*
Welsh Rainforest Bear writes on X: “Facebook nonce hunting groups set up by guys who left school at 14 probably do more good for children than the NSPCC. Perhaps they should get govt funding, and Baz and Darren should get knighthoods.”
You have a suspicion about these groups, though—don’t you, deep down? I know I do. It all stems from Nietzsche’s dictum: “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.”
It’s just you suspect that “Darren and Baz” might themselves end up with their hard drives under examination. “But, you see, I had to have those images, right? You’ve got to get into the predator’s head, innit?”. I mean, really, why are you so fascinated with the subject that you want to catch the offenders?—well, you’re horrified by it; but horror is also fascination, horror is attraction—just like you slow down to look at those car crashes on the M25; just to look…(JG Ballard got it—crash!).
It reminds me of when, in the early 2000s, the guitarist for The Who, Pete Townshend, was arrested for viewing child pornography—the reason being that he was doing “research” for a charity associated with child protection. I mean, I don’t know what the truth is there—but it sums up the whole “Baz and Darren” aspect, I think.
It’s like playing cops and robbers—but everyone knows cops can become robbers and robbers can become cops (both found under the Scorpio star sign, btw). Poachers turn gamekeepers and gamekeepers turn poachers.
What do these groups do, in fact? Groom people. “Oh but they groom paedos so…” So? It’s the same MO—it’s just what “actual” paedos do. A-ha but “to catch a predator”. Yeah—but it’s the same psychology, isn’t it? In the end, these groups groom people, “paedos”, online and then catch them and film them—in other words, they stalk their prey through deception and then enact power over them.
That’s why it makes you uneasy—it’s the same dynamic, the same pattern.
You thought crime was black and white, but when you look into it sometimes you can’t tell who are the police and who are the criminals…or, as the old joke goes, crime isn’t black and white…it’s various shades of Kray…
**
I don’t know about the law exactly, but there’s another aspect here—entrapment. “Why don’t the police do this? Cut down the paedo menace?”. Well, the fact is that because these groups “groom” people—or “reverse groom” them—they do what it is illegal for the police to do, incite people to commit crime.
In fact, the police still do this on occasion, anyway—they fix on some vulnerable semi-retarded Muslim and then have their contacts work on him until he decides to martyr himself for the “Anti-Crusader and Anti-Zionist Front”. Then the police swoop in to bust the “terror op”—promotions and self-congratulation all round, such an easy win (because your agents worked on this guy for over a year until the poor dupe finally cracked and agreed to drive his car into an airport’s glass facade in a “martyrdom operation”).
So a lot of this vigilante action is incitement. It’s debatable whether these people would have done anything if they hadn’t been enticed into it—and, I think, there’s psychological complicity on one side; the offer is “too good to be true” but they go to this arranged meeting with “a minor” because at some level they want to be “exposed”. Whatever game is being played by either side, it’s not really about “the protection of children”, anyway.
It comes from TV, so far as I can tell, from a US show called To Catch a Predator—and you should suspect anything that comes off the TV.
It’s to do with a psychological outlook, you’ve bought into this psychodrama that there are predators “out there”—it’s horrific, squalid, but it also fascinates you. “He’s just the type…he’s a nonce…and I’m going to prove it.” That’s the thing, he may be “just the type” but maybe he would never have done anything about it if you hadn’t lured him into that situation. We can’t know for sure, because you made it happen—you incited it.
It’s like if you decide someone is “the type” to deal drugs, maybe they are. You then pester them with free samples of drugs for a month, tell them how easy it is to make money, induce them to try some of the product, go on and on about how the police don’t care today—then, when the guy does it, you jump on him and say “drug dealer!”.
That’s why incitement is contrary to the interests of justice—because you can’t ever really know what’s going on in someone’s head. He’s just the type…and I’m going to prove it—banged to rights. Yeah, he wears a dirty mack and has a straggly beard filled with dandruff—he is the type; but the crime you’ve inspired him towards is co-created by you—you incited it, you encouraged it (to fulfil your own psychological need to predate on “the filthy nonce”).
“But, yeah, when I do it it’s not being a predator, because I’m the predator against the predator, you gettit?” (all these exchanges should be imagined in the persona of Andrew Tate, by the way, because that’s what these people are like—very self-righteous and full of themselves).
Look, you caused a crime to happen—that’s all you did. If you incite someone to behave in a criminal way, you caused a crime—you are also “the nonce”.
What these people really believe, at heart, is that there’s a type—and it should be illegal to be a type of person; and that they know what the type thinks—but they don’t know, and law can’t work on that basis.
