6. The impact of "the fight against pedophilia" on societies
"Fighting pedophilia," its might say, is one big social disease. It forces us to follow a strict path, because it is (seemingly) only a fight to protect children, and almost all current social problems, at least indirectly, have their origin just in "the fight against pedophilia". I have the impression that, unfortunately, very few people are aware of this, and even if they are, they are afraid to question anything in public, or at least to draw attention to any negative aspect of this collective madness... {*}
{*"I'll add here that even one declared pedophile has found this paragraph exaggerated and excessive. I'm writing specifically - "at least indirectly", because you can't attribute "the fight against pedophilia" to everything bad. But you can attribute a lot, which you will see for yourselves, when you read what I write further...}
The spoilage of family ties, which I mentioned at the end of the previous chapter already has very serious and visible social consequences. In my opinion people generally cease to be social beings... Once in the waiting rooms (for example, to the doctor), or at the bus stops, people spontaneously discuss various topics with the people next to them, or even in the forum. Nowadays, such things rarely happen. Although far away from cities, where there are small local communities and everyone knows each other, you can still see such situations, but in cities, it is rather not at all, unless friends meet.
How does it relate to "fighting pedophilia"? By evoking a social psychosis, where people are constantly taught to perceive potential danger in strangers, the natural consequence is the loss of empathy towards all strangers in their own society. Apparently, this only applies to the relationship between a child and a stranger, where children were constantly told not to contact foreign adults in any way, because it is dangerous... But it is worth realizing that the whole two generations of people in "the fight against pedophilia" have already grown up, and the next ones, even more hurt by this psychosis, are growing up now!
Poland, where I have lived my whole life, has to some extent even managed to defend itself from the worst consequences of "the fight against pedophilia". This is a result of ethnic patriotism, which fortunately in our country hasn't completely died out yet. At least still - although the situation is still bad as far as 'neighbourly relations' are concerned, which they laughed at even in the Polish film "The Day of the Psycho", presenting the "Pole's Prayer"{*}.
*The Poles used to argue often, too, which was just as the cult Bareja films were mocking, but more within the limits of a certain rivalry and on certain principles - more like "those who like each other are pouting"(Polish proverb). It wasn't "I beg you God to destroy my neighbour - that enemy, that reptile..." as it looks today(as well as in this film).
As far as I know, in other European countries, especially France and Germany, the situation is DRAMATIC! What kind of society is it, where you can get your head blown off just by looking into someone's eyes in the subway?! By building a social psychosis, such as "the fight against pedophilia", it's known that eventually everyone will start to treat everyone as strangers, especially in large metropolises where local communities do not exist. Nowadays, they usually don't even exist between neighbours anymore! The very disappearance of social empathy is one thing, but there are other, even more serious consequences...
People who have lost social ties in their own nation also lose their sense of ethnicity. And don't misunderstand me - I am absolutely not prejudiced to Negroes, Asians, Aborigines or Arabs (as long as they respect others, their women... and not hurt them) and any Human races or ethnic groups, but I would like us to remain races and ethnic groups, which "common trends" are trying to take away from us now!
Seeing only the 'enemies' themselves in own society and constantly seeing in the media and films that getting together with foreigners is 'cool and trendy' and hearing from 'authorities' (like Lech Walesa for example) that it's "genetically healthy blood mixing", our nations are annihilating themselves en masse! As I said, I am not an enemy of any Human race. Nor do I have any prejudice against mulattoes or other hybrids, but they are no longer a race. I just want to make it clear to people who enter into mixed pairs that they are annihilating their races genetically and spiritually. {*}
{*"Healthy blood mixing"... Find me at least one crossbreed that wouldn't have any health problems or mental disorders - depression, addictions etc. It may be connected with outstanding abilities, like Whitney Houston's voice, but for what price? But in terms of our ancestors' heritage, mixing blood is simply racial suicide!}
poniedziałek, 27 kwietnia 2020
6.1 "The Fight against pedophilia" and self-esteem disorders
6.1 "The Fight against pedophilia" and self-esteem disorders
Since the common fashion strongly emphasizes and enhances the beauty of girls and, on the other hand, the inexorable "fight against pedophilia" continues, there is a certain subconscious reaction in the minds of many women. Being women, they know (at least subconsciously) that the most beautiful were girls. They also feel that most men like narrow hips, not too big firm breasts (although they often say the opposite) and a generally slim figure. Such almost "butterfly beauty"...
On the forum, or even in pairs, nobody talks about it, because it's a taboo subject - deadly danger... (but the "cures for pedophilia" make furore) That's why women often want to remain "butterfly", or worse, they want to return to the physical characteristics of little girls. The extreme manifestation of this is anorexia - indirect deadly taboo effect associated with "the fight against pedophilia".
Anorexia, as well as bulimia, are not really about loathing the food, but about their own appearance. And the important thing to mention is that it is not the appearance that defines these disorders, because it is only their effect, and for example models that look like 'skeletons', are the last stage of anorexia. (before death) Anorexia and bulimia are serious mental disorders, consisting in the desire to restore a girl's figure. (which is strongly promoted by fashion designers) Anorexic women as if they were 'more determined' in this fashion to seek death and, unlike bulimic women, they are able to make themselves permanently repulsive to food, which is a consequence of anorexia; not anorexia itself. Bulimic women dream of becoming anorexic...
I absolutely do not hide the fact that a slim figure, especially legs and buttocks, count for me even more than a face in assessing physical beauty - also women. (although the face counts too, of course, and besides, some non-physical features are very important for me...) But women, who can be seen to be anorexic, have something deterrent to me in their appearance, no offense, but even something hideous... I would really prefer a date with a girl overweighted than with such skeleton...
Please understand, dear girls, that you don't have to torture yourself at all to be happy in life; that below a certain weight you become uglier and not prettier, that no matter how thin you lose weight, your hips won't narrow and you won't have the bottoms like in a seven-year-olds! {*}
{*There are girls who, thanks to their determination and certain genetic conditions, manage to keep their hips narrow during puberty. They subconsciously save their "butterfly" appearance at all costs and are able to remain so slim even until old age. But it must be remembered that this price is sometimes a huge problem at bearing, which I guess is not easy anyway...}
The same goes for the breasts. Some women just don't have them. Dear ladies; girls are pretty without visible breasts because it is natural for them! -and, as with the consequences of anorexia, something like that scares me a lot more than the huge breasts I never liked...
It is worth mentioning here contemporary 'eccentricities', such as pumping muscles with synthol, face with botox, mouth or breast with silicone. There are also the so-called "scarifications", where in extreme situations people resemble corpses... This is not as strongly connected with the subject discussed here as anorexia, but it is certainly always a consequence of difficulties in dealing with one's own sexual sphere. {*} -except for those who promote these trends and make money on it, then this is more of a kind of 'image prostitution'.)
{*This mechanism works in the same way as the one discussed in chapter 14, with even more drastic cases of silent screams of despair and cries for help from people who can't cope with accepting their sexuality...}
Since the common fashion strongly emphasizes and enhances the beauty of girls and, on the other hand, the inexorable "fight against pedophilia" continues, there is a certain subconscious reaction in the minds of many women. Being women, they know (at least subconsciously) that the most beautiful were girls. They also feel that most men like narrow hips, not too big firm breasts (although they often say the opposite) and a generally slim figure. Such almost "butterfly beauty"...
On the forum, or even in pairs, nobody talks about it, because it's a taboo subject - deadly danger... (but the "cures for pedophilia" make furore) That's why women often want to remain "butterfly", or worse, they want to return to the physical characteristics of little girls. The extreme manifestation of this is anorexia - indirect deadly taboo effect associated with "the fight against pedophilia".
Anorexia, as well as bulimia, are not really about loathing the food, but about their own appearance. And the important thing to mention is that it is not the appearance that defines these disorders, because it is only their effect, and for example models that look like 'skeletons', are the last stage of anorexia. (before death) Anorexia and bulimia are serious mental disorders, consisting in the desire to restore a girl's figure. (which is strongly promoted by fashion designers) Anorexic women as if they were 'more determined' in this fashion to seek death and, unlike bulimic women, they are able to make themselves permanently repulsive to food, which is a consequence of anorexia; not anorexia itself. Bulimic women dream of becoming anorexic...
I absolutely do not hide the fact that a slim figure, especially legs and buttocks, count for me even more than a face in assessing physical beauty - also women. (although the face counts too, of course, and besides, some non-physical features are very important for me...) But women, who can be seen to be anorexic, have something deterrent to me in their appearance, no offense, but even something hideous... I would really prefer a date with a girl overweighted than with such skeleton...
