Mirroring back bad behavior vs. Taking the higher road

Just finished reading this article in the New York Times (posted yesterday) titled “We Brought Charles Murray to Campus. Guess What Happened.” That taking place on the University of Michigan campus. And reflecting on a Google Hangout discussion I partook in last night where a self-described “MGTOW” was arguing that mirroring feminist behavior is necessary in order to show people the wrong in their ways.

Hmmm…  The topic of whether to employ the tactics of one’s “enemies” continues to leave me with mixed thoughts. On one hand, I tend to think it best that we hold ourselves to higher standards and refrain from behaving like schmucks since that sends a better message to the general public observers. But on the other hand, I can also see where groups who behave in such foul ways as disturbing assemblies and refusing to allow invited speakers to speak and blocking entrances to lecture halls really do deserve retaliatory comeuppances, partly because it’s just desserts but mostly because I’d like to think if they experienced this sort of treatment in kind they might realize just how much it sucks and agree to a ceasefire.

The subject honestly perplexes me. If you allow the other group to behave like hooligans without behaving in kind, perhaps onlookers and outsiders will come to associate them specifically with the use of such tactics and disassociate themselves as a result. At least one can hope. BUT in the meantime, your speaker has been unfairly berated, along with the attending audience who came to listen to him or her, not to a loud crowd of assholes hellbent on pushing their own political agenda (nevermind if it doesn’t even apply in the given situation, they not being the types to actually look deeply into what exactly it is that they are protesting). And there’s the concern that the outside world will just ignore what’s going on, leaving your organization fuming but without any real recourse. That’s entirely frustrating and unfair. We’re supposed to be a society all about the free exchange of ideas, but that’s cannot be the case when hooligans do nearly everything in their power to be super disruptive and derailing.

But what happens when we fight fire with fire? Sometimes we do draw more attention to the situation, though not always in the ways we’d wish. While observing and reading about the tactics of MRAs (men’s rights activists), because I was unaware of the extent feminists were misbehaving prior I got the initial impression that the MRAs were a bunch of bullies. My sympathy toward their causes was hesitatingly expressed because I didn’t wish to closely associate with bulldog jackassery, not from them or from the feminists they were reacting to. The more I learned about how feminists were conducting themselves (after a few-year hiatus from keeping up with much going on in the feminist scene), the more I began to grasp why MRAs were acting as they were in response. But I still loathed their tactics and wished they would take the higher road instead. To which they commonly responded that they tried that and it led nowhere other than them and their plights being roundly ignored. Which is probably true. For many, I imagine, it didn’t register as a concern until a bunch of women out in society claimed to feel threatened, insulted, and unfairly mistreated.

Having said that, I came to take issue with the so-called “MGTOWs” (Men Going Their Own Way) whom I encountered online (never having actually met a self-described one in person) because I found that they tended to go on the offensive when dealing with women, not waiting for an incident to react to before spouting off epithets and deriding random women they happened across as “whores,” “cows,” “sluts,” “cunts,” and openly celebrating their hope for us to die alone with our cats. Deal with enough jokers like that your sympathy threatens to dry up entirely. Which I openly expressed a few years back once I completely tired of their incessant and unwarranted remarks toward myself and others who hadn’t done a damn thing to them to provoke such a reaction. They tend to argue in response that they’re entitled to behave this way due to how womankind tends to be, dismissing any objections that the individual in question they’re currently addressing isn’t guilty of what she’s being accused of, stating that she could be if she so desired thanks to the current state of the System. So therefor we all deserve to be tarred and feathered outright regardless of who we are, what we’ve done, how we actually live, or what values we assert. I’d say that’s mad…completely and utterly. That strategy and worldview is every bit as bad as that professed by the worst feminists they’re claiming to be trying to combat.

Leads a person to a “no win” situation in a hurry. Can’t communicate effectively with people employing such tactics. Can’t stand to even be around them. Can’t escape them since they like to seek out those they disagree with. Can’t live and let live since they refuse to do so. Can’t fight them back half the time without looking like the bigger asshole through the way the situation winds up being spun. Can’t defend oneself effectively since members of groups like this like to travel in packs and prove relentless in the harassment they dole out. So what then? Where do we as individuals and as a society go from here?

I worry that if we attempt to fight fire with fire that we’ll just wind up burning down the whole house. That nobody will ultimately win but a whole lot on both/all sides will wind up suffering. That free speech will be lost amid the chaos. And that people won’t limit their reactivism to tit-for-tat exchanges where they’re willing to lay down their arms when the other side agrees to do so, preferring instead to sadistically keep on and on at them beyond the point of reason. Why? Because humans sometimes revel in behaving like assholes. Smells like POWER. Easy to get drunk on the stuff.