The people these groups catch are usually semi-autistic awkward or retarded people who are like the trans—they’re people who have convinced themselves they are something through the imaginative world of the Internet, convinced themselves they have a “fetish” or “gender dysphoria”—meanwhile, you have to wonder about the psychology of people who pretend to be sexually active ten-year-old girls online (“See, thing is, officer, right, I needed those images to get in character…when I’m playing ‘Claire’…”).
“Yes, I am a totally sane person who goes online, pretends to be a 10 y.o. girl and writes sexually provocative ideas to a random man at the other end until he agrees to meet me. I am totally normal—a hero, in fact.” Don’t you see that these “have-a-go-heroes” participate in what they claim to prevent? They enable and they write the script (“to put on the mask is to become it”—they have to become a little girl).
So when you go online and pretend to be a 10 y.o. girl and write sexually provocative stuff with a random man on the other end you are creating child pornography—you are creating sexually arousing material that involves people below the age of consent. “But the ends justify the means!” (the cry of every project that ever overturned all law in history).
“Excuse me, but why do you want to pretend to be a 10 y.o. girl and have sexual conversations with random men online?” “To save them from the paedos, innit?” “Er, do you get off on it tho?” “…”
Further question, they always pretend to be young girls—never young boys; why? Because, though predation of young boys is a big problem, it doesn’t excite the “Darren and Baz” mind—they have a thing about “our girls” (which has a relation to feminism and their own psychology, as we shall see). But they don’t care about “our boys” (they care about “children”, yes—but not so much as they’d do “gay shit”; and because it’s only pretending to be a young girl that will be predated upon that sexually excites them). Ah, sweet charity!
Well, you know, nobody does anything for “nothing”—and there’s more than playing Batman to this game…
So it’s a folie à deux—on one end is someone who has the equivalent to “gender dysphoria” who is gullible and stupid and mixed up, and on the other you have someone who has a repressed desire to enact the very thing he accuses other people of (hence why he does it, he creates child pornography—“But only to save them”. That’s your delusion). Both parties in this game are, to use the technical vernacular, “fucked-up”.
That’s why these “heroes” feel so unsavoury—they are what they accuse other people of being, but they don’t have the critical distance from themselves to see that. Worse—they’re proud of themselves; they shame the “paedo”, but they are the “paedo” too.
***
The hardcore “abusers”, people like Savile, would never be so stupid—they know what they want, and they get it. And the people who run these “protection groups” probably loved Savile when they were young, watched him all the time (they hate him now, of course—they “always saw through it, always thought he was a wrong ’un”). But, at the time, they would have said, “Old Jimmy, top bloke—does a lot for the kiddies like”.
Yeah, “you always saw through it”—you still tucked into your beans and sausages and watched him on the telly and had a laugh at the time (but you knew—of course you did).
This whole phenomenon is also connected to the way Western society has become feminised and sentimentalised. Reality check: the worst crime is not “child abuse” (whatever that is) or “paedophilia” or rape—it’s murder. No, really—everyone wants to live another day (and will accept another day under all but the most severe conditions). So the worst crime is murder, not this notional “abuse” (what even is this very vague word, anyway?).
“Abuse” could mean anything—it could mean you were locked out of the house when you were 14 for an hour as a punishment by your parents, it could mean you were beaten black-and-blue every night. In a narcissistic society that thrives on victimhood, what people do is dangle the magic word “abuse” but remain vague about the details—let the imagination work, because the imagination always comes up with a scenario worse than the actuality. In this way, you can garner status points as a victim, feed the hysteria around you.
Oh, just plain and ordinary murder—I’m not so interested in that. Well, no—that’s because it can’t be sentimentalised and, also, you can’t get a slight erotic fission from it, nor can you get that self-righteous “I did it for the kiddies” emotion. Pfff..murder? Who cares? Just a boring old murder…nothing sexy about that.
Also, don’t think that because this tends to come from the lower middle class or the working class that it isn’t sentimental and detached from reality—just because he’s bruiser with an England tattoo doesn’t mean he doesn’t love his mum and the kiddies.
Just because he’s a “real lad” with “huge muscles” who had a fight down the pub once doesn’t mean he doesn’t cry when he buys mum the Mother’s Day card and a box of Cadbury’s Roses. Sure, some people who work at “the hard end”, down a coal mine or as fishermen, are practical or unsentimental because their job has an existential element—but a great many are soft and gooey, muscles and tattoos notwithstanding.