Please understand, dear girls, that you don't have to torture yourself at all to be happy in life; that below a certain weight you become uglier and not prettier, that no matter how thin you lose weight, your hips won't narrow and you won't have the bottoms like in a seven-year-olds! {*}
{*There are girls who, thanks to their determination and certain genetic conditions, manage to keep their hips narrow during puberty. They subconsciously save their "butterfly" appearance at all costs and are able to remain so slim even until old age. But it must be remembered that this price is sometimes a huge problem at bearing, which I guess is not easy anyway...}
The same goes for the breasts. Some women just don't have them. Dear ladies; girls are pretty without visible breasts because it is natural for them! -and, as with the consequences of anorexia, something like that scares me a lot more than the huge breasts I never liked...
It is worth mentioning here contemporary 'eccentricities', such as pumping muscles with synthol, face with botox, mouth or breast with silicone. There are also the so-called "scarifications", where in extreme situations people resemble corpses... This is not as strongly connected with the subject discussed here as anorexia, but it is certainly always a consequence of difficulties in dealing with one's own sexual sphere. {*} -except for those who promote these trends and make money on it, then this is more of a kind of 'image prostitution'.)
{*This mechanism works in the same way as the one discussed in chapter 14, with even more drastic cases of silent screams of despair and cries for help from people who can't cope with accepting their sexuality...}
6.2 "The fight against pedophilia" and emotional disorders
6.2 "The fight against pedophilia" and emotional disorders
Here I'll start with a Polish scandalous "fight against pedophilia" spot, which appeared during the creation of this campaign. It was a little girl with an undressed doll, who suddenly started to dress her up as if her life depended on it... -It was even soaked with such extreme negativity in the sense of emotional perception, and finally, to sum up this sick projection, "an evil touch hurts all life".
I remember watching it, I had enough - I felt despondent and as if I felt the dirt perversely, to the limit of the twisted fear pumped into this spot. In such situations, I resorted to masturbation, but not in order to imagine this or other girl, but in order to shed the stigma of the emotional dirt that this campaign entailed... -secondly to keep the rest from going crazy...
And what was this sick spot supposed to bring, what did it give good to anyone, what problem did it solve? Because I only see problems caused by it, not solved. Certainly it wasn't only me who caused such an extremely negative experience. But (also for sure) unfortunately, not everyone reacted as I did, and I would bet that even if I did not take into account all the rest of this pumped-up hatred and fear into pedophilia, it is just this spot caused many sexually harmed children on its conscience.
However, years of social alienation have finally made me immune to such things. That's why I don't expect any compassion or anything like that from you. But if I, a teenager at the time, saw it and experienced something like that, then what did little children experience? Can you imagine that feeling of threat, crushing their little throats, that incomprehensible fear and shame that seeps into their innocent souls? -I think something like this is emotional sexual harassment and should be punished!
There are also many situations where people are afraid for their children in the context of the possibility of using them. I suppose I myself was the reason for such fear of the father of my cute neighbour, whose beauty I considered perfect. When I saw her for the first time, she delighted me so much that I didn't control my way of looking at her, which exposed me to her family and brought me a lot of fear (each time I met her) and suffering in general.
And yet it didn't have to look like that - I could have a cordial relationship with her, like a neighbour with a neighbour; then I would smile and greet her without fear, and she wouldn't become the reason for my obsession. In such a situation, her father would certainly not have to worry about her in my context. I also think it wouldn't hurt at all if I told her that she's gorgeous, that I'm delighted with her appearance. (for a few years to tell her that - it was my greatest dream...) What hasn't only destroyed me and maybe not only me those years? -It was "fight against pedophilia." {*}
{*This is what I'm describing in detail at the end in "My Greatest Love".}
Here I'll start with a Polish scandalous "fight against pedophilia" spot, which appeared during the creation of this campaign. It was a little girl with an undressed doll, who suddenly started to dress her up as if her life depended on it... -It was even soaked with such extreme negativity in the sense of emotional perception, and finally, to sum up this sick projection, "an evil touch hurts all life".
I remember watching it, I had enough - I felt despondent and as if I felt the dirt perversely, to the limit of the twisted fear pumped into this spot. In such situations, I resorted to masturbation, but not in order to imagine this or other girl, but in order to shed the stigma of the emotional dirt that this campaign entailed... -secondly to keep the rest from going crazy...
And what was this sick spot supposed to bring, what did it give good to anyone, what problem did it solve? Because I only see problems caused by it, not solved. Certainly it wasn't only me who caused such an extremely negative experience. But (also for sure) unfortunately, not everyone reacted as I did, and I would bet that even if I did not take into account all the rest of this pumped-up hatred and fear into pedophilia, it is just this spot caused many sexually harmed children on its conscience.
However, years of social alienation have finally made me immune to such things. That's why I don't expect any compassion or anything like that from you. But if I, a teenager at the time, saw it and experienced something like that, then what did little children experience? Can you imagine that feeling of threat, crushing their little throats, that incomprehensible fear and shame that seeps into their innocent souls? -I think something like this is emotional sexual harassment and should be punished!
There are also many situations where people are afraid for their children in the context of the possibility of using them. I suppose I myself was the reason for such fear of the father of my cute neighbour, whose beauty I considered perfect. When I saw her for the first time, she delighted me so much that I didn't control my way of looking at her, which exposed me to her family and brought me a lot of fear (each time I met her) and suffering in general.
And yet it didn't have to look like that - I could have a cordial relationship with her, like a neighbour with a neighbour; then I would smile and greet her without fear, and she wouldn't become the reason for my obsession. In such a situation, her father would certainly not have to worry about her in my context. I also think it wouldn't hurt at all if I told her that she's gorgeous, that I'm delighted with her appearance. (for a few years to tell her that - it was my greatest dream...) What hasn't only destroyed me and maybe not only me those years? -It was "fight against pedophilia." {*}
{*This is what I'm describing in detail at the end in "My Greatest Love".}
6.3 "Fighting pedophilia" and "bearing a new man”.
6.3 "Fighting pedophilia" and "bearing a new man”.
"Fighting pedophilia" is generally said to prejudice children. Although I think it is absurd to give all rights to children{*}, as Child Liberation proposes, "the fight against pedophilia" promotes and imposes something counterproductive instead of a healthy balance, as I have already mentioned in terms of the impact of "the fight against pedophilia" on children.
{*Related this thought in chapter 11.}
Systems rooted in Marxism, such as communism and all forms of socialism, have one thing in common - the 'improvement' of people to a certain pattern strictly defined by the system. This is called the "bearing of a new man".
Pure Marxism, called communism, or "real socialism" saw its "new man" in a completely enslaved society; completely equal to the individual. -With no ambition, or any higher aspirations, to realize the economic productivity of the state, strictly defined and controlled by the 'party line'. Therefore, in this "paradise on Earth", the entire intellectual elite ("bourgeoisie", "kulaks"...) had to be eliminated to be able to build something like this.
Today's Euro-socialism (or American socialism) also creates a new man. This "new being" is a man who thinks that he lives in a free world and that he has his own opinion and, thanks to democracy, has an illusory sense of control over what is happening... Of course, no matter how many "ideas" the mainstream wastewater rejects, it is also a man who "fights against pedophilia". Whether or not he sees anything harmful in it or not, he still "fights it", because any attempt to object this 'noble campaign' seems to be far worse than suicide... Thanks to "the fight against pedophilia" and the consequent growth of the "public enemy NO1", even the biggest opponents of the mainstream found themselves in its clutches - in some dependence on it...
In short (because I don't think there needs more to it), the point is that this "public enemy of NO1", which is now a "pedophile", is to be able to manipulate ('polarize') a social moods. For political scandals, scams, or economic/social problems, the media can always draw their 'favourite enemy' to distract attention from them and thus alleviate social unrest... "Anything else people might underestimate, but they just have to be outraged at pedophilia..." The media know this very well and often cynically use it against you... (as a model example for me, it's a Polish case of the ending sentence and the release of the criminal Trynkiewicz, which rolled over and over, effectively distracted attention from the "gambling scandal"...)
And this is how the modern "new man" is created. Consciously, most of you think that everything is all right, subconsciously, or at least in a way that is very deeply pushed out of your consciousness, many of you have some doubts about the correctness of the direction in which the world is currently going, but hardly anyone is leaning out. Because those who have the courage to say what they think, like Korwin Mikke (Polish conservative), are presented throughout the mainstream as dangerous madmen, anti-social or even handicapped... -and people raised on spiritually empty materialism feel safer and more comfortable in the herd. And almost no one who has any doubts about the whole ideology of "the fight against pedophilia" dare to say anything about it, even among the closest family members...
It should be added here that many parents, like the socialist systems in which they live, have also taken on the role of "bearing a new man", only on a micro-scale. And I don't mean the reproductive character of their bedroom... Through some of their own unsatisfied ambitions, unfulfilled desires or failures in life, they try to make 'Super Beings' of their children. They often fail to see that too little free time disturbs their emotional development{*} because they are convinced that their children "will thank them anyway in the future". In addition, "the fight against pedophilia" has taught them to think that children are 'yet to be Human'. -so they often don't see in them beings with their own emotions, problems, concepts, etc., only a diamond, which they have to grind as best they can.
{*Everyone needs a well-balanced time - work, free time and time to sleep on weekdays, and everyone needs a rest from work. Children need even more free time to rest and play, because to the daily hardships of life a person should adjust gradually.}
Such a tragic example of creating 'Super Beings' from children was a young Russian model recently martyred to death on one of the Chinese catwalks. Her mother wanted to make a model out of her at any cost, so this girl ended up in China, because in Russia, where she lived, the possibility of employing models under sixteen years old was forbidden. {*} In my opinion, parents are primarily guilty of her death, although I also don't take responsibility for the fashion designers who employ her, who don't see a Human in her, but only business (and possibly a 'tasty view'). -This is a terrible abuse, for which they should be severely punished, and the rest should learn a lesson to prevent this from happening in the future.
{*Russia aspiring to Western modernity is "fighting very hard against pedophilia", while the Chinese communists apparently don't care too much about it. Where they care too much about it, children are raped, while where they don't care about their fate, they die. - These extremes again... Personally, I think that child modelling, especially photomodelling, should be certainly allowed, but under clearly defined conditions. There should be a worldwide regulation on this issue, which would prevent such agencies and their photographers from taking pictures or films with arranged licentious poses etc. Besides, all such agencies should be closely monitored for any abuse; not just sexual abuse - I think organisations currently "fighting pedophilia" would be well in this role. And one more thing - in my opinion, in order to introduce normality into the whole "children's fashion" industry, they have to stop lying that "this is not about any pedophilia...". I remember the now non-existent page of "Tiny Models Central", where there were the most licentious poses of little girls I've ever seen, although 'without nudity' and 'legal'. Before entering these galleries you could read something like, "it's promoting young talents, it's not about getting anyone aroused, and we're against pedophilia...". -I hate such a crap. Of course, it's about pedophilia in such websites, and it has to make it clear at the outset to think about how to completely effectively protect the integrity and dignity of the children involved. Pretty girls generally love to be admired, so I don't see any contraindications for them to play modelling or photomodelling in their free time, as part of their hobby/self-realisation. But in order to be safe, it is necessary to clean up this business from all lies. Because even the advertisements of "Danone" or others with children are also about pedophilia. -Advertisers know very well that pretty children will attract consumers' attention, that's why in almost all ads with children such pretty slim kids are present there...}
"Fighting pedophilia" is generally said to prejudice children. Although I think it is absurd to give all rights to children{*}, as Child Liberation proposes, "the fight against pedophilia" promotes and imposes something counterproductive instead of a healthy balance, as I have already mentioned in terms of the impact of "the fight against pedophilia" on children.
{*Related this thought in chapter 11.}
Systems rooted in Marxism, such as communism and all forms of socialism, have one thing in common - the 'improvement' of people to a certain pattern strictly defined by the system. This is called the "bearing of a new man".
Pure Marxism, called communism, or "real socialism" saw its "new man" in a completely enslaved society; completely equal to the individual. -With no ambition, or any higher aspirations, to realize the economic productivity of the state, strictly defined and controlled by the 'party line'. Therefore, in this "paradise on Earth", the entire intellectual elite ("bourgeoisie", "kulaks"...) had to be eliminated to be able to build something like this.
Today's Euro-socialism (or American socialism) also creates a new man. This "new being" is a man who thinks that he lives in a free world and that he has his own opinion and, thanks to democracy, has an illusory sense of control over what is happening... Of course, no matter how many "ideas" the mainstream wastewater rejects, it is also a man who "fights against pedophilia". Whether or not he sees anything harmful in it or not, he still "fights it", because any attempt to object this 'noble campaign' seems to be far worse than suicide... Thanks to "the fight against pedophilia" and the consequent growth of the "public enemy NO1", even the biggest opponents of the mainstream found themselves in its clutches - in some dependence on it...
In short (because I don't think there needs more to it), the point is that this "public enemy of NO1", which is now a "pedophile", is to be able to manipulate ('polarize') a social moods. For political scandals, scams, or economic/social problems, the media can always draw their 'favourite enemy' to distract attention from them and thus alleviate social unrest... "Anything else people might underestimate, but they just have to be outraged at pedophilia..." The media know this very well and often cynically use it against you... (as a model example for me, it's a Polish case of the ending sentence and the release of the criminal Trynkiewicz, which rolled over and over, effectively distracted attention from the "gambling scandal"...)
And this is how the modern "new man" is created. Consciously, most of you think that everything is all right, subconsciously, or at least in a way that is very deeply pushed out of your consciousness, many of you have some doubts about the correctness of the direction in which the world is currently going, but hardly anyone is leaning out. Because those who have the courage to say what they think, like Korwin Mikke (Polish conservative), are presented throughout the mainstream as dangerous madmen, anti-social or even handicapped... -and people raised on spiritually empty materialism feel safer and more comfortable in the herd. And almost no one who has any doubts about the whole ideology of "the fight against pedophilia" dare to say anything about it, even among the closest family members...
It should be added here that many parents, like the socialist systems in which they live, have also taken on the role of "bearing a new man", only on a micro-scale. And I don't mean the reproductive character of their bedroom... Through some of their own unsatisfied ambitions, unfulfilled desires or failures in life, they try to make 'Super Beings' of their children. They often fail to see that too little free time disturbs their emotional development{*} because they are convinced that their children "will thank them anyway in the future". In addition, "the fight against pedophilia" has taught them to think that children are 'yet to be Human'. -so they often don't see in them beings with their own emotions, problems, concepts, etc., only a diamond, which they have to grind as best they can.
{*Everyone needs a well-balanced time - work, free time and time to sleep on weekdays, and everyone needs a rest from work. Children need even more free time to rest and play, because to the daily hardships of life a person should adjust gradually.}
Such a tragic example of creating 'Super Beings' from children was a young Russian model recently martyred to death on one of the Chinese catwalks. Her mother wanted to make a model out of her at any cost, so this girl ended up in China, because in Russia, where she lived, the possibility of employing models under sixteen years old was forbidden. {*} In my opinion, parents are primarily guilty of her death, although I also don't take responsibility for the fashion designers who employ her, who don't see a Human in her, but only business (and possibly a 'tasty view'). -This is a terrible abuse, for which they should be severely punished, and the rest should learn a lesson to prevent this from happening in the future.
{*Russia aspiring to Western modernity is "fighting very hard against pedophilia", while the Chinese communists apparently don't care too much about it. Where they care too much about it, children are raped, while where they don't care about their fate, they die. - These extremes again... Personally, I think that child modelling, especially photomodelling, should be certainly allowed, but under clearly defined conditions. There should be a worldwide regulation on this issue, which would prevent such agencies and their photographers from taking pictures or films with arranged licentious poses etc. Besides, all such agencies should be closely monitored for any abuse; not just sexual abuse - I think organisations currently "fighting pedophilia" would be well in this role. And one more thing - in my opinion, in order to introduce normality into the whole "children's fashion" industry, they have to stop lying that "this is not about any pedophilia...". I remember the now non-existent page of "Tiny Models Central", where there were the most licentious poses of little girls I've ever seen, although 'without nudity' and 'legal'. Before entering these galleries you could read something like, "it's promoting young talents, it's not about getting anyone aroused, and we're against pedophilia...". -I hate such a crap. Of course, it's about pedophilia in such websites, and it has to make it clear at the outset to think about how to completely effectively protect the integrity and dignity of the children involved. Pretty girls generally love to be admired, so I don't see any contraindications for them to play modelling or photomodelling in their free time, as part of their hobby/self-realisation. But in order to be safe, it is necessary to clean up this business from all lies. Because even the advertisements of "Danone" or others with children are also about pedophilia. -Advertisers know very well that pretty children will attract consumers' attention, that's why in almost all ads with children such pretty slim kids are present there...}
7. Legal bubbles of "the fight against pedophilia" and their consequences
7. Legal bubbles of "the fight against pedophilia" and their consequences
One girl, whom I have unnecessarily and thoughtlessly attacked on the Internet (today I regret it and I think there is nothing could add about it here), who "by a slippery slope" found out about my pedophilia and who unknowingly gave me the motivation to write this work, sent me a message where she asked if I knew that "pedophilia in Poland is punished". I have no intention of fighting her anymore, but let me answer her question here, in this work. -I just don't know that.
..I know that (VERY RIGHTLY) all forms of child sexual abuse are punished, but I haven't heard of a law in any country punishing pedophilia itself. If it was, it would have to sound like that:
"Anyone who publicly admits to having sexual inclinations or fantasies about children and/or to perceiving in them any sexual attraction, or it will be proved to have such an attraction (by discovering an interest in children's fashion, having, or viewing photographs of not their children, or observing and testifying by credible witnesses; friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc.) shall be punished by (...)".
Fortunately, there is no such thing anywhere. At least not yet, because the law in the UK is already very close to punishing pedophilia itself...
Various bubbles have arisen in connection with this psychosis, to which I am going to refer here, but this law, that is, the actual persecution of pedophiles for sexuality, and has nothing to do with child protection. The point is that in the UK, if someone who has a proven sexual interest in children has pictures of them, that will be treated by the justice system as child pornography, although that will be completely innocent, as pictures made by proud parents on the Instagram.
Even in the case of the other bubbles discussed here, one could find by force some intention to protect children. -But here? How do they want to prevent the filthy acts against them if they pump frustration among pedophiles in such a perfidious way? Besides, I'd ask the English themselves: what's wrong with someone admiring the beauty of your children? -What's so terrible about it? -Why? Child pornography is terrible because it's a registered filthy abuse that teaches abuse to others, but what can be terrible about admiring beauty? Masturbation...? As I've written, everyone is responsible for their actions. -But do you prefer your pedophiles to masturbate to the pictures you make public, or to think about other ways to satisfy themselves sexually? -Yeah.
No one can escape their libido, as is clearly seen among Catholic priests, where sexual pathologies multiply in them like mushrooms after rain through celibacy. So I guess it's better not to limit the possibility of sexual gratification to someone who doesn't do any harm and doesn't want to look at it or support it. (?) If you are so disturbed by the very fact that someone can admire the beauty of your children in pictures, just don't make them public. Problem solved.
Besides, how can you call pornography something that is not? Don't you see anything wrong with the fact that the pictures of your children you have taken yourself could be called "pornographic" in some English court, being used as evidence of sexual guilt against someone? I suppose you might think that masturbating to children's pictures 'offends their dignity'. But if that's the point, then try to answer yourself in what way. But calling them "pornographic" in my opinion is clearly doing it. I have never liked pornography of any kind... I just associate it with something dirty - and it's with all my libertarian approach to sex. If the point is that if something starts to get sexually aroused, it becomes "pornographic" automatically, how would some pretty actress posing in Playboy feel if someone said her session was pornographic?
I'm very attached to my collection... I remember how happy I was when thanks to "Little Prince" I discovered pages with little photo models. -that I could finally admire the beauty of tiny little pretty ladies without fear and legally... Although I am able to see the beauty and satisfy myself sexually with adult girls, but they never wanted me (at least those that I liked). Therefore, after many failures and love failures, and taking into account the fear that always accompanied me during flirting attempts, I simply gave up and stopped even dreaming about creating any relationship... And I always liked the girls more. So since I had the opportunity to admire them in the pictures, I became somehow 'fulfilled in life'... (if it could be call like that, considering my own limitations)
The legality of my cutties collection when I feel cursed and persecuted by everyone around me for my sexual orientation is the last bastion of my sense of sexual freedom. I can't imagine losing it... Especially since the girls in the pictures introduce 'colors' into my 'black and white' life. -It is for me, above all, the satisfaction of my sensitivity to beauty, because the beauty of the girls makes me feel something of affection... It is so emotionally deep that it is even hard for me to describe it... And you may believe it or not, but in my opinion, the satisfaction of libido is less important to me than just experiencing this admiration...
Now I'm going to take the care Polish law, which I've already mentioned in connection with Bear and his outlawed side...
This "prohibiting on promotion or support pedophile content" is first of all contrary to the Polish constitution, which prohibits the so-called "preventive censorship", and is also quite imprecise. {*} But what's problem - in something as 'noble' as "the fight against pedophilia", the constitution and the rule of law does not count for anyone (in this case not only for PiS). The so called 'Law on Beasts', which was supposed to keep the already mentioned Trynkiewicz in prison, is equally contradictory to the constitution, but I am not going to stick to it. (well, at least that's good...)
{*Although I condemn all forms of sexual abuse of children, can the Polish "justice system" manage to pull up this work under "pedophile content", because I do not present the word "pedophilia" in a pejorative sense? That's what this work is about, that this word in its true definition has absolutely no such meaning...! Besides, in my opinion, when they wanted to introduce something like that, out of respect for lawmaking, they should precisely define what the law is about - for example "(...) content promoting or supporting any violation of sexual integrity of people under fifteen years of age (...)". Because What means "pedophilic content"?! Personally, "pedophilic content", which offends me and my dignity, I know only from the media...! That's why, in my opinion, every MP and senator who voted "yes" simply spit on the seriousness of his office and lawmaking...}
Like I said, there is no good side of child sexual abuse. However, in order to change (straighten out) the convictions of a man who is errs, who generally wants to do well, but because of loneliness and the feeling of general hatred towards him, he has got a little lost (...) the worst thing you can do is gag him so that he can't speak and suffocate in his own frustration! {*}
{*I'll throw in a digression here that one paedophile I met on Virtous Pedophiles told me that such things should be censored, because thanks to such Bear, a lot of pedophiles probably took advantage of his "positive paedophile codex" and hurt children. Surely, but apart from children, everyone is responsible for themselves (Bear, from what he wrote, never abused any child), and besides, take understand that censorship does not solve problems at all, that it can only give these pedophiles the wrong conviction about the rightness of their demands. -Something like that: "they have no arguments against us, so they censor us..." It can also be added that this law will still not manage to cleanse even the ordinary Internet (clear net) from "positive pedophilia", if only because it operates only in Poland. (each country has their own bubbles... ) Therefore the only really effective solution to counteract this harmful philosophy is to confront it with the truth. -But for this it takes first rejection of another harmful philosophy, which by definition does not use the truth, but only dogma, threats and epithets, means "the fight against pedophilia".}
Agreement is based on dialogue; on a mutual desire to understand each other. And it is not about any acceptance of wild adoption, 'massages' or other crazy ideas of Bear, but only directing epithets and threats at him, how was he could understand anything? How was I supposed to understand if I didn't finally find a kindly person, ready to discuss it with me in Human terms? {*}
{*In Human terms, not like using below-the-belt punches like sexist associations or some kind of expression bomb, as my father always did. To be able to talk frankly and Humanly with some pedophile (who remained Human) about his sexuality, you have to stop associating it with any kind of getting to children (which he never did and he doesn't intend to if he remained Human). And to put it simply, to respect a man who wants a dialogue. My father has always preferred media-style debates, as he learned from mainstream television - not to get to the truth, but to destroy the opponent with his own arguments; to drag him into a blind alley to bend and feel like a winner... (and by the way feed on the frustration of the defeated one) I hate such like that...}
Gagging people's lips with "the fight against pedophilia" or "fight against hate speech" is fuelling social tensions, where there is no understanding of each other, but only more and more hatred on both sides.
Another, but much more harmful law against "pedophilia" is the total prohibition on parents of over seven years old from touching them in Sweden. In reference to the children, I have already written that it is a production of generations spoiled by the orphanage disease... 'In the name of the higher good', this law emotionally destroys whole generations of people, and many Scandinavians are certainly aware of this, but no one opposes it for fear of this terrible slander (...)!
Because the sexual sphere is strongly connected with the emotional sphere. They are not the same as Freud claimed, but they are completely interdependent mechanisms. If somebody has emotions in order and is generally happy in life, then one can safely assume that everything is fine with his sexual sphere. On the other hand, if someone suffers from depression, neurosis, anxiety, or other emotional disorders, something is certainly not right there...
And it is worth emphasizing here that this also applies to children. Of course, in children sexuality is realized a little differently, but it is a physiological need of every Human, the lack of which simply kills. There is such a thing as a body map. Everyone has it; different for parents, colleagues, lovers, and also children. (Lovers also sometimes have nooks and crannies inaccessible to theirselves...)
In short, in my opinion, the map of a child's body, available for parents, possibly grandparents or siblings, looks like this: legs below the knees, hands whole with arms, head, neck, back whole to a safe distance from the buttocks (especially the caudal bone) and for very young children, belly above the navel, without nipples (also to boys; in them nipples are also erogenous). In case of further relatives or strangers, this body map is shortened to the hands, shoulders, and head.
Not touching children in this healthy Human way is as harmful to their emotional and sexual development as abuse. (if not more...) Such a pathology also damages the mental health and sexuality of whole families, which do not touch children at all. Taking this fact into account, I want to make you aware that the above mentioned law kills the Humanity under its yoke on the social level.
Worth mentioning is also the fact that in Scandinavia (as well as in Poland and many other countries, although to a slightly lesser extent) the effect of "fighting pedophilia" is a kind of 'nationalisation' of children. I have heard on TV that in Sweden EVERY FOURTH child was taken away from its parents... You don't believe that all these children have been molested? I don't know about you, but it sounds like a bad dream to me... And the fact that it is a direct result of "the fight against pedophilia" is obvious to me. Because the state "in the name of the higher good" takes control of children, diminishing the role, position and authority of parents. (in Scandinavia even nullifying it) And no one opposes this sick bureaucratic pathology because it could sometimes turn out that they "support pedophilia" or even "are pedophiles" themselves...
I believe that the United States is such a manifestation of the fact that it has broken down to all the limits of absurdity on this subject. Examples of this paranoia are "abusing children themselfes", "twenty-year-old children" and thirty years for a bathing.
There are cases in the USA where even a few years olds are accused of abusing slightly younger children. Admittedly, this is a problem if, for example, a seven-year-old boy touches a younger girl in the sandbox (something I have heard about once). Most likely, it was the result of the lack or shortage of this healthy parental touch, as I wrote above, although it is possible that there was some sexual abuse, as was happened in my case.
And as a result of the "fight against pedophilia", instead of normally setting boundaries for a boy by his parents and finding the cause of such behaviour to help him psychologically, the parents of this girl are dragging a small child to court for molesting! I don't even know how to name it, because the term "curious situation" is far too mild to express my emotions about it.
Another terrible absurdity is the "20-year-old children" in Texas, where voluntary sex with a 20-year-old girl could even be punished by the death! I understand the American law on alcohol, cigarettes and now marijuana, that you can only use it above twenty-one years old. I do not agree with this, but I do understand it, because between the age of 18 and the American border of maturity, human in some sense is still maturing.
Personally, I do not support any rigid age limits. Some grow up a little bit earlier, others a little bit later. Nevertheless, it is obvious to me that a few years of age, or even a dozen or so - closer to ten than twenty years of age - are unable to make ANY conscious LIFE CHOICE, INCLUDING ALL SExUALS! However, if someone under the age of eighteen didn't grow up to make conscious decisions about themselves, I think it's too late to protect them from anything (unless the situation is so bad that they need incapacitation).
Another such example was a Pole who got thirty years for bathing his daughter without a special glove. I personally support the idea of not touching children in intimate places with bare hands, even during bathing (except when it's necessary, such as applying cream, or putting a suppository in the case of children too young to do it on their own). This is a certain breaking of the boundaries of the body map I wrote about, whether it's who likes it or not... But the criminal Trynkiewicz, who should die slowly (...), came out prison after twenty-five years, and here in comparison with this we have insignificant minor offense (because I don't think that the intention of this Pole was abuse), deserving THIRTY YEARS?! Come on..
It is worth mentioning, however, that in the USA, they can at least talk freely about this paranoia, as well as about Nazism and other matters forbidden in Europe, where there is supposed to be freedom of speech, but in fact only within the limits strictly defined by the so-called 'political rightness' and 'European values'.
These legal bubbles are, in fact, the only real consequence of the tightening up of the law through the 'fight against pedophilia'. Because the real abusing of children has always outraged and will always outrage normal people. Do you really like this direction of change in the law...? I don't think so.
One girl, whom I have unnecessarily and thoughtlessly attacked on the Internet (today I regret it and I think there is nothing could add about it here), who "by a slippery slope" found out about my pedophilia and who unknowingly gave me the motivation to write this work, sent me a message where she asked if I knew that "pedophilia in Poland is punished". I have no intention of fighting her anymore, but let me answer her question here, in this work. -I just don't know that.
..I know that (VERY RIGHTLY) all forms of child sexual abuse are punished, but I haven't heard of a law in any country punishing pedophilia itself. If it was, it would have to sound like that:
"Anyone who publicly admits to having sexual inclinations or fantasies about children and/or to perceiving in them any sexual attraction, or it will be proved to have such an attraction (by discovering an interest in children's fashion, having, or viewing photographs of not their children, or observing and testifying by credible witnesses; friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc.) shall be punished by (...)".
Fortunately, there is no such thing anywhere. At least not yet, because the law in the UK is already very close to punishing pedophilia itself...
Various bubbles have arisen in connection with this psychosis, to which I am going to refer here, but this law, that is, the actual persecution of pedophiles for sexuality, and has nothing to do with child protection. The point is that in the UK, if someone who has a proven sexual interest in children has pictures of them, that will be treated by the justice system as child pornography, although that will be completely innocent, as pictures made by proud parents on the Instagram.
Even in the case of the other bubbles discussed here, one could find by force some intention to protect children. -But here? How do they want to prevent the filthy acts against them if they pump frustration among pedophiles in such a perfidious way? Besides, I'd ask the English themselves: what's wrong with someone admiring the beauty of your children? -What's so terrible about it? -Why? Child pornography is terrible because it's a registered filthy abuse that teaches abuse to others, but what can be terrible about admiring beauty? Masturbation...? As I've written, everyone is responsible for their actions. -But do you prefer your pedophiles to masturbate to the pictures you make public, or to think about other ways to satisfy themselves sexually? -Yeah.
No one can escape their libido, as is clearly seen among Catholic priests, where sexual pathologies multiply in them like mushrooms after rain through celibacy. So I guess it's better not to limit the possibility of sexual gratification to someone who doesn't do any harm and doesn't want to look at it or support it. (?) If you are so disturbed by the very fact that someone can admire the beauty of your children in pictures, just don't make them public. Problem solved.
Besides, how can you call pornography something that is not? Don't you see anything wrong with the fact that the pictures of your children you have taken yourself could be called "pornographic" in some English court, being used as evidence of sexual guilt against someone? I suppose you might think that masturbating to children's pictures 'offends their dignity'. But if that's the point, then try to answer yourself in what way. But calling them "pornographic" in my opinion is clearly doing it. I have never liked pornography of any kind... I just associate it with something dirty - and it's with all my libertarian approach to sex. If the point is that if something starts to get sexually aroused, it becomes "pornographic" automatically, how would some pretty actress posing in Playboy feel if someone said her session was pornographic?
I'm very attached to my collection... I remember how happy I was when thanks to "Little Prince" I discovered pages with little photo models. -that I could finally admire the beauty of tiny little pretty ladies without fear and legally... Although I am able to see the beauty and satisfy myself sexually with adult girls, but they never wanted me (at least those that I liked). Therefore, after many failures and love failures, and taking into account the fear that always accompanied me during flirting attempts, I simply gave up and stopped even dreaming about creating any relationship... And I always liked the girls more. So since I had the opportunity to admire them in the pictures, I became somehow 'fulfilled in life'... (if it could be call like that, considering my own limitations)
The legality of my cutties collection when I feel cursed and persecuted by everyone around me for my sexual orientation is the last bastion of my sense of sexual freedom. I can't imagine losing it... Especially since the girls in the pictures introduce 'colors' into my 'black and white' life. -It is for me, above all, the satisfaction of my sensitivity to beauty, because the beauty of the girls makes me feel something of affection... It is so emotionally deep that it is even hard for me to describe it... And you may believe it or not, but in my opinion, the satisfaction of libido is less important to me than just experiencing this admiration...
Now I'm going to take the care Polish law, which I've already mentioned in connection with Bear and his outlawed side...
This "prohibiting on promotion or support pedophile content" is first of all contrary to the Polish constitution, which prohibits the so-called "preventive censorship", and is also quite imprecise. {*} But what's problem - in something as 'noble' as "the fight against pedophilia", the constitution and the rule of law does not count for anyone (in this case not only for PiS). The so called 'Law on Beasts', which was supposed to keep the already mentioned Trynkiewicz in prison, is equally contradictory to the constitution, but I am not going to stick to it. (well, at least that's good...)
{*Although I condemn all forms of sexual abuse of children, can the Polish "justice system" manage to pull up this work under "pedophile content", because I do not present the word "pedophilia" in a pejorative sense? That's what this work is about, that this word in its true definition has absolutely no such meaning...! Besides, in my opinion, when they wanted to introduce something like that, out of respect for lawmaking, they should precisely define what the law is about - for example "(...) content promoting or supporting any violation of sexual integrity of people under fifteen years of age (...)". Because What means "pedophilic content"?! Personally, "pedophilic content", which offends me and my dignity, I know only from the media...! That's why, in my opinion, every MP and senator who voted "yes" simply spit on the seriousness of his office and lawmaking...}
Like I said, there is no good side of child sexual abuse. However, in order to change (straighten out) the convictions of a man who is errs, who generally wants to do well, but because of loneliness and the feeling of general hatred towards him, he has got a little lost (...) the worst thing you can do is gag him so that he can't speak and suffocate in his own frustration! {*}
{*I'll throw in a digression here that one paedophile I met on Virtous Pedophiles told me that such things should be censored, because thanks to such Bear, a lot of pedophiles probably took advantage of his "positive paedophile codex" and hurt children. Surely, but apart from children, everyone is responsible for themselves (Bear, from what he wrote, never abused any child), and besides, take understand that censorship does not solve problems at all, that it can only give these pedophiles the wrong conviction about the rightness of their demands. -Something like that: "they have no arguments against us, so they censor us..." It can also be added that this law will still not manage to cleanse even the ordinary Internet (clear net) from "positive pedophilia", if only because it operates only in Poland. (each country has their own bubbles... ) Therefore the only really effective solution to counteract this harmful philosophy is to confront it with the truth. -But for this it takes first rejection of another harmful philosophy, which by definition does not use the truth, but only dogma, threats and epithets, means "the fight against pedophilia".}
Agreement is based on dialogue; on a mutual desire to understand each other. And it is not about any acceptance of wild adoption, 'massages' or other crazy ideas of Bear, but only directing epithets and threats at him, how was he could understand anything? How was I supposed to understand if I didn't finally find a kindly person, ready to discuss it with me in Human terms? {*}
{*In Human terms, not like using below-the-belt punches like sexist associations or some kind of expression bomb, as my father always did. To be able to talk frankly and Humanly with some pedophile (who remained Human) about his sexuality, you have to stop associating it with any kind of getting to children (which he never did and he doesn't intend to if he remained Human). And to put it simply, to respect a man who wants a dialogue. My father has always preferred media-style debates, as he learned from mainstream television - not to get to the truth, but to destroy the opponent with his own arguments; to drag him into a blind alley to bend and feel like a winner... (and by the way feed on the frustration of the defeated one) I hate such like that...}
Gagging people's lips with "the fight against pedophilia" or "fight against hate speech" is fuelling social tensions, where there is no understanding of each other, but only more and more hatred on both sides.
Another, but much more harmful law against "pedophilia" is the total prohibition on parents of over seven years old from touching them in Sweden. In reference to the children, I have already written that it is a production of generations spoiled by the orphanage disease... 'In the name of the higher good', this law emotionally destroys whole generations of people, and many Scandinavians are certainly aware of this, but no one opposes it for fear of this terrible slander (...)!
Because the sexual sphere is strongly connected with the emotional sphere. They are not the same as Freud claimed, but they are completely interdependent mechanisms. If somebody has emotions in order and is generally happy in life, then one can safely assume that everything is fine with his sexual sphere. On the other hand, if someone suffers from depression, neurosis, anxiety, or other emotional disorders, something is certainly not right there...
And it is worth emphasizing here that this also applies to children. Of course, in children sexuality is realized a little differently, but it is a physiological need of every Human, the lack of which simply kills. There is such a thing as a body map. Everyone has it; different for parents, colleagues, lovers, and also children. (Lovers also sometimes have nooks and crannies inaccessible to theirselves...)
In short, in my opinion, the map of a child's body, available for parents, possibly grandparents or siblings, looks like this: legs below the knees, hands whole with arms, head, neck, back whole to a safe distance from the buttocks (especially the caudal bone) and for very young children, belly above the navel, without nipples (also to boys; in them nipples are also erogenous). In case of further relatives or strangers, this body map is shortened to the hands, shoulders, and head.
Not touching children in this healthy Human way is as harmful to their emotional and sexual development as abuse. (if not more...) Such a pathology also damages the mental health and sexuality of whole families, which do not touch children at all. Taking this fact into account, I want to make you aware that the above mentioned law kills the Humanity under its yoke on the social level.
Worth mentioning is also the fact that in Scandinavia (as well as in Poland and many other countries, although to a slightly lesser extent) the effect of "fighting pedophilia" is a kind of 'nationalisation' of children. I have heard on TV that in Sweden EVERY FOURTH child was taken away from its parents... You don't believe that all these children have been molested? I don't know about you, but it sounds like a bad dream to me... And the fact that it is a direct result of "the fight against pedophilia" is obvious to me. Because the state "in the name of the higher good" takes control of children, diminishing the role, position and authority of parents. (in Scandinavia even nullifying it) And no one opposes this sick bureaucratic pathology because it could sometimes turn out that they "support pedophilia" or even "are pedophiles" themselves...
I believe that the United States is such a manifestation of the fact that it has broken down to all the limits of absurdity on this subject. Examples of this paranoia are "abusing children themselfes", "twenty-year-old children" and thirty years for a bathing.
There are cases in the USA where even a few years olds are accused of abusing slightly younger children. Admittedly, this is a problem if, for example, a seven-year-old boy touches a younger girl in the sandbox (something I have heard about once). Most likely, it was the result of the lack or shortage of this healthy parental touch, as I wrote above, although it is possible that there was some sexual abuse, as was happened in my case.
And as a result of the "fight against pedophilia", instead of normally setting boundaries for a boy by his parents and finding the cause of such behaviour to help him psychologically, the parents of this girl are dragging a small child to court for molesting! I don't even know how to name it, because the term "curious situation" is far too mild to express my emotions about it.
Another terrible absurdity is the "20-year-old children" in Texas, where voluntary sex with a 20-year-old girl could even be punished by the death! I understand the American law on alcohol, cigarettes and now marijuana, that you can only use it above twenty-one years old. I do not agree with this, but I do understand it, because between the age of 18 and the American border of maturity, human in some sense is still maturing.
Personally, I do not support any rigid age limits. Some grow up a little bit earlier, others a little bit later. Nevertheless, it is obvious to me that a few years of age, or even a dozen or so - closer to ten than twenty years of age - are unable to make ANY conscious LIFE CHOICE, INCLUDING ALL SExUALS! However, if someone under the age of eighteen didn't grow up to make conscious decisions about themselves, I think it's too late to protect them from anything (unless the situation is so bad that they need incapacitation).
Another such example was a Pole who got thirty years for bathing his daughter without a special glove. I personally support the idea of not touching children in intimate places with bare hands, even during bathing (except when it's necessary, such as applying cream, or putting a suppository in the case of children too young to do it on their own). This is a certain breaking of the boundaries of the body map I wrote about, whether it's who likes it or not... But the criminal Trynkiewicz, who should die slowly (...), came out prison after twenty-five years, and here in comparison with this we have insignificant minor offense (because I don't think that the intention of this Pole was abuse), deserving THIRTY YEARS?! Come on..
It is worth mentioning, however, that in the USA, they can at least talk freely about this paranoia, as well as about Nazism and other matters forbidden in Europe, where there is supposed to be freedom of speech, but in fact only within the limits strictly defined by the so-called 'political rightness' and 'European values'.
These legal bubbles are, in fact, the only real consequence of the tightening up of the law through the 'fight against pedophilia'. Because the real abusing of children has always outraged and will always outrage normal people. Do you really like this direction of change in the law...? I don't think so.
8. False "fight against pedophilia" doctrines and their consequences
8. False "fight against pedophilia" doctrines and their consequences
The main false doctrine of "fighting pedophilia" is that paedophilia in itself is evil. I have already written a lot about the effects of this dogma, so I think there is nothing to repeat myself about. By planting seeds, you're harvesting crops - just to remind you, I think it's enough...
I have already mentioned the same way of thinking that 'pedophilia' is something 'extremely rare', 'extremely perverted', and that it always goes hand in hand with actions (in the guess that pedophiles who 'don't do' "pedophilia" yet are "bombs with delayed ignition"...). And for the strongest possible consolidation of this doctrine in the common consciousness, even new words are created, such as "nymphophilia", so that "pedophilia" itself can be reserved for men getting to young children. {*} Although this is not a subject to be spread over the x-es of the paragraphs, it is worth to realize that this doctrine is the basis for the existence and survival of the "fight against pedophilia". Because thanks to this, men who perceive beauty in a similar way to me (and in my opinion this is more than 1-3%), probably think to themselves: "Oh, shit...unfortunately, I've got it...what an idiotic fascination...because how can you get to children...but fortunately I also like mature girls...so it will never come out...(and of course -fuck the paedophiles!! {**})"
{*It is worth adding here that in this case we are dealing with a kind of 'conceptual evolution' in the direction, so to speak, of 'behaviorization' of the definition of the word "pedophilia"... In encyclopedias it is "a preferred form of sexual satisfaction (with children)", i.e. compared to my stand, it is only about 'sexual satisfaction' and the way of achieving it, as if the sexual perception of beauty, which is fundamental to the perception of one's own sexuality - OWN "I AM", was something insignificant at all and had no meaning (...). But it is still very mildly "behavioural" definitions, compared to the media, where "pedophile" is closely attached to "pedophilic acts" and without them does not exist...}
{**By which you're more or less consciously of it, you curse yourselves then!}
It is worth closing here the topic I have already written about, but as a complement to other threads - namely "asexuality of children".
Now remember the allegory of germination and the symbolism of the butterfly I quoted earlier. Children are innocent beings whose sexuality is still in its infancy. Innocent because they are naive and irresponsible and hard to blame for anything, and all the more reason to require them to make sensible choices in life. In turn their germinating sexuality is my allegory of the fact that helping or obstructing them is something very evil, pathological, and harmful for their entire development.
"Asexuality of children", on the other hand, is undermining the whole nature of sexuality, which is based on sexuality and acts through sexuality in general. Starting from the beginning - a human being are created thanks to the sexual intercourse of two people, which results from love (at least it should), which is also connected with sexuality. The formation of man in fetal life also has its own sexual nature, because as "secondary" organisms, we create, one can say, "from the back of the page".
But when it comes to the already born people themselves and their sexuality. -Orphan's disease harms the youngest children the most, because the older a person gets, the more resilient he is. Therefore, even in the Scandinavian countries, where they have almost completely gone mad fighting pedophilia, children can be pampered up to the age of seven. And this "pampering" is nothing else but a healthy (normal) satisfaction of their sexual sphere.
And what is most important in this subject is that denial of sexuality in children is just dangerous, because it universally retards the knowledge of the need to set boundaries for them. The fact that preschool children often try to break the sexual boundaries with people they trust is simply normal. Therefore, awareness of this and the ability to assertively set boundaries in relations with them is an absolute necessity, both for parents and for all who have contact with them.
Moreover, the widespread recognition of this physiological obviousness, which is contrary to the "fight against pedophilia", as well as of the fact that simply not setting boundaries to children; letting them touch you in intimate places, is a passive form of molestation, just as morally vile as the active one - it would end forever the possibility of putting forward brazen arguments of defense, often used by child abuse deviants that "they provoked them (...)". (Instead of "fighting against pedophilia", it would be ripostatized with dogmatic nonsense in the style that "it is not possible, because children do not have sexual energy".) Children simply have the right to be sexually unaware, to not know their own and our boundaries, they have the right to provide them with a guarantee of obeying them, and finally they have the right to blame in the future those who broke them, or even 'only' did not put them up them.
At the end of this thread we can also add that children often test their sexuality at a very young age, at the so-called "doctor games". In fact, I used to play like that myself and I think there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is purely for the satisfaction of curiosity and has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction. (which, in my opinion, always has its cause in other, conscious pathologies against children) It's just that children are sexually immature beings, but they're sexual - a human being is a sexual being already in the fetal life, even before he or she is fully human, that is, a breathing spiritual being.{*}
{*"The connection between the soul and the body occurs when the first breath is taken. And this is not my hypothesis, because the soul is directly connected with the breath. If you have any doubts, do yogic breathing exercises (on which all spiritual development is based) and you will see it for yourself...}
Another example of false doctrines is the saying that "pedophilia is a disorder (which needs to be treated)". If we separate paedophilia from any sexual abuse of children, it remains only a form of admiration for beauty. When it turns into obsession, yes, it can have its own pathological consequences, but only CAN HAVE! (It is mainly because of the "fight against pedophilia"...)
What about the abuses themselves? Calling criminals "sick" is Christianity in its worst form! -Whether it's sexual or any other matter... Such abuses are crimes, and often even terrible crimes, for which the guilty must be punished very severely - it is the only right and preventively effective cure for such a 'disease', which manifests itself in dehumanisation! But no "cure on pedophilia"! Pedophilia could have been (because it is possible that it wasn't even{*}) just one of the causes of this dehumanization!
{*Here we can boldly hypothesize that not all producers, especially distributors of child pornography, are with any sexual interest in children pedophiles. "Business is business..."}
The main false doctrine of "fighting pedophilia" is that paedophilia in itself is evil. I have already written a lot about the effects of this dogma, so I think there is nothing to repeat myself about. By planting seeds, you're harvesting crops - just to remind you, I think it's enough...
I have already mentioned the same way of thinking that 'pedophilia' is something 'extremely rare', 'extremely perverted', and that it always goes hand in hand with actions (in the guess that pedophiles who 'don't do' "pedophilia" yet are "bombs with delayed ignition"...). And for the strongest possible consolidation of this doctrine in the common consciousness, even new words are created, such as "nymphophilia", so that "pedophilia" itself can be reserved for men getting to young children. {*} Although this is not a subject to be spread over the x-es of the paragraphs, it is worth to realize that this doctrine is the basis for the existence and survival of the "fight against pedophilia". Because thanks to this, men who perceive beauty in a similar way to me (and in my opinion this is more than 1-3%), probably think to themselves: "Oh, shit...unfortunately, I've got it...what an idiotic fascination...because how can you get to children...but fortunately I also like mature girls...so it will never come out...(and of course -fuck the paedophiles!! {**})"
{*It is worth adding here that in this case we are dealing with a kind of 'conceptual evolution' in the direction, so to speak, of 'behaviorization' of the definition of the word "pedophilia"... In encyclopedias it is "a preferred form of sexual satisfaction (with children)", i.e. compared to my stand, it is only about 'sexual satisfaction' and the way of achieving it, as if the sexual perception of beauty, which is fundamental to the perception of one's own sexuality - OWN "I AM", was something insignificant at all and had no meaning (...). But it is still very mildly "behavioural" definitions, compared to the media, where "pedophile" is closely attached to "pedophilic acts" and without them does not exist...}
{**By which you're more or less consciously of it, you curse yourselves then!}
It is worth closing here the topic I have already written about, but as a complement to other threads - namely "asexuality of children".
Now remember the allegory of germination and the symbolism of the butterfly I quoted earlier. Children are innocent beings whose sexuality is still in its infancy. Innocent because they are naive and irresponsible and hard to blame for anything, and all the more reason to require them to make sensible choices in life. In turn their germinating sexuality is my allegory of the fact that helping or obstructing them is something very evil, pathological, and harmful for their entire development.
"Asexuality of children", on the other hand, is undermining the whole nature of sexuality, which is based on sexuality and acts through sexuality in general. Starting from the beginning - a human being are created thanks to the sexual intercourse of two people, which results from love (at least it should), which is also connected with sexuality. The formation of man in fetal life also has its own sexual nature, because as "secondary" organisms, we create, one can say, "from the back of the page".
But when it comes to the already born people themselves and their sexuality. -Orphan's disease harms the youngest children the most, because the older a person gets, the more resilient he is. Therefore, even in the Scandinavian countries, where they have almost completely gone mad fighting pedophilia, children can be pampered up to the age of seven. And this "pampering" is nothing else but a healthy (normal) satisfaction of their sexual sphere.
And what is most important in this subject is that denial of sexuality in children is just dangerous, because it universally retards the knowledge of the need to set boundaries for them. The fact that preschool children often try to break the sexual boundaries with people they trust is simply normal. Therefore, awareness of this and the ability to assertively set boundaries in relations with them is an absolute necessity, both for parents and for all who have contact with them.
Moreover, the widespread recognition of this physiological obviousness, which is contrary to the "fight against pedophilia", as well as of the fact that simply not setting boundaries to children; letting them touch you in intimate places, is a passive form of molestation, just as morally vile as the active one - it would end forever the possibility of putting forward brazen arguments of defense, often used by child abuse deviants that "they provoked them (...)". (Instead of "fighting against pedophilia", it would be ripostatized with dogmatic nonsense in the style that "it is not possible, because children do not have sexual energy".) Children simply have the right to be sexually unaware, to not know their own and our boundaries, they have the right to provide them with a guarantee of obeying them, and finally they have the right to blame in the future those who broke them, or even 'only' did not put them up them.
At the end of this thread we can also add that children often test their sexuality at a very young age, at the so-called "doctor games". In fact, I used to play like that myself and I think there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is purely for the satisfaction of curiosity and has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction. (which, in my opinion, always has its cause in other, conscious pathologies against children) It's just that children are sexually immature beings, but they're sexual - a human being is a sexual being already in the fetal life, even before he or she is fully human, that is, a breathing spiritual being.{*}
{*"The connection between the soul and the body occurs when the first breath is taken. And this is not my hypothesis, because the soul is directly connected with the breath. If you have any doubts, do yogic breathing exercises (on which all spiritual development is based) and you will see it for yourself...}
Another example of false doctrines is the saying that "pedophilia is a disorder (which needs to be treated)". If we separate paedophilia from any sexual abuse of children, it remains only a form of admiration for beauty. When it turns into obsession, yes, it can have its own pathological consequences, but only CAN HAVE! (It is mainly because of the "fight against pedophilia"...)
What about the abuses themselves? Calling criminals "sick" is Christianity in its worst form! -Whether it's sexual or any other matter... Such abuses are crimes, and often even terrible crimes, for which the guilty must be punished very severely - it is the only right and preventively effective cure for such a 'disease', which manifests itself in dehumanisation! But no "cure on pedophilia"! Pedophilia could have been (because it is possible that it wasn't even{*}) just one of the causes of this dehumanization!
{*Here we can boldly hypothesize that not all producers, especially distributors of child pornography, are with any sexual interest in children pedophiles. "Business is business..."}
9. "Fighting pedophilia" as a profitable business...
9. "Fighting pedophilia" as a profitable business...
The "fight against pedophilia", which perfectly fulfils its function of destroying humanity, has also become a machine for making money. The media live off the audience. This is not entirely true for the state media, because they are subsidised by the budget, but their lack of audience also has very unpleasant consequences for them.
In general, this is done in such a way that the viewership of each stations is completely measurable and transparent. And the higher the audience, the more willing advertisers in the advertising blocks and the higher the rate per second of the emitted advertisement. That is why, as I guess, the most expensive advertisements in Poland are during the breaks of our football team's matches.
The second such fundamental issue concerning the media and even more important in our deliberations is the shaping of the way of thinking of human masses. When it comes to such things as party wars, scandals, scams, etc., let's agree that the recipients of my work on which I count, do not take it seriously at all - simply for their own health, to stay relatively normal and to feel good in general, they are cutting themselves off from this spectacle served to the masses. Of course, I care about all people, but looking objectively at reality, I realize that it will be a huge success if I manage to speak to those who have now been caught up in the mainstream only by the 'fight against pedophilia'.
Because "fighting paedophilia" is the only thing that nowadays unites almost everyone above all divisions. Is that a conviction? Probably many people do, especially those whose beauty of children does not fascinate, and to an even greater extent those who build their worldview gazing at the TV-screen. Therefore, I take into account that many pedophiles who always wanted well for children (having ordinary human empathy) and during adolescence, entering into a mature relationship, quickly separated themselves from this fascination on a conscious level (they stopped, or even haven't started dreaming about sexual contacts with children) do not see anything wrong in this campaign. If they're fighting "pedophilia." (meaning abuse), that's all right - that's certainly the point of view of a lot of pedophiles.
Moreover, I would bet that such foundations as "Kid Protect" or "Nobody's Children" are crawling with pedophiles who want to do something good this way. (to prove to themselves that they are better, that they are not any "pedophiles"...) Do they do...? Some of their ideas were good, such as a fast line for children on social networking sites, etc., some were scandalous, as I described the "evil touch" spot. But the very activity of these foundations in the direction of "fight against pedophilia" is based on earning money through the phenomenon of "pedophilia". Jakob Śpiewak, the former head of "Kid Protect" convinced himself of this... I don't doubt his good intentions when he founded this foundation. But with time, penetrating deeper into it, he realized on his own mistakes that not many of his 'noble ideas' were left there.
The "fight against pedophilia", which perfectly fulfils its function of destroying humanity, has also become a machine for making money. The media live off the audience. This is not entirely true for the state media, because they are subsidised by the budget, but their lack of audience also has very unpleasant consequences for them.
In general, this is done in such a way that the viewership of each stations is completely measurable and transparent. And the higher the audience, the more willing advertisers in the advertising blocks and the higher the rate per second of the emitted advertisement. That is why, as I guess, the most expensive advertisements in Poland are during the breaks of our football team's matches.
The second such fundamental issue concerning the media and even more important in our deliberations is the shaping of the way of thinking of human masses. When it comes to such things as party wars, scandals, scams, etc., let's agree that the recipients of my work on which I count, do not take it seriously at all - simply for their own health, to stay relatively normal and to feel good in general, they are cutting themselves off from this spectacle served to the masses. Of course, I care about all people, but looking objectively at reality, I realize that it will be a huge success if I manage to speak to those who have now been caught up in the mainstream only by the 'fight against pedophilia'.
Because "fighting paedophilia" is the only thing that nowadays unites almost everyone above all divisions. Is that a conviction? Probably many people do, especially those whose beauty of children does not fascinate, and to an even greater extent those who build their worldview gazing at the TV-screen. Therefore, I take into account that many pedophiles who always wanted well for children (having ordinary human empathy) and during adolescence, entering into a mature relationship, quickly separated themselves from this fascination on a conscious level (they stopped, or even haven't started dreaming about sexual contacts with children) do not see anything wrong in this campaign. If they're fighting "pedophilia." (meaning abuse), that's all right - that's certainly the point of view of a lot of pedophiles.
Moreover, I would bet that such foundations as "Kid Protect" or "Nobody's Children" are crawling with pedophiles who want to do something good this way. (to prove to themselves that they are better, that they are not any "pedophiles"...) Do they do...? Some of their ideas were good, such as a fast line for children on social networking sites, etc., some were scandalous, as I described the "evil touch" spot. But the very activity of these foundations in the direction of "fight against pedophilia" is based on earning money through the phenomenon of "pedophilia". Jakob Śpiewak, the former head of "Kid Protect" convinced himself of this... I don't doubt his good intentions when he founded this foundation. But with time, penetrating deeper into it, he realized on his own mistakes that not many of his 'noble ideas' were left there.
However, not only am I sure, but I also know that many people are PERFECTLY aware of the harmfulness of the various effects of "fighting pedophilia". I know because, as somebody said before, "I'm a junkie after rehabs..." and in small therapeutic circles, some people showed the courage to gently say that they think it's going in an abnormal direction...
But this is where the media come into play, pushing people's "pedophilia" patterns into their heads, while at the same time determining how the 'public' shuld think about it. This is how this psychosis was created, and is constantly being re-creating. Note that some journalists seem to 'love' to use this word, to accentuate it specifically (to emphasize its 'pejorative nature'), or even as their 'point of honor' to use it as often as possible on the subject [male sexual abuse of children]... - "committed pedophilia", "pedophilic pornography", "pedophilic materials", "pedophilia phenomenon", "pedophilic behavior", "serial pedophile", "victims of pedophilia",{*} etc." - A large part of Human minds have managed to be trained in this way easily; the rest of them are simply AFRAID to oppose it.
{*Here it is worth mentioning the recent 'popular' in the media theme of "victims of pedophilia in church" to which this 'wonderful' Francis travels... I absolutely don't deny that these are victims and harmed people. However, they were not harmed by the concept of sexuality, but by a complete lack of empathy and respect for them as people and for their sexuality as children. -And they have not been harmed by any "pedophilia", whatever meaningful, but by specific criminals, acting like this since this pretending spirituality institution exists! (When I listen to journalists,sometimes I feel that soon they probably won't say that some priest raped or abused a child, but that he "pedophiled this child").
And with regard to this institution itself... Most people think that this present pope is so 'wonderful'... I can assure you that if the Catholic Church did not bow down and still had the power to murder and torture, you would see a completely different face of this 'wonderful' Jesuit! -Do you know who the Jesuits really are? If not, I refer you to read their oath... ("Uncle Google" will help you find it...)}
While people especially susceptible to their propaganda, who learned to feed on this shit, simply 'liked' such 'sensations'. Here we have this razor for making money. How many times have there been censorship shots of child pornography on TV or in the press before Child Liberation organization started flooding them with claims for possessing this pornography?
They do it in a calculating manner, because it increases their audience as well as the supply of such Polish newspaper rag as "Fakt". And it's about people they've learned to eat their dirt... The peak of insolence was the headline in the news ("Facts" by TVN) - "Pedophile wanted" in the context of an empty centre for "pedophiles" in Gostynin. It just so happens that they pressed this topic at the moment when there was some 'peace' and no 'spectacular' rapes or other such, called "pedophilia" happened. (it was a time when I still watched the news quite often) Well, then "the pedophile (is) wanted", because our audience is falling down, dear viewers..{*}
{*Same principle that Trynkiewicz was 'promoted'. This is not only about the audience, but also about the proverbial 'calling the wolf from the forest'. I've already mentioned planting the seeds. Just as associations like "stop pedophilia" do it on a smaller scale and mostly unconsciously, so the mass media on a mass scale consciously planting it to germinate them as further news!}
Subskrybuj:
Posty (Atom)