But there’s a lot of truth in the claim that people are stubborn to learn the wrongs of their ways without feeling the brunt of such treatment themselves. Having been around dogs all my life, I am aware that some dog personalities are obstinate to the point where they simply don’t (or possibly can’t) learn to stop biting until they are bitten back hard  and enough times in response (usually by other dogs, mind you). They’ll take rough play too far amid human cries for them to stop and demands for them to settle down, and I believe a good bit of that pertains to the dog not respecting the human owner’s authority. Because there are little or no consequences for their bad behavior. That’s another topic for another time, but I toss that out there because I’d also argue that we humans tend to be a lot like that ourselves. Thoughts of the debate over child-rearing and the use of spanking as discipline springs to mind. Some screech at the idea, calling it abuse in all cases, while others swear by the tactic in raising their own kids. Just the same, some kids report being spanked by their parents as having been character-building for them while others sulk  well into adulthood over the matter. I’d argue that it entirely depends on the temperament in question as to what the approach ought to be. Divvies up differently for different people. Some people will eventually gain enough empathy and/or sympathy to come to recognize the err in their ways and will aim to make amends with those they’ve harmed. While others will continue behaving like jackasses until the end of time unless they’re physically stopped from doing so. Many in the middle will finally experience a lightbulb moment where they’re essentially forced to realize that they don’t like the just desserts doled back onto them so therefore they must discontinue doling it out to others. Consider it an appeal to one’s self-preservation (if only in regards to preserving one’s own peace of mind).

We tend to be a selfish bunch. Some of us will carry on with a behavior until something obstructs our actions and exacts a consequence that we find sufficiently uncomfortable. Perhaps when it comes to feminists and antifa they would be swayed by having their own rallies invaded and “safe spaces” disrupted and their own speakers shut down. Maybe. But maybe not. Perhaps they will then up the ante, as those with a well-entrenched victim mentality are prone to do. But I’m willing to bet a good many of them could be influenced to change their ways if they were shown a clear comparison of what their group did and how it made people feel vs. what wound up being done to them in retaliation, assuming the retaliation was kept directly proportional.

But that then leads to the next problem, which is that people have a hard time keeping reactions and responses proportional. People get angry and lash out and sometimes take things too far, which then makes victims of those you were aiming to merely mirror. That’s no good. But there’s always an asshole in the crowd who doesn’t understand proportion yet craves revenge and winds up making the whole situation worse for his own group. And I say “his” here for a reason — many of those who escalate the situation to violence are men. Women prefer utilizing more passive-aggressive, crazy-making approaches generally. Initiating an act of violence or a major overreaction tends to hurt one’s cause more than anything. So then you’ve set your group or movement back all the more and brought yourself and your affiliates scorn from the general public. That scorn isn’t soon to be forgotten either in most cases. Ruin your group’s reputation in such a way and it might never be restored.

So what the hell do we do with this?

My instinct keeps telling me we have to adopt a higher road in our responses. But I’m not 100% sold on the idea, acknowledging the handicap it can create for those unwilling to properly defend themselves and to give their tormentors a taste of their own medicine. Self-respect tends to hinge on being willing and able to stick up for oneself. But it’s all in how we go about it. And the bigger the group, the more likely that one idiot therein will take matters too far and muck up the situation for all involved. Hence why I don’t involve myself in groups. Hate the idea of my own reputation being tarnished due to the actions of somebody else. But sometimes we’re grouped together whether we mean to be or not, as in attending a speaking event. To outsiders we’re then viewed as supporters of the speaker, whether we’re just there out of curiosity or are devoted fans. Might not have any idea of what other groups are in attendance or what they might stand for, but that doesn’t stop opposing parties from lumping us all in together. Not sure how to get around that, aside from staying indoors and away from all others.  tongue_out

We ought to be able to rise or fall on our own merit and be judged according to our own individual actions. But that’s a bit naive to expect, especially considering the hold and influence group dynamics and their enshrined ideologies commonly exercise on their participants. No human is an island. We tend to judge people in accordance with the company they keep, even if that company was kept unintentionally or accidentally. Especially now that so many are actively aiming to make real world events mesh with the socio-political narratives they’re pushing forth. It ceases being about accuracy. Quite obviously.

There are no easy answers to this conundrum. Perhaps it comes down to assessing what’s most appropriate in each event and situation. Doesn’t appear to be a one-size-fits-all approach that won’t eventually run into trouble. I’ll continue pondering on this matter.

Colin Flaherty is too often misunderstood

I am a fan of the man’s channel. On break from watching it much lately, focusing attention on other matters. But his content is a showcase of what’s happening out in society. He’s not making this stuff up — he’s documenting it very publicly. For doing this, some folks accuse him of racist motives and dismiss his material presented. Swept away and ignored. Out of sight, out of mind. People say it about him so it must be true, right? Wrong.