In fact, the English working class is filled with sentimentalism—just look at any display by truckers, each cab decorated with stylised glamour girls or Hollywood celebs or white stallions all done out in neon or day-glo colours (like sweeties in the shop window—I like it, but it is kitsch). Well, that’s all sentiment, that’s all weeping into your Carling…
You see that reflected in the “Bazza meme” online: “Love me football. Love me beer. Simple as.” “Love me mum. Love me kiddies. Simple as—you can keep the wife, though.” This is true at the archetypal level—but it also reflects a sentimental outlook on life found in the English working class, the people who own “staffies” (sentimental name for a vicious thing, no?).
In fact, the lower classes are more sentimental than the upper classes because they’re less intelligent and more driven by emotions (even the tattoos are sentimental, “I luv mum”)—the fact our society is so sentimental is, in part, because it is socialised and proletarianised. Hence “the kiddies” are important—or we’re supposed to think you care about that, anyway. The truth is people are pretty cold and indifferent even about their own children, let alone other people’s children—but they like to think they care a lot, and they’d like you to think it too.
Actually, it’s that very working class and underclass sentimentalism that Savile thrived on—he came from the underclass himself, poor as dirt. But “Jim fixed it” for “the kiddies” to go to Butlin’s or go on the rollercoaster at Thorpe Park. “What a legend.”
So, as you can see, it’s two sides of the same coin—it’s the people who have the most sentimental relationship with children you have to watch out for (and, especially, people who say they “hate children”—because people hate what they desire but cannot have, just like men hate women because they desire them but can’t access them at will).
Savile, of course, openly said he “hated children” which is what people who harm children say—but it’s reverse psychology and, with your beans and sausages, you fell for it. “He says he can’t stand them, wouldn’t have anything to do with them…he stays well clear, no danger there” Ha.
****
Further, the obsession with Prince Andrew is just resentment because he is an aristocrat and a royal; and the hysteria over Epstein is a dud—no real crime was committed. The hysteria only obscures the real question as to which intelligence service (Mossad) was behind this whole prostitution operation.
Unsentimental fact: the age of consent in English common law was 12 for 900 years. It was only changed in the 19th century with feminism—and it has been changed several times since then to fit in with feminist whims. If you listen to old folks you will sometimes hear them say “we didn’t have all these paedophiles when I was young”—and perhaps you laughed, thought they were “naïve”, “we know better now”.
Reality: the term “paedophilia” was invented by the left for two reasons—first, to conceal the fact that homosexual men take an interest in young boys and are overrepresented in sex crimes (your grand folks had pederasts, not paedophiles; but “paedophilia” lumps heteros and homos together, so hiding the high homo “per capita” rate); second, to destroy traditional marriage whereby, say, a 41 y.o. might be wedded to a 16 y.o. (“Oh, ick, paedophilia,” people say today—because the term doesn’t means anything; it’s a nonce word, you might say).
You often see these leftist attempts at memes where a cosy 1950s family is marked up as “on benzos”, “abuses his daugher”, “is secretly gay”—the whole idea that the past was filled with “abuse” is predicated on this idea that the age of consent has to go up, that pederasty isn’t real.
It’s a parallel to the free speech debate: there is no such thing as a “neutral” speech regime, it either tips one way or the other—it’s either a feminine belief-based censorship regime, or it’s a masculine “outcome-based” speech regime (i.e. “does the speech make any concrete threats?”).
It’s the same thing with sexuality—what is called “abuse” is just a masculine “sex regime”. A feminine “sex regime” knows no pederasty, but does know “closeted men”—further, a girl who marries at 14 has been “abused” irrespective of whether she wanted the marriage or not (she married a “paedophile”).
Feminism wants to break up traditional marriage so that girls go to school and university and become “like men”—that means they had to do a psyop to make out that sexual activity that could lead to marriage, as when an older self-supporting man chose a young bride, was pathological. People think “paedophile” means “interest in prepubescent children” and that engages their disgust reaction—but, in practice, it would be as much used for a 25 y.o. who slept with a 15 y.o. (and would be prosecuted as such).
Yet for almost all human history, except the past 50 years, that would have been seen as unobjectionable. Basically, “teenagehood” and “adolescence” were invented—people were seen, until relatively recently, as adult at aged 12. For example, my hairdresser when I was a teenager (I’m a Millennial), who was a flamboyant gay man in his late 50s, used to give me hard-luck stories about how he was sweeping the floor in a barber’s shop at 12—because he had to go out to work then (unlike pampered people like you, so ran the subtext). “Get a real job etc—you and your fancy universities,” it’s all rationalised resentment.
The fact is we live in a sentimental delusion about sex—and there’s been a purposeful elision between adolescence and childhood to conceal the nature of homosexual sex and to make sure girls at their most fertile age don’t marry. So the whole “paedo” hysