Pedogate?

Weird time to observe the internet fallout over concerns about pedophiles in Hollywood and in our government. Some of it’s been confirmed, as in the case of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert being charged for molesting children:

Observe the paltry 15-month sentence for a man entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the law. After DECADES of having gotten away with it…

A little more information on Dennis Hastert and why his case wasn’t blown wide open:

Turning our attention now to Jimmy Savile of the BBC, another prolific sex offender who got away with his crimes for DECADES:

Observe that he was well-known as a campaigner for children’s charities. That trend turns out to not be uncommon among these types.

That last video goes into the UK coverup of MP Cyril Smith‘s crimes (that allegedly spanned DECADES as well), which then goes on to implicate various other high-ranking officials for sexual offenses in that country (further material on those allegations can be accessed here).

Another important mention in that last video is that of the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, close friend of the Clintons. Many of us are familiar with his name by now, having already about his island trips accompanied by Bill Clinton where underage girls were present and allegedly sexually abused, one of which claiming to be kept there against her will.

Then there was the Netherland’s Joris Demmink, accused of sexually abusing boys from Turkey since the 1990s.

Then the Lithuanian government pedophilia story:

Returning our attention to U.S. cases, we can’t leave out the Franklin cover-up scandal involving Lawrence King and implicating high officials in Nebraska and elsewhere in the nation (on up to the White House), as well as Boystown where these youths were procured. That case hits close to home for me personally, having once known a guy who lived at Boystown during the late ’80s who, while never mentioning the Franklin Credit Union scandal specifically, did discuss other forms of corruption occurring there where adults engaged in sexual behavior with certain youths. I have absolutely no love toward Boystown and consider it a serious offense for any parent to send their child there — that has been my firm opinion on the matter for nearly 15 years now since being told about the place firsthand.

Kakistocracy — remember that term. It means a system of government which is ruled by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens. James Corbett and his guest did a good job explaining how that may be at play here alongside psychopathy, and when they discuss psychopathy here they acknowledge how most psychopaths aren’t geared toward ruthless violence and/or able to maintain a veneer of respectability in front of the general public, so the goal under these circumstances is to 1.) attempt to create such people through early abuse and trauma, and 2.) to encourage involvement in abuse and traumatization of children (and others) in order to demonstrate one’s willful ruthlessness while submitting to blackmailability that proves one’s loyalty to the kakistocracy one wishes to rank within and be further enriched and empowered by. In short, it’s a corruption cycle guaranteed to spiral toward deeper depravity due to the nature of the game being played by those involved.

Now, let’s shift focus to the so-called PizzaGate scandal that surfaced over a year back.

While it’s commonly dismissed as little more than a baseless conspiracy theory, some of the information disclosed around that time and since has proven very noteworthy. I looked into aspects of that case and documented it on here already, so not wishing to fully repeat myself — go look there too. All I’m wanting to say right now is let’s not be so quick to dismiss it all as nonsense since some of the people showcased therein are unarguably VERY STRANGE and yet remain tied in with high-status politicians and celebrities, causing me to wonder why on earth any politician looking to be taken seriously would choose to affiliate with company of that sort.

Immediately springing to mind is Marina Abramović, which many are already familiar with by now and her “spirit cooking” art. Other artists whose works were displayed in the homes of Tony and John Podesta‘s homes also prove quite puzzling. Again, these are high-ranking officials with top ties in Washington D.C. who choose to partake in purchasing art of a highly questionable nature and to keep the company of very weird artists, one of whom notably likes to use blood and semen in her artforms, as is by now well-documented. Blurring the lines of respectability occurred when leading Democrats like the Clintons chose to include such people in their campaign financing endeavors, which can’t help but turn plenty of us off out here in the heartland. Many of us expect our political leaders to be of good moral character and to possess reasonable judgement, and these associations completely fly in the face of that expectation, leaving us wondering who the hell these people really are and what it is they’re really up to. Like it or not, our associations do reflect on our own character. Our art selections—like those depicting children in unnerving ways as proudly displayed by the Podesta brothers—do serve as indicators of WHO WE ARE. It’s showing what we’re attracted to, what we find pleasing to look at repeatedly, what artists we wish to financially compensate for their creations, etc. We know this. Let’s not pretend as if our art purchases have no bearings on us and in no way showcase our personalities — that’s ridiculous since that’s the entire purpose of purchasing or producing art in the first place.

So, there are the “artists” these people choose to buy from and befriend and invite to campaigning events. Then there was the Comet Ping Pong and Pizza shop that was used for hosting campaign rallies. Is it strange as hell? Yes, it is. And yet it’s also said to be very popular. The owner, James Alefantis, posted up some very weird and uncomfortable pictures and messages on his social media platforms that have widely been circulated that, again, call into question the Clintons’ choice in associations. Wouldn’t think that being affiliated with such extreme people would be viewed as a safe play for a woman hellbent on being elected president, but oh well — she chose to go that route anyway for whatever reasons. And the public reacted very badly as a result, as to be expected by any sane person giving the matter any serious thought. This information came to light thanks to emails first leaked by Wikileaks, allegedly provided to Julian Assange by Seth Rich when he recognized the DNC scandal occurring (he having since been killed — that being a topic for another time).

Comet Ping Pong and Pizza still deserves attention, if for no other reason than that it hosts not only Hilary Clinton’s campaign fundraising events but also much darker, definitely adult-only events such as this one captured by an attendee:

I have some strange friends, but we’re nowhere near as strange and crazy as those folks appear to be. Not my kind of people at all.

Is being strange a crime? Not claiming it is, but we do choose who we willfully associate with. These are people the Clintons willfully choose to associate with and befriend for many years. That’s a known fact by now.

Another case-in-point that’s hard to forget about, Anthony Weiner:

Such associations are unlikely to help anybody get elected when the news comes out as graphically as this all did. Because most of us Americans aren’t into this shit. Many of us don’t wish to be associated with such degrading crap, immoral as we might otherwise be. There’s a line drawn somewhere, and it most definitely cuts most of us off from finding the sexual mistreatment of children funny or artistic.

Which brings me to the latest news that’s set Youtube ablaze, that being the firing of director James Gunn by Disney for his pedophile-esque tweets posted approximately a decade back (which some claim he previously apologized for, yet he still opted to leave them up all this time since and now is shocked that much of the public doesn’t share his sick sense of humor):

Following that, Dan Harmon’s idea of pedo-esque “satire” was uncovered from a few years ago and that hasn’t gone over well either:

Noticing a trend here?

Some claim that it appears like pedophilia is becoming normalized in our society…

…and that the Hollywood elite are (and arguably for many years have already been) injecting pedo jokes and content into the mainstream movies and television shows either in attempt to get us on board with this brand of “humor” or perhaps simply because they’re choosing to display their true colors and figure there won’t be repercussions since there haven’t been many thus far. Or perhaps they’re just a bunch of idiot savants of some sort. I don’t know. Won’t claim to know either. I just know that this shit is disheartening, though it isn’t new on the scene. Maybe as I’m getting a bit older it’s dawning on me more and more how much perverted shit I’ve been exposed to throughout my life, much coming by way of the mainstream venues (plus the internet). And maybe I’m ultra sensitive to this in light of my own history and the stories told to me by numerous friends over the years that I still harbor in my psyche to this day. Causes jokes about sexual mistreatment of children to just not be funny. Not funny at all. Not one fucking bit.

Rather, it makes me hold the line and resist further affiliating with or otherwise giving money to such characters. I don’t wish to perpetuate that bullshit, not in actual deed or in spirit.

There’s so much creepiness in the world…

Perhaps it’s always been this way and now it’s just televised and mass-marketed? I think it leaves its mark on our minds regardless. All that is seen can’t be unseen.

Case in point, Brooke Shields being sexualized via mainstream venues at 10-12 years old:

Are we cool with that? That the kind of world we’re hoping to create here? All that can be done should be done? Nothing left to stop us anymore, no moral constraints that draw a firm line to protect vulnerable interests. Just pure nihilism. A death spiral. Observing for the sake of doing so, just because we can. Anything that can be sold for money ought to be sold for money, because muh capitalism. Don’t tread on my free market, bitches. Right? But it seems to me that we conveniently like to forget that Adam Smith was a moral philosopher first and foremost and that a free market only functions sustainably when we properly govern ourselves. A mindless descent into decadence and nihilistic exploration doesn’t strike me as the most productive path forward, though perhaps we needed to go this deep to realize the importance of values. This path we’re on leads to nothing being sacred: not family, not youth, not love, and certainly not peace and community-building. No, it’s a psychological wasteland, folks, and I think we’re bound to figure that out in the not-so-distant future.

Though, I’m not arguing for the bubble-wrapping of society either. Not claiming that all must be geared for the greater good of the children. No, we need adult-only spaces where we can speak freely. Just saying that it’s high time we do a better job of voting with our dollars if we’re not interested in promoting those who find child porn hilarious. Me personally, I’m not a big fan of the idea of bringing more kids into this quagmire we call modern life, but the rest of you will do as you please obviously.

Millennial bizarreness (early morning journaling in March)

It’s been a weird week overall. Good in some ways, odd in others. Last night proved a bit irritating thanks to two people walking out on me, one being a man I agreed to meet for a drink from a dating site who got bent out of shape immediately because he didn’t like my choice of bar to meet at (in his neighborhood, attempting to accommodate him — my bad — complained that he was the only white man there) and then took issue with my stating that I had met a couple other people as well and had prospects in mind. Should’ve just texted and called off the meeting, he said. Okay, fair enough, though I clearly stated beforehand I’m mostly looking to meet new friends and to see where things might lead thereafter. He then told me how his last date went a year back where he and a woman went out and got drunk, he took her to his home where she fell in his bathroom and broke the toilet and later didn’t offer to pay for the repairs. That sounds like a shitty date. Then he got up and marched out, all within about 12 minutes of us meeting. Kind of odd, but oh well. Yeah, I had a weird gut feeling to begin with and probably shouldn’t have agreed to meet in person. Was just an awkward and pointless outing with a middle-aged accountant — chalking it up to “nevermind that.”

But afterward I had agreed to meet up with a barpal I’ve been getting to know a bit (totally platonically) over the past month. That guy is 30, formerly in the military and currently a student, and the times we’ve met up before we’ve discussed religion, politics and philosophy (and played a little pool also). He had texted me to invite me up to the local tavern, and since that other meeting went so poorly, I figured sure, why not? My phone was doing some weird stuff that got me wondering if it had gotten infected (pop-ups pertaining to TouchTunes despite not using that app that day), which I was trying to sort out upon arrival. Not in the greatest mood starting out, looking forward to relaxing and engaging in interesting conversation with someone I’m already somewhat familiar with. Great. Well, the energy started off feeling awkward and uncomfortable, partly due to my mood since my technology was acting up and that accountant had seemed offended that he wasn’t the only person I had agreed to meet with from the dating site (which kinda boggled my mind), but also partly due to this barpal’s mood. He’s normally pretty high-strung and a bit argumentative, but in a quiet bar we’ve managed to converse and have it feel fruitful, so I figured we’d each calm down and the night could mellow out. But the music was loud and he was talking a mile a minute, starting off with military topics before abruptly turning the conversation to sex.

Not sure how or why that conversation came up, but I was only 2 beers into the evening by that point, so we’re not talking about a natural evolution of the conversation over the course of a long night between two drunks. No, we were talking about SJWs and their propaganda, and then I mentioned what happened that evening and also how my dating life was going, and right there he brought up anal sex, at first seeming to be joking but then refusing to let the topic go. He apparently wanted to get across his opinion that anal sex is important in all relations, even hetero relations, and that we women need to get with the program. I stated that that strikes me as an opinion influenced by porn viewing and that not all of us are into that sort of thing. He kept cutting me off and really trying to drill home his point that too many men are “homophobic,” that being their reason for not being open to the practice. He also took issue with my reference to anal sex as a “kink,” a word he seemed to be offended by. He kept bringing up homosexuals and jabbered about changing norms and spoke rather derisively about “the vag” (as he put it).

Admittedly, my head started to spin since he’s so talkative and interrupts constantly and came across kind of aggressively on a topic that I just didn’t care about and had no real interest in discussing further. Told him that I don’t see the big deal, that when it comes to people’s sexuality it can’t help but be subjectively assessed, that our personal preferences are our own and so be it. To which he then bizarrely mentioned how racist views are personal preferences too, as if that in any way related to the topic. Like, what? I didn’t understand why this seemed to matter to him so much and why he seemed so offended that I took a different view of the matter. It’s not as if I was pulling out my pitchfork and castigating him for his views, yet he was taking issue with my “vanilla” ones, in a neighborhood pub early on a Thursday evening. Turned to him and point-blank said: “You do you.” Find someone who’s into that and that’ll be cool. No worries. But it’s not for everybody. We don’t all have to see this the same way. Beyond that, the music is loud and I can’t hear what all he’s saying well enough and I don’t wish to keep on discussing this in a place where others are around and my voice has a tendency to carry. He kept on, so I then stated that I don’t find this conversation interesting. He then got up, looking pretty irritated, and said something about how I seem to be getting upset and turned to walk out. I requested that we step outside where it’s quieter and I can smoke so that we can settle whatever this issue is, but he acted pretty smarmy and walked away instead. Okay. That too was weird.

Wasn’t sure what to make of that. This young man was upset because I wasn’t receptive to the type of sex he’s into? All right, but he and I are not lovers, nor have we ever even flirted. I thought we hung out so as to chat about ideas and to tell one another about things we saw or read online primarily or to talk about atheism. Beyond that, berating someone over their sexual preferences is no way to entice them to lean toward your own. Struck me as a strange tactic. He kept referring to my claim of different sexual preferences being okay as a “logical fallacy,” which he wouldn’t elaborate on. Was such a weird topic that I couldn’t understand what he was driving at. What was he hoping to accomplish with any of it? Who cares if someone else isn’t into anal sex the way you are? And just because other men may not be doesn’t mean they are automatically “homophobic” or repressing their desires.

Quite frankly, it was like talking with an SJW of another stripe. My way or the highway. Agree with me or I’ll walk. If your views differ, your views must be ignorant. He had kept implying that I lacked sufficient experience with anal sex so therefore my perspective wasn’t as valid as his. That’s a very strange take on the matter, IMO. Must one engage in a behavior however many times in order to form an opinion about it? I guess I don’t grasp the hang-up here or his intensity over the topic. What does it matter? Again, we’re not lovers and I’m not condemning him for his own preference. I just don’t happen to share it. That’s reason to get up and abandon one’s beer and walk out?

Left me scratching my head on all that. Didn’t make any sense. Not sure what the hell was up with yesterday evening, but what a waste of time applying makeup to come out to deal with all of that. Finished my own drink and headed home, calling it a night. My bartender lady-friend assumed he wanted something I made obvious he wouldn’t receive from me, but his approach sucked regardless. There’s no shifting hearts and minds with that attitude. Though, no, I’m not the one to target for such fetish play. Call it whatever you want, it’s a kink to me, and that’s fine. You all can do whatever you’re going to do, but the rest of us don’t have to follow suit.

What’s up with this idea that because people’s preferences differ that that somehow is a threat to your own? Can it truly be offensive that someone else says “to each his or her own”? I told him that what adults choose to do is between them — I don’t care. What’s the problem with that?

See, what gets to me here is this notion that people are no longer satisfied with their preferences being merely tolerated — they now feel the need to impose them on others, to try to pressure you to adopt their own. That’s so weird to me. Why do that? You have your freedom, now go enjoy it. I’m not trying to stop you. Not even trying to talk you out of it. So, again, what’s the real problem here? The need for validation? That’s not my concern. He seemed to be trying to frame the matter as if I’m sexually naive and/or inexperienced, which just goes to show he doesn’t know me that well and is operating with erroneous assumptions. Beyond that, a person doesn’t need to experience everything to a great degree before recognizing their limitations and comfort levels. THAT is where some millennials and I part ways since there does seem to be this huge hedonistic push for us all to take everything as far as possible. But why? I took things far enough to grasp that that orientation toward life and living actually comes with drawbacks and unforeseen consequences, and that too is a valid perspective that I have earned over time. He kept saying the word “taboo,” as if anal sex remains so terribly taboo by this point in our society. It’s not the taboo that impacts my judgment there, as stated to him, it’s my own desires. That is a valid assertion because this is a subjective matter. I get to determine what I like to do with my own body. How is that difficult to accept?

That topic came up after he had talked about the military’s “SJW propaganda” whereby the male enlistees were instructed about how a woman saying no early in the evening cannot and should not be reversed into a yes later in the evening after the female consumed much alcohol. While I agree with him that we women do possess agency and probably shouldn’t drink ourselves blind drunk around people we don’t trust to care about our best interests, he was really angry about that topic. Yes, sexuality is tricky terrain, both in and out of the military. There are no clear-cut easy answers there that can be applied universally. Very much a situation one has to feel out for him/herself in every encounter. And yes, alcohol can and does lead to some bad decisions and then consequent regrets the next day, particularly among young people. Do we not see this clearly by now? He seemed angry that women get to change their minds, and I took the position that we all are entitled to change our minds throughout the evening. If I say yes earlier on, but then decide no, stop, no further, I retain that right. Though I should work hard to not put myself in such positions as that since, again, you’re dealing with very tricky terrain, especially when alcohol and sexuality is involved. None of which I was able to thoroughly elaborate on since he kept interrupting everything I tried to say.

Hmmm. I have some odd conversations with some odd folks sometimes. Not terribly uncommon. Gotten used to them over time, but they still do leave me wondering about humanity. As in, where is this all heading? What are our priorities here? What’s the goal in pushing these boundaries? Just to do so? How little do we even care about one another? Is this just another manifestation of our sense of alienation? I said the word “intimacy” last night and he abruptly stopped me and asked what that even means. That strikes me as rather sad if that was intended as a serious question. Have we lost our way entirely by now? Do young people truly struggle with the concept of intimacy? Is that too becoming a relic of a bygone era?

Dumb bar conversations probably shouldn’t consume this much of my mental energy, but it can’t be helped. Humans confuse me — always have and likely always will, in all settings. I can’t help but ponder this sort of stuff, which is probably why I’m better off finding more productive things to do than getting wrapped up in seemingly pointless conversations with bewildering people. But I like to think that conversing is key, that we must communicate with one another in order to make better sense of life and living. But…some days it feels like a lost cause and like we’re all already doomed. Pessimism on my part, sure, but I can’t see where all of this is heading anywhere worthwhile, at least not during my lifetime. Push, push, push is all we seem to know how to do anymore. Argue and pressure and deride and sarcastically and passive-aggressively agitate one another appears to be all the rage. Why can’t we be satisfied with exploring our own freedom instead of constantly worrying with what everybody else is doing? Why do we feel the need for others to join in and to do as we do? I take it as a sign that individuality hasn’t taken root deeply enough, particularly for the youngest among us. You do you. You don’t need millions of others doing exactly as you do. Hell, I wouldn’t advocate for others to follow in my footsteps — in some respects quite the opposite. Because not all lifestyles can be universally appreciated or experienced in a healthy manner. C’est la vie.

“Joe Rogan Experience #1081 – Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying”

“Joe Rogan Experience #1055 – Bret Weinstein”

Saturday afternoon viewing:

Journaling in the wee hours of the 4th of July (plus book review)

In a bit of a melancholy mood this evening. I don’t like to hear myself bitch any more than others care to listen to me bitch. But it’s fucking difficult to bottle up my emotions and to pretend they don’t exist, especially when I feel disrespected. And that’s probably a problem I have to sort out for myself since life isn’t fair and it’s never going to be. Just is what it is. Not going to go into any of that on here tonight.

Been a weird week overall. Weirdos abounding. Arguments reigniting. That car crash from last week and its aftermath. Another holiday approaching, which gets people all antsy. And here it is — the 4th of July. Independence Day. A day for Americans to wave around flags and watch parades and scarf down hotdogs and beer while reminding one another how we’re the best country on Earth, bar none. Patting ourselves on the back for what our forefathers bestowed upon us, as if we’ve proven to be good stewards of these historic blessings.

Bah! This holiday makes a scrooge out of me.

I tire of so much propaganda and the guilt-inducing patriotism. Gotta love everything about this country, right or wrong, or else GTFO. So they like to say. How kind we are to our fellow natives.

The_Bluest_Eye_Toni_MorrisonAnother thing that’s bothered me this week is I read Toni Morrison’s book The Bluest Eye. Pretty darn depressing read, though I figured on that before ordering it. Wanted to find out what this supposedly amazing author had to say that’s made her such a literary icon within the black community (as well as favored and applauded by Oprah Winfrey herself). Started out by watching an interview of Toni Morrison on youtube (was it from a Charlie Rose episode? I can’t recall). She came across as pretty darn racist. So decided to order a couple of her books (used through half.com) to find out what all the hubbub is about. Read an essay by her on the writing craft, then moved on to the book The Bluest Eye, published in 1970, this version including an afterword by her published in the 1990s.

What can I say about this book? It was well-written, I’ll give it that. Compelling enough to keep me wanting to read on. Wrapped up in the end as though its completion was being hurried, or at least that’s how it seemed to me. In her afterword section, Toni Morrison wrote on how she wasn’t terribly pleased with the book. But what got me is how she bent everything back toward race and racism. All throughout the book she described black characters who mistreated one another in awful ways, ending in a father raping and impregnating his young teenage daughter and then her mother beating her so badly that the girl went full-on crazy from thereon. The author described black parents who ordered their children around as if they had no thoughts or feelings of their own, who screamed and griped and carried on, particularly after another black man in the story was found out to be trying to molest another young black teen girl. The white people mentioned in the book were treated with scornful envy or reduced to being nasty idiots in need of black folks to care for them and their homes in order not to live in squalor. Aside from the two white rednecks who disrespected the young Cholly (the one who grew up to become the alcoholic who raped his own daughter) as he was attempting to lose his virginity the night of his aunt’s funeral — those two white guys were depicted as being part of the cause for why Cholly came out the way he did. That along with his father’s rejection after traveling to find him after Cholly’s aunt (and primary caretaker) had died. As well as having been tossed on a garbage heap by his mother when he was little more than a week old.

What gets to me about this story is that it showcases degradation within the black community, and Toni Morrison keenly portrayed it in all of its reckless degeneracy. And yet, still, somehow she found the problem to ultimately point back to white society as a whole. Not the choices of the black people written about. Not their poor parenting skills and heavy-handedness without first finding out the facts involved when it came to discipline. Not parents having sex in the same room as their kids, not to mention fighting and beating on one another. Not the drinking taken to the point that lust overcame all decency and familial bonds. White people had nothing to do with why Cholly hated women. Not even those rednecks who humiliated him deserved that honor. Yet Toni Morrison seemed to lay a good bit of the blame at their feet, claiming that Cholly redirected the animosity he felt at white people toward his own people, particularly black women and girls, as if that simply makes sense all unto itself. The mother who abandoned him was rather casually dismissed as assumed to have gone crazy. The aunt who chose to raise and care for him was spoken down about, as if her help had barely mattered at all. This was made clear when Toni Morrison claimed that the character named Cholly Breedlove had had no parenting skills to observe while coming up since he hadn’t been raised by his own parents. So what was his aunt? A nobody? Should she have simply left him to die on that garbage heap as a baby? Seems she received no credit for her sacrifices and love shown, or at least only trace amounts. Why? I think it’s because, for whatever reason(s), Toni Morrison didn’t care to flesh out his character in greater depth. She aimed to depict him as a loveless, broken man who’d given up and turned to the bottle, who hated women because he actually hated white people but couldn’t show it as openly, who came to care about nobody at all — yet the cause for all of this is somehow, somewhere, ultimately rooted in white society. These black people in the tale couldn’t love themselves or one another because of their envy toward whites, hence the fixation on blue eyes.

In the story, the white people mentioned all appeared to have money, whereas the blacks mostly didn’t. As if that’s the realistic split historically — yes-sirree, all white folks from time immemorial were blessed with money while black folks were not. Yep, that’s totally realistic. Right?  BS. But that’s how she wanted to frame her tale, creating a big divide between what she saw as the Haves and the Have-nots. Typical.

The book’s content was disturbing all unto itself without the added doses of racism toward white folks. Was going to loan it to a guyfriend, but after finishing it and telling him about it he stated he was afraid it might damage his spirit. And I agreed. Not loaning this book out to my friends. Not much good will come from doing so. Black folks who read it may very well accept Toni Morrison’s race-baiting antics without further scrutinizing all the black characters involved, and that’d be a shame. I found it to be more of an indictment of the black community itself rather than anybody else outside of it. Just a showcase of one scoundrel after another, some worse than others, but mostly scoundrels either way. The characters who might’ve proven to be fairly decent were mentioned in only a line or two and then left out of the rest of the story. The spotlight here was shined on these three black girls (Pecola, Claudia and Frieda), and it seemed nearly every adult around them wasn’t worth much of a damn. Hardly in any way conducive toward bringing up healthy, intelligent, competent and confident children. And I struggle to understand how that must be the outside world’s fault when so much control does and always has belonged to parents and families. Poverty alone can’t make people beat and rape their children. Hell, poverty is less likely to occur if one doesn’t drink and/or gamble away most of the money brought into the household!

Just kinda sickened me to read Toni Morrison’s afterword on the subject. Personal responsibility appears to mean to little to her since she’s caught up in this victim narrative and can see little else. Or at least that’s how her words came across to me. She stated this story wasn’t based on her own life but rather is a fictional account of an impoverished black girl (Pecola) who was taken advantage of by everybody, leading to the other two black girls (sisters Claudia and Frieda) who had befriended her to feel embarrassment and shame later in life when reflecting on how they couldn’t help her. But what was their primary concern expressed in the beginning and end of the book? That Pecola’s baby, conceived through rape from her father, had not lived. And that right there did me in. Makes me shake my head and wonder what planet we’re living on when that’s the primary concern here.

When I ordered that book I also ordered Toni Morrison’s Songs of Solomon. Hmm. Will wait a while before cracking that one open.

Further exploration of Milo’s controversy

After seguing over to the topic of pedophiles Milo had spoken out about in the past, let’s return to his own current case.

Once again, here is the relevant portion of Milo’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast (excerpted from episode #702).

I can understand why it comes across as if Milo is making excuses for those who took advantage of him as a young teenager, particularly the “priest” in question (I put quotations there because I hear Milo has since waffled on whether or not that’s truthful). But I can also understand how such life experiences can skew one’s perception. He’s not the first to approach the topic of his past in this manner and won’t be the last. I’ve at times done so as well when it came to my own sexual experiences with adults as a young teen, though I’m prone to oscillate back and forth over the years since. Creates a lot of mixed emotions inside a person, which then can lead to drinking excessively and drugs and promiscuity, as Milo himself acknowledged.

On a side-note, this topic also harks back to MRA/pro-MGTOW vlogger Karen Straughan’s mention of being sexualized by an adult at age 14 and how she too didn’t feel like a victim as a result.

Causes a person to question whether the perspective of adults impacted as youths by such life experiences are capable of being impartial enough in order to be taken seriously in these discussions. On one hand, they possess direct, first-hand experience with the event and subsequent consequences that may have arisen. On the other hand, they’re biased by the event itself since it likely played a not insignificant role in shaping their psychological development from thereon. Meaning such events become normalized in the minds of the young individuals in question as a consequence of having to directly deal with them and then find ways to cope with their memories. There is a moral component to all of this that isn’t mentioned often where the youth in question has to wrestle with his or her sexual and social identity as a result of seeing themselves relegated to that role in the relationship with the adult early on. Speaking as a female, I recall wrestling immensely with the notion of being a “whore” at age 14 due partly to my experiences as well as others’ feedback on the subject. And those questions loom over me, even now in my mid-30s. Can’t pretend being assigned to that “camp” early on had no impact on future life choices from there on out or how I might have chosen to unfold my life as I did in the absence of such early sexualization experiences. Will never fully know, and by now it almost doesn’t matter since what’s done was done long ago and can never be undone.

But it does lead to the curious question of who we might’ve all been had the chips fallen in another direction…  And we’ll never know.

Resuming viewing Stefan Molyneux’s video on Milo’s current controversy:

That was a very fair assessment, IMO. I think Stefan is right about naming names of these Hollywood celebrities who threw parties where they essentially drugged and raped young boys/very young teens. When I listened to that portion of Milo’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast I was surprised Joe didn’t flip out on him. Why provide cover for these predatory persons? And as Stefan pointed out, we are judged by the company we keep. That was the company that Milo, for whatever reason(s), chose to gravitate toward in his 20s. Wasn’t a kid anymore — yet still chose to partake in partying on multiple occasions with people who treated “very young boys” that way. Why? What excuse possibly exists for doing that, and then to choose to remain silent on who these people were? That sounds like the opposite of anyone I’d personally care to call my ally. That right there tore it for me. That and protecting the name of the priest who, for all we know, is out there continuing to molest and teach oral sex techniques to other 13-year-old boys. That’s not okay. Simply not acceptable. What excuse could ever possibly make it okay in this day and age?

This is what I mean in saying that those who undergo such life experiences early on wind up with skewed perceptions that follow them into adulthood. When a person is subjected to such treatment at the onset of their budding puberty, it tends to alter their psychological development on that plane. It was normalized by Milo enough to where it apparently wasn’t shocking or tremendously worrisome when he witnessed similar treatment carried out against other young boys years later. Not unsettling enough for him to call the police or to try to offer aid to those young boys or even for Milo to cease attending those parties in question. Just wasn’t, as he demonstrated by his own account. That serves as proof positive that Milo’s obviously deeply impacted and biased as a result of what all he was subjected to early on, which then can’t help but taint future arguments he puts forth.

I’m not aiming to be mean here. Didn’t have much of an opinion one way or another on Milo prior to this latest controversy. But knowingly partying with grown men who are sexually using and abusing underage boys strikes me as pretty damn fucked up. I can’t get around that. Even after reading about the pedophiles Milo called attention to through his journalistic work. Still.

Joe Rogan and Gavin McInnes on Milo Yiannopoulos Controversy:

Have now also listened to a couple videos from reporter Lee Stranahan on his YT channel. Don’t know that man and am not sure if I’ve ever read any of his articles, seeing as how I’m not very acquainted with Breitbart News. Took in his perspective as Milo’s colleague.

Another video by someone named TheOneTrueLib. Randomly came across his clip tonight on the subject:

Listened to Milo’s words repeated several times now, and I will say this definitively: MILO IS NOT DEFENDING PEDOPHILIA IN THESE VIDEO CLIPS. HE IS, HOWEVER, DEFENDING HEBEPHILIA (at least so far as his own personal experience goes, according to his own word choices). Let us use these terms in their proper sense. This distinction does matter. Pedophilia is arguably much more destructive and harmful than hebephilia, though I certainly don’t consider hebephilia to be fine and dandy either. Hebephilia defined: a sexual attraction to minors ranging in ages 11-14 approximately. Basically very early pubescence. Many of us would argue that’s totally not okay either for adults to pursue, absolutely, but it does differ qualitatively in regards to puberty. That does matter since we’re discussing sexual acts here. Still not cool for adults to sexually mess with 11-14-year-olds, in my firm opinion, so that’s crystal clear on the record. But not quite on the same level of perversion as raping a baby or toddler. Can we at least acknowledge that as true? Different quality of fucked-up-edness, is it not? Requires a special sort of sexual psychology to pursue sex with an infant or toddler or any other pre-pubescent child. Not identical to the sexual psychology in play for those interested in pursuing pubescent youths. Different degrees of warping in the mind.

Pubescent youths are undergoing the process of budding and transforming into full-fledged, highly autonomous sexual beings. That qualitatively contrasts with the pre-pubescent child, though we obviously acknowledge growth and development flows along a continuum. Puberty is a majorly important transition zone though. And it quite obviously doesn’t unfold overnight. It’s a lengthy process. Hence why we as a society also feel it necessary to protect early pubescence from adult sexualization as well. Makes sense. Evidence points to us being better off drawing the line around 15-16 when it comes to more than a 5-year age difference, with it being ethically (if not criminally) prohibited for teenagers to engage in sexual relations with teachers, priests/pastors and other authority figures. That’s where a lot of us out here choose to draw the line, whatever term we think we need to apply to it.

But, honestly, equating it all with pedophilia is truly a misnomer and does distort the conversation for those who do think the nuances to be highly relevant. Both pedophilia and hebephilia deserve to remain punishable by laws, in my firm opinion. No good reason for grown adults to be sexually messing with youths that young. Doesn’t tend to work out well for both parties involved in the end, especially the youngest. Can be seriously damaging and destructive. And I’m probably preaching to a large choir in stating that. Perhaps including Milo to whatever extent he agrees. This is why age of consent laws matter. Early sexualization appears to be messing a bunch of people up. Experienced some of his shit in my family as well. We’re being impacted directly and indirectly by all this perverted nonsense going on. Doesn’t look to be helping us in any justifiable way as individuals or as a people. And many of us didn’t need academic studies or claims on the matter to originally figure that out. Too often it’s a mind-fuck, regardless of how we might try to rationalize it. This seems so evidently clear all around us in society that I feel like I’m beating a dead horse to keep belaboring the point.