First off, it doesn’t matter what his motives might be — his content stands on its own merits. He’s opted to turn his focus to black crimes news because a disproportionate and significant amount of crime in this country is currently being committed by black people. It’s a relevant topic. Very much so. This is impacting all of society. Stating facts isn’t racist. Can telling the verified truth be racist?

Colin Flaherty doesn’t offer up speculation on why there’s a higher crime rate within the American black community. In fact, he resists doing so even when asked by interviewers. Because to him that isn’t what’s most relevant. What is is that VIOLENT CRIMES ARE BEING COMMITTED AND IMPACTING ALL OF SOCIETY.

Many have been asking why for years. Politicians responded by orchestrating the funneling of evermore financial aid to poor (also disproportionately black) citizens and inner-city schools, as well as implementing anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action programs in workplaces and universities. Measures have been taken, yet black crime remains on the rise. Why? Who knows?

Dr. Thomas Sowell answered that the very problem lies in these social welfare programs and altered racial standards. But who listens to him anyway? People claim to want answers but won’t accept any that are provided. Won’t even take time to consider the proffered answer if it doesn’t fit the narrative one wishes to believe. So then we bog down arguing over which cause(s) are most likely the culprit…and the problem worsens while we’re all sitting around bickering and accusing people of racism.

Meanwhile Colin Flaherty is offering up abundant evidence of what is actually going on, year after year and with no signs of relenting, regardless of what theories are being tossed around to explain it.

Can we deal with the facts as they are here on the ground? Is it now racist to point out reality?

The truth’s not always pleasant, but we still have to deal with it. This is the current situation. And if you pay attention to some of the people involved in the crimes he documents, they’ll give you clues as to why they do what they do. Some show clear signs of feeling entitled to do so and are themselves racist toward members of other races and indifferent toward the lives of members of their own. Or at least that’s how their words and actions come across to me. You can form your own judgments.

The videos and news stories shared by Colin Flaherty form a collection of data to support his assertion not only that black-on-everybody-else crime is persistent and increasing but also the quality of violence is remarkable. That’s worth taking serious note of. (Might provide a couple more clues as to why this keeps happening.)

Plenty of black people themselves state that there is severe dysfunction within the black community (despite often resulting in them being bombarded by their fellow blacks with accusations of being “race traitors,” “coons” and “uncle toms” — further proving how swiftly and surely hostility arises when anyone dares to make the black kids angry). And that spills out and affects everybody else in society, hence why it is our business and we’re curious to learn information about it. Colin’s channel is one that offers that. It’s not racist to want to be honestly informed.

This is where deflections like to enter the conversation, redirecting our attention back to select cases of white crime and claims of “white supremacy” and “racism” (a worn-out accusation if there ever was one). How does “white supremacy” make you a criminal in this day and age? Especially considering how much social and financial aid this tragically “racist” society doles out to black Americans and actively panders to their political causes. Yet that’s not enough — it’s even viewed by some vocal folks out here as not amounting to squat. There’s something wrong with all the rest of us apparently. We’re the culprits. We’re all to blame. Apparently because we deserve mistreatment. Is that not the message being sent?

Anyway, Colin doesn’t get too wrapped up in the ins and outs, preferring to keep his own message straight-forward in identifying the crimes taking place. That’s what he’s about. And I, for one, am glad that he’s willing to do so. It’s not too comfortable showing people what they do not wish to see or hear about. But it’s not his fault if others can’t handle the truth. There’s a problem here that must be addressed. People, including many black people as well, are dying as a result of all this lawless behavior, and that’s not fair or tolerable. Where’s the call for racial tolerance running the other way? Where’s the appreciation for non-black people’s lives and safety mattering too?

People get angry at Colin Flaherty because his channel content, especially when viewed in large volume over time, snaps at us to pay attention and to consider where this is all heading. (Will the crime rate continue to rise?) It also asks of us how police ought to respond. (Can cops do their jobs without being accused of racism and sparking street protests?) This is societal problem, so people other than black people can’t help but take notice and call for some sort of action. There are people out who don’t like that, but it’s not racist to believe our own eyes and to want to talk about it. Better to talk than respond with violence, especially where innocent people wind up concerned.

Which leads me to my last thought on this. Because of the recent events in Charlottesville and the decision of members of various factions of the Political Right to show up at a rally beside people sporting nazi insignia, ending with a woman being run over and killed by a car, we are forced to acknowledge where ramping up violence can lead us and have an imagination for how it might escalate going forward. Colin Flaherty isn’t advocating for that. But he too may well wind up tarred and feathered because some actual racists do watch his channel and put their $.02 in. Because he’s busy he doesn’t tend to monitor his comment section, and outright mean-spirited comments remain up. (Or he might choose not to censor his comment section, as is my policy on my own channel much of the time). But people notice that connection and assume Colin’s producing this material to appeal to those kind of people. He’s not. He’s showcasing it for all of us out here, not only the racists who look for anything to confirm their bias.

I’d liken it to how Donald Trump winds up being accused of being a racist bigot and supporter of the resurrected KKK and neo-nazis and whatever else because some of those people voted for him. That’s not all who voted for him, but of course they’re a group who attract a lot of attention thanks to the shitty things they spew about members of other races. There around, so that’s a fact we have to accept as well. Colin has repeated over and over again that his motive is not racism, that he was a journalist who could no longer ignore the disproportionate amount of crime being committed by black people in this country and how it’s not receiving adequate or honestly straight-forward coverage. That is a disparity begging to be called into question, as to be expected in an open and democratic society such as ours. Whether blatant racists and wanna-be nazis applaud his efforts is irrelevant — none of us can help who all takes interest in us. We can clearly state our own position, but others obviously aren’t under our control. And I doubt what those jackasses choose to entertain themselves with is of much concern to Colin. Those types also happen to like to watch and ridicule videos on WorldStarHipHop — is that the fault or responsibility of that site? I’d argue it’s not.

So, in closing, people do project too much onto Colin Flaherty. The man’s a retired journalist-turned-youtuber. This is what he does. He’s following a story of great interest, which is black crime on the rise both in sheer number of crimes being committed and the quality of the violence involved. That’s undeniably something people deserve to learn about, if for no other reason than to take precautions in order to protect ourselves. If you don’t like this reality, then work on changing it. But it certainly won’t be solved by simply demanding that people cease paying attention.

Food for thought on Jewish dominance over pop culture, Muslim immigration, and more on the Alt Right

Received some links and videos earlier that I’d like to save on here before they get away from me or I forget. Beginning with this message from a man named Joe Owens dressing down the Alt Right over what occurred in Charlottesville:

Largely agree with him that it wasn’t the way to go about getting their message out in a meaningful way, let alone to protect the Southern monument in question. Cutting out the riff-raff must occur. Most folks out here have absolutely no desire to associate with self-described nazis (national socialists) or their ilk. Or communists either, for that matter (outside of college campuses anyway). Bad public relations on that scene, no question. And it sure did get turned on Trump, which is just ridiculous but those legacy media clowns are looking for any opportunity to bitch about him. Tarring and feathering is all that happened this past weekend. Lucky that more people weren’t killed considering how many hooligans were present.

Anyway, that aside, a commenter on YT shared a couple opinion pieces about Jews dominating in Hollywood, the first written by Joel Stein in the Los Angeles Times (2008) titled: “Who Runs Hollywood? C’mon.” The second by Joshua Hammerman titled: “Do the Jews control Hollywood? No, but…” in The Times of Israel (2017). Hmmm…  I knew there was a major Jewish presence in Hollywood and over the media, but that’s more than I realized. Sure, they built themselves up into those positions based on what we the public have been willing to watch and pay for. But it also calls into question social responsibility when imbued with so much power. Especially considering Joshua Hammerman lists “humility, love and freedom and dignity” as Jewish values “through and through,” along with “an age-old preoccupation with social change, justice and engagement with this world.” Okay. And there’s the rub going the other way.

With great power and influence comes great responsibility.

Still, either way, Hollywood and mainstream media Jewry aren’t all Jews, obviously. Not that it needs to be said.

But then it was suggested that I conduct a search in Google for “Jews at the forefront of assisting refugees into Europe.” Did so and began reading. Here’s one by Amanda Borschel-Dan in The Times of Israel (2015) titled: “Europe’s Jews not sitting on packed bags ready to leave, says prof.” An excerpt:

Somewhat proudly, she described how European Jewry, remembering its own post-war refugee status, is on the forefront of welcoming the influx of largely Muslim migrants and refugees — “one of the greatest wagers of the coming decade.”

[…]

Visibly pleased, she told of a revival of pre-Holocaust Jewish thought from European Jewish roots that were previously abandoned in the effort to strengthen the new Jewish state.

But today, with disagreement with Israeli policies on the rise, European Jews are returning to their “Jewish ethnicity” and the philosophy of the progressive rabbis of the 1920s and 1930s. The rise of interest in Berlin-born Rabbi Regina Jonas, the first ordained Jewish woman, is an example of this new trend.

“What was considered dead and buried is coming back,” she said.

Hmmm. Okay, guess I don’t know much about what “progressive” rabbis in the 1920s-1930s were up to or why a return to that is desired. Gonna have to look into this more going forward out of curiosity since I admittedly am not sure what she’s talking about there.

Lastly, a video linked by another person showcasing Jews dealing with harassment by Muslim immigrants in Europe:

Gonna call it good for the night. Have an early morning.

“The tragedy at Charlottesville” and other videos by Vee

Learned of that guy’s channel in the past but hadn’t looked much into his content until last night.

Don’t know the dude but agree with him in these videos. This shit is cancer on both extremes.

Saudi Arabia is no “ally” worth having

Saudi Arabia, as a country and as a culture, unnerves me. But, that being half of my bloodline (so says my mother), I’m drawn back time and again to learn about it. Unfortunately so much of what I’ve seen and heard over time (including what I was told by a Saudi man who had befriended my former husband many years back) isn’t pretty. The VAST majority of it isn’t actually. Not to mention their royal family appears sadistically nuts, yet still is claimed as an ally by the U.S. and European nations.

Before I begin posting up links tonight, it deserves to be stated that I did attempt a positive information hunt on Saudi Arabia and the Middle East in general that went on for a few years, particularly during my time volunteering within the pro-peace/anti-war movement. Back then I really strove to give peace a chance and to open up my mind, hoping I’d come across information that could contradict what all I’d managed to learn about that nation and its people up until then. But no such luck. Even the liberal peace community couldn’t sweep its human rights abuses under the rug despite sometimes trying. That culture’s atrocious human rights record is undeniable, plentiful, and completely unapologetic.

Tonight I’ll showcase a few examples, beginning with a graphic LiveLeak video of a male servant being whipped, hit, and spit on by his purportedly Saudi (Arab of some sort either way) “sponsor”: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=850_1382853964

Saudi Arabia requires a “sponsorship” program for its immigrant workers whereby a “sponsor” is granted a great deal of control over the worker, including his or her right to leave the country. This was reported in the Human Rights Watch 2012 report on Saudi Arabia:

ScreenHunter_16 Jul. 26 01.07That was a screen-captured excerpt from the HRW link above. And, as you saw in the LiveLeak video linked above, the abuse isn’t confined to female migrant workers only.

Came across this article from the World Tribune (Sept. 22, 2013) titled “Opposition: Saudi king’s son promotes ‘racist policy’ against nation’s blacks“:

ScreenHunter_17 Jul. 26 01.12Hence why I was mistaken in my most recent video where I assumed there were little to no black people even living in Saudi Arabia these days. Come to find out they’re just being kept off the television and treated like second-class citizens (lower even than the migrant workers apparently in some cases) in what amounts to an apartheid setup. Not that that’s any better…

Here’s an article from The Guardian (Oct. 19, 2010) titled “Saudi prince guilty of servant’s murder“:

ScreenHunter_18 Jul. 26 01.19The House of Saud is showing itself to be the House of Sade (Marquis de Sade, that is). Oh, but it doesn’t stop there. It goes on and on and on with these folks…

Here’s an example from just last week, “Saudi royal arrested over videos purportedly showing abuse” (CBS News; July 20, 2017):

ScreenHunter_19 Jul. 26 01.31A “prison for wayward royals”? They necessitate their own prison?? How many frickin’ royals does that country have? Don’t know much about the new king, but I won’t be holding my breath and expecting any real change to occur. Takes time to evolve, and that goes for people and whole cultures. Won’t happen over the course of a few years, most certainly.

I’ll let Abby Martin of the Empire Files tell us a little more:

Appointed to the human rights panel at the UN. Yep, you heard that right. AND Saudi Arabia’s term on that panel won’t expire until 2019 (assuming they aren’t reappointed). Yet some continue to wonder why the United Nations is (increasingly) viewed as a sick, sad, twisted joke.

Am I uncomfortable with that half of my bloodline? No, not really. Though I am grateful to have not been born there and to not have been directly exposed to that disturbing culture/religion while growing up (spoken as someone raised in Mississippi  tongue_out  Imagine that seeming WAYYY better by comparison. Ha!). Guess it’s a good thing that my biological father wasn’t in my life. Might’ve turned out way worse. I’m willing to bet it probably would have, sad as that may sound to an outsider. Sure, that’s really unfortunate to have to acknowledge and accept, but the truth isn’t always a rose garden. I honestly would rather never know my biological father if he is much like many of the Arab men I’ve either encountered or learned about. Chances are great that he too was/is a Muslim (my mother hasn’t offered much information to shed light on who he was). Did he support Sharia Law? Would he have raised me in accordance with that religion had he known of my existence? If so, that warrants a write-off in my book.

That being of their own doing. Apostasy is a crazy concept. Remaining forever grateful to not have been raised up within a society that kowtows to Sharia Law. Color me biased, that’s fine. (Though, by the same token, I’m also very grateful to not have been raised by Christian Fundamentalists.)

