls were right on the money in the US for decades until the onset of computerized voting in 2002. Computerized voting was put in in that year via HAVA – Help America Vote Act – written by Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff. This was actually the start of a plot to steal our elections.

A few voting machine companies were set up, all run by radical rightwing Republicans, often Christian Dominionists. The money behind all of the firms came from the Bush and Romney families. These families still own most of these voting machine companies to this day. Dominion was sold to another company and the new owners appear to be Democrats.

It’s not true that Democrats are in on the election theft too because only Republicans control the voting machines. But the hacking even involves Democratic elections. The Clinton-Sanders primaries were hacked by Republicans to give the victory to Clinton. In many cases, the hacks simply pick the most conservative candidate, even on the Democratic side.

Furthermore there appears to have been massive hacking of state elections all across the US, the result being Republican Legislatures, Senates, and Governors in many states that consistently vote Democratic. These state governments then put in gerrymandering rules that make it almost impossible for the Democrats to win. For instance, in Wisconsin, Democrats would have to win 6

Obviously all gerrymandering must be made illegal as it’s anti-Democratic. But Democrats engage in gerrymandering when they’re in power too. What happened was that in the last two decades, when the electorate was 10-20 points more Democratic than Republican, the Democrats suffered inexplicable losses all across the country. This makes no sense. A +15 point Democrat electorate should be winning elections for Democrats on a regular basis.

After 2002, for the first time, aggregate polls and exit polls started going off badly. The Idiocracy in our media and political classes twisted themselves into all sorts of doughnut shapes to try to explain this. The theories are many, varied, and all equally preposterous. Somehow we always seem to “miss” countless Republicans who never answer either pre-election or exit polls!

Even Nate Silver at 538.com has bought into the “terrible polling and exit polling failures” nonsense. The Democratic Party, especially the DNC and Markos at Daily Kos, has utterly refused to consider that our elections might be being hacked. That’s too much to bear for them. Their excuse is, “If we admitted our elections are being stolen on a massive scale, Americans would lose faith in our elections and in our democracy.”

There’s also the insane attitude of our media and political elites that conspiracy theory is always false. Hence the truth about our stolen elections is relegated to conspiracy theory and tinfoil hat territory. There is so much lying, misdirection, bias, provocations, tricks, false flags, fake attacks, and overt conspiracy theory in Western relations that I feel instead that conspiracy theory may be the only proper mode in which to analyze modern geopolitical reality in the West.

Put another way, here in the West, we are getting to the point where conspiracy theory is simply the normal, day to day operation of the state. This also extends to political parties and mass movements themselves.

In our modern era here in the West, it might be better to say that Life Itself Is Now a Conspiracy Theory. False flags have certainly become so common that they are nearly normal now.

Parables for Paranoids: As long as they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.

– Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow (1973)

Well, we don’t have a democracy here. That should be clear to anyone, especially after two decades of election theft and election fraud along with gerrymandering and massive voter suppression at the polls. Any country that has gerrymandering, election fraud, and voter suppression as the hallmarks of its electoral process cannot possibly be a democracy. America has not been a democracy in a long time, probably for most of its history. The America as a shining beacon of democracy” lie is nevertheless believed by most Americans and millions of dupes and rubes around the world.

Notice that the aggregate pre-election polls were 8.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)