Is this not obvious by now to most Westerners? Very likely it is. Let’s take that as granted. Yet don’t most of us also distinguish, to whatever degree(s), between sexual actions perpetrated against young children versus young teens versus young adults? Quite obviously different degrees of sexual (and emotional/psychological/experiential) readiness, so we understand a line must be drawn somewhere and that it must be clear and concise enough that laws are capable of enforcing it. Maturity outliers (however they are to be determined) do not get to decide legislation on the matter, because they do not represent the norm in this case. Not like it’d likely prove unhealthy for youths seeking promiscuous kicks be denied access to adults, referencing Milo’s opinion expressed on the matter. And I don’t doubt Milo might himself agree with that if he seriously took time to ponder and reflect back. Might’ve been better off had the sexualization by adults not occurred until he was at least 16 and not come by way of a priest at all. Hot or not.

I’m speculating, yes. In ways it’s none of our business, but it became our business when it entered the public square. Became a topic of discussion, uncomfortable as it kinda makes me to be looking into this eccentric gay guy I knew little about prior to a few weeks ago. Heard his name bandied about and watched a few clips, but now here we are dissecting his past sex life and comments on the topic. BUT, he did bring it up. We all wouldn’t know had he not. And I understand that drive to live out loud, to say what’s on our minds, sometimes flippantly depending on the context of the situation. I’m guilty of that plenty myself, won’t pretend otherwise. But what goes on the internet stays on the internet. Much of a bummer as that turns out to be at times. We’re all growing and maturing and unfolding our potential to whatever degrees. Life is a process. In our 30s we still can’t claim to have it all figured out. So much remains a mystery. (Sometimes more and more so over time, since the more we learn, the more we realize how much we can’t be certain about.) Even when we’re introspective and actively seeking out knowledge, we’re still limited by time and experiences insofar as what we’re capable of comprehending (and to what meaningful extent). Intelligence helps, but it’s not the end all/be all. Acquiring wisdom takes time. Comes at the cost of a number of failures, often enough. We live and we learn. Not a damn one of us has it all reckoned with to where we fully know what the hell we’re doing. Lots of good actors out here in the world, that much is undeniable.

Is this turning out to be somewhat of a defense offered on Milo’s behalf? Maybe. Offering it up on all of our behalves though. Because we are all stupid and misguided and have made some morally reprehensible choices (to whatever degrees). Sometimes people go beyond the point of social redemption — that can happen. Pedophiles do just that, in my firm opinion. Milo hasn’t done that in regards to what he’s said, IMHO. He has turned a lot of us off and made us seriously uncomfortable with his expressed viewpoint though. And that may likely impact his popularity (at least among thoughtful conservatives and libertarian-leaning individuals), as perhaps it should. Content matters when you’re a public figure. What you say and do gets scrutinized. Who you are matters in all walks of life. Our morals are what check the beastly aspects of our character. Milo happened to be more public than most and stated some things about himself that quite frankly creeped a good number of us out. Looks to me like he has a lot of self-reckoning to do. Just gotta work through it somehow. No clear and easy answer on how to do that though. He hit a moral wall, as to be expected. I, for one, am glad that wall does exist (much as it too might deserve to be challenged at times). Glad so many out here aren’t complete and total nihilistic moral relativists. Heartening to be reminded of that, even if Milo’s expressed views wound up being the most recent proving ground.

Part of me does feel sympathy for him, relating so far as I can based on my own history. Not sure what advice is of real value right about now other than that being humbled isn’t such a bad thing. Sometimes it’s our greatest teacher. Speaking from some experience on this, though admittedly still personally struggling with the matter. Wanting to get morally upright to a greater degree and actually doing so obviously aren’t one and the same. How we’re conditioned early on can construct a bunch of hurdles we have to then figure out how to surmount. Even when we’re winning the race in some particular area(s), those dark spots/shadows tend to wind up jeopardizing us eventually if we don’t effectively reckon with them. And I think that’s what we very publicly witnessed here. Strikes me as a bit of a tragedy actually, just to know a man not too much younger than myself is having to learn these lessons without the blessed sanctity of privacy while being forced to confront and hopefully sort it out for himself. Another reason why fame holds no appeal to me. Hard enough to grow up without the spotlights on you. In that respect, I wish him the best in coping and managing his life from here on out. Perhaps (hopefully) this recent “implosion” will ultimately prove valuable in his process. Implosions happen. And they can prove very necessary and long term in our best interest. Hard as it is to see that when it first hits though.

I don’t wish that man harm or hate. Do wish he’d figure out a way to open up about the sex parties he supposedly witnessed in his 20s. And about the “priest” as well if he’s still working with young teenagers. Sucks when assholes get let off the hook for doing depraved shit. Pain tends to pay forward. Helpful to always keep that in mind.

Hard Bastard’s take on the situation:

Leaving off on Millennial Woes’ video titled “Interdegenerational Milo”:

“Tough love” can sting… MW’s expressed views strike me as valuable in this discussion as well.

It goes without saying that Milo has a lot to further sort out for himself. So I’m just gonna leave him to that and move on.

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.