So, what does this do to my own self-perception? Not as much damage as one might expect. Fills me with a sense of gratitude to be born an American and raised within an American family. Truth be told (biased as I can’t help but be). Also grateful to know I can’t be deported no matter what I do or so. Heh  Seriously though (and Guantanamo aside). Not even going to take chances with visiting a country like that since someone like me would probably be stoned while exiting the plane.  not_amused  Or kept there in some weirdo’s bathroom and tortured for my heathen Western ways… (Or lashed by the authorities for what I’ve blogged about.)  Oy.

Happen to like my skin tone. Wonder sometimes if possessing that genetic background is why I can be such an emotional hothead. Otherwise, I tend to find the whole situation a bit funny, ironically so. Am proud to be a “sand honky,” since I’m the only one I’ve ever known (meaning specifically a Southerner/Arab blend). And I feel it gives me all the more license to tell it like I see it when it comes to the Arab world. Not self-hating since my problem is with that CULTURE (along with its peculiar religion, or at least the extremes it tends to be taken to).

_________________________________________

A couple more links I’m perusing and wish to save for future reference. From the Pew Research Center (May 26, 2017): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

From Amnesty International (Saudi Arabia 2016/2017 Annual Report): https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabia/

Salon.com’s platform for pedophiles (uncovered while investigating Milo’s current drama)

In looking into Salon.com’s past publications on pedophiles, my search has taken me to various sites and articles. Including this article written by Milo Yiannopoulos on Breitbart in 2015 titled “Why The Progressive Left Keeps Sticking Up For Pedophiles.”

Salon.com’s 2015 articles in question: “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster.”

And “I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine.”

Salon.com apparently removed some articles over time, but they wound up archived.

Dr. Drew’s interview with Todd Nickerson, the author of those two Salon.com articles:

Barcroft TV’s coverage of Todd Nickerson in a piece titled “Inside The Life Of A ‘Virtuous’ Paedophile”:

Gavin McInnes and Paul Joseph Watson on Salon’s coverage of Todd Nickerson:

And here’s a random YT vlogger named TrueDilTom’s thoughts on the subject:

The relevant portion of Joe Rogan’s podcast where he had Milo on over a year back:

An article on Medium.com (Oct. 2015) by Reginald Harper on Todd Nickerson’s Salon article and past pro-contact forum posts.

Also perused Mike Cernovich’s thoughts on media platforms attempting to normalize pedophilia. As well as RedState’s piece (Jan. 2016) on the matter. Plus, Steven Crowder and Courtney Kirchoff’s (Sept. 2015) piece titled “No, Salon.com, I Don’t Need to ‘Understand’ the Plight of Pedophiles.”

In January 2015 Todd Nickerson shared a personal story about a young woman he had befriended long ago who wound up committing suicide.

Todd’s friend and fellow pedophile, Gary Gibson, came out with an article in The Sun (Jan. 2017) discussing their Virtuous Pedophile forum and his formation of a non-profit organization intended to “help and support non-offending paedophiles.”

Todd Nickerson last month began posting on youtube the first in a series he titled “To MAP Humanity with Todd Nickerson”:

Ugh. See, and right there he shows himself as being hung up on age of consent laws once again. Which further demonstrates that he doesn’t take seriously the notion that sexual actions taken by adults against children are truly harmful and rightfully criminalized.

Everywhere I look into these folks, dating years in my own research attempts, they always wind up circling back around to justifications. Probably because they are viewed as abominations by most others out in society. What they fail to sufficiently grasp is the very nature of their inclinations are what make them sick and immoral, not only the acts carried out as a result. Even in cases where no victim is directly sexually abused (as in cases where they draw or paint or fictionally write out illustrations of their fantasies), they still pose a threat to the sanity and decency of society as a whole. They try to work around children and, in the least, impart twisted ideas to kids with their body language and words. They argue incessantly online these days for their “rights” to be respected, all while refuting age of consent laws intended to protect the rights of children to remain free of molestation by these perverts. Their “creative” endeavors sow seeds of warped sexuality to those who encounter them. They cloak themselves under the same civil rights banner as has been afforded to gay people, aiming to pretend all belong on the same spectrum and therefore should (legally and morally) be regarded as such.

On the topic of thought crimes, I have mixed feelings here. While it may not be the government’s business in most cases to police what thoughts we share, it most definitely is the business of each of us as individuals. We all do judge one another and decide who we’re willing to affiliate with based on what they share about themselves. This discrimination pedophiles are seeking refuge from will never be fully avoided. The government can’t control the thoughts the rest of us have either, including our bottomless disdain for child-oriented perverts. And we have every right to tell them what we think of them and to opt to avoid them at all costs. That hurts their feelings? Well, tough shit. Such is life. Realistic concern over the consequences arising from child sexual abuse outweighs these people’s desire for acceptance. They won’t ever be accepted by the vast majority of Americans — a fact they have to figure out how to live with. Sounds harsh? Well, what sounds more harsh to me is allowing kids to be rendered vulnerable and accessible by people who apparently cannot help but fantasize about them (going so far, as Todd Nickerson himself described, as needing to step into the bathroom to masturbate because he got so turned on by a 5-year-old girl — whom he also happened to portray as the pursuer, crazy as that is!) and are notoriously untrustworthy when it comes to controlling their compulsions. It sounds harsher to me to place that guy’s supposed rights above those of his potential victims. I care not how much he claims to be celibate or “virtuous” — not when it only takes one lapse of judgment on his part to change another person’s life forever. People don’t simply walk off early sexualization by adults. No, the memory lingers and resurfaces throughout life, and that can and often enough does lead to further complications in our psychological development.

That past societies didn’t yet recognize the threat level perverts pose and take steps to protect children legally in no way justifies a return to lower age of consent laws. Up until 150 years ago slavery was still legally allowable also — should we re-institute that as well? Child labor laws are less than a century old — do they deserve to be scrapped too?

This is an area where I get frustrated with anti-feminists since some of these perverts hide out within their groups and movements and use their platforms to attack any and all ideas put forth by feminists/women in general, including those pertaining to the protection of children and calling attention to the social dangers of early sexualization of youths by adults (particularly in authoritative “grooming” and incestuous situations). Though now we see the latest “wave” of feminists flipping the script and offering up a platform to these perverts themselves! Ugh. It’s like everybody’s lost their damned minds.

So this is how Sodom and Gomorrah came into being, huh? People’s minds got so open that their brains just fell out. No lines drawn anywhere anymore. There is a definite slippery slope when it comes to moral relativism, and some folks love to push these boundaries for the simple sake of doing so. Why? It’s edgy. Rebellious. Counter-cultural. Radical. But then you wind up in the depraved position of realizing nothing is sacred. And that’s where nihilism kicks us over the cliff.

Is this the natural progression of human beings? To build societies and then become so comfortable and technologically sophisticated that we then lose sight of what contains real value and instead wind up destroying ourselves, one another, and everything our predecessors worked hard to construct? In short, are perversions of this sort (along with the movements/organizations that offer arguments in their defense) a sign of flight from reality? Grown men aiming to remain child-like, incapable of maturely relating with grown women or men, seeking refuge in dangerous fantasies where they pretend to themselves that they are forever kids and therefore not a serious danger to real kids, despite possessing an adult’s sexual drive and honing it in on pre-pubescent “love interests.” And we’re supposed to defend that psychological mind-fuck of a scenario and pretend it’s all fine and well so long as we don’t locate evidence that a crime has been committed? We shouldn’t take preemptive measures to protect people from others with twisted psychologies such as this?

Yet another reason for why I refuse to have children. Probably can’t sufficiently protect them, especially nowadays when pedophiles are “coming out of the closet” more and more, so what’s the point? Go ahead and feel sympathy for deranged child enthusiasts and see where it gets us as a society.

Milo and the Freak Show

Not a big fan of Milo Yiannopoulos. Have listened to some of his stuff over time but am learning more about him in the last few weeks due to the riots at UC Berkeley. Then all this went down in recent days. Oy. Was already on the topic of pedophilia due to Andy Warski’s videos on that Omnipolitics16 guy. Then some Deep Web-related YT channel told of that Australian man convicted for creating snuff child porn videos in the Philippines.

Anyway, here’s the Drunken Peasants podcast from back in January 2016: episode #193. Relevant portion begins at approximately 51:26 in:

?t=51m26s

About 52:45 in they show a video from somebody who included some footage from Milo’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Pausing 1:05:08 into that DP podcast…okay, I do comprehend the importance of distinguishing between actual PEDOPHILES (people sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children) versus HEBEPHILES who are interested in very young pubescent youths (in the age range of 11-14 generally). That is a noteworthy distinction because the two involve differing psychologies. That does matter. Because the Law does not make this distinction in its wording, the public is being misled. I do understand that and have openly discussed this since back in my undergrad criminal justice curriculum. But I also grasp that so far as legal purposes go, the lines drawn must be pretty damn clear in order to enforce them effectively. Hence why we have age of consent laws and yet there is leeway granted for youths only a few years apart in age, dependent on the state in question. AND the authority of the adult party in question. A priest or a teacher are in a special classification precisely because of their sway and influence over youths as well as the community-at-large. So they do deserve to be more heavily scrutinized due to the authority their positions grant them. Same with law officers.

Now, I’ve viewed several videos on this ordeal and read and watched Milo’s recent responses on the matter. Posted up his resignation from Breitbart speech. Watched Styxhexenhammer666’s first (now removed), second and third videos covering this topic. Watched Milo’s recent Bill Maher appearance. Read an article about Bill Maher basically defending the same thing back in 2007 and before. And am generally not a stranger to the controversy over age of consent laws and specific cases where victims claim they weren’t harmed, etc.

But I have to say that people who are sexualized young wind up seeming to mature sexually earlier. That’s apparently a byproduct OF early sexualization of youths. I understand it from my own perspective and upbringing, as well as through taking in so many, many stories from others over the course of my life thus far. Any defense of that shit does get me prickling with aggravation precisely because I do comprehend this complex situation personally and the mixed emotions that can and often do arise from it. And it does differ between hebephilia and pedophilia — that is true. But people who are sexualized explicitly when they are very young and pre-pubescent, it tends to incline them toward greater promiscuity once they do hit puberty. And though they are inclined this way, it doesn’t mean they are emotionally mature enough to handle the potential consequences. Sometimes that promiscuity continues on well into our 20s or 30s before we even seriously start grappling with its origins and its impact on our lives. All is not a bed of roses there. Many regrets are common for such terrain.

This is where I get to thinking a much more nuanced discussion on these matters certainly is warranted. But one of the problems that arises there is our own biases and sorting out how much of our opinions evolved out of a drive toward self-protection and/or “owning” our experiences. Though we may be made “stronger” as a result of what we’ve been subjected to, we also tend to get a bit mentally fucked up. Let’s be honest here. So our own relation of experiences on this topic can very easily be skewed if we developed close bonds with the persons we were sexualized by. Our loyalties wind up screwed up as a result, hence why our boundaries tend to become so loose and permeable. We don’t wish to live as “victims,” yet we can also do a disservice to others by downplaying such matters and trivializing them. So sometimes our contributions to such conversations wind up doing more harm than good since we’re coming from a place where that seemed normal to us, at least at the time. Or we had no basis for comparison to anything else. Even now, as grown adults, we can’t erase that early programming (which is essentially what it is). It’s a part of what all has constructed us into who we are now. In short, we cannot help but be biased there. It’s sown into us.

I’ll be honest. Milo creeped me out at times as well. Kinda like how Justicar did also, before he too came out with claims that at age 9 he felt sexually mature enough to consent to sexual acts with a man in his 20s. That was very disturbing to read (hence why I screen-captured it and posted it elsewhere on this blog back in 2015 — Justicar has since deleted the relevant videos). Sickens and saddens me to read that sort of thing because it definitely does serve as justification to pedophiles and hebephiles interested in pursuing young individuals, whether the one who experienced the early sexualization is aware of that or intends it or not. That really does matter here. It’s not all about the particular victim in question and their own thoughts on the subject; it’s also about the ramifications of sharing such thoughts openly and widely and allowing them to further entice those who are inclined that way. As omnipolitics16 demonstrated himself, these people tend to be on the lookout for anything and everything that supports their attempts to justify their actions against children. They want to believe it’s not so bad for them, that kids aren’t horribly harmed in many cases, that psychological injuries aren’t a direct consequence of their sexual activities with immature minors. They want to believe the pleasure they may experience in the moment trumps the potential for long-term pain.

Each individual child likes to think they know what they are doing. They see no problem with staying up super late despite it leaving them tired the next day at school. They would eat whatever they fancy if restrictions weren’t imposed upon them by external authorities. And they will harm themselves unintentionally in countless different ways if not provided proper and healthful guidance from others who genuinely care about their individual well-being.

There are lots of wolves out here in the world, let’s face it. Lots of selfish opportunists who will take advantage where they think they may be able to get away with it. Children are especially vulnerable in this regard, and that includes young teens who are in the process of budding into adulthood. We don’t yet know at that age what the wisest decision might be, what the long-term consequences may prove to be, how momentary slips can haunt a person literally for years. We had no way of understanding all of that back then. But that consideration never stops those who are out in pursuit for their own jollies. They may have been harmed themselves when young and therefore have fetishized what they themselves were subjected to (or whatever else their sexual compulsiveness drove them toward exploring). The effects spread out and can impact generations of people. This is certainly no small concern when countless people’s psychological well-being is at stake. Pain pays forward, in one way, shape, or form.

I also find it interesting how many homosexuals I’ve personally met who were sexualized early on as kids, whether in an outright abusive fashion or through grooming by older individuals they trusted at the time. Began noting that back in my teen years and have only uncovered more evidence of this trend ever since. Should look into what research studies might exist on the subject.

Anyway, today I listened to Styx’s update on Milo’s situation:

I find it very interesting what he said there about how the political Left isn’t so much in favor of NAMBLA types as it is in trying to justify Islam and its Sharia Law. Hmmm. I can see that, but I also see where both wind up justified regardless. It’s a disturbing trend either way.

Recently heard about what Salon magazine put out in the past. Rarely read that rag anymore. Gonna look more deeply into what Salon published in a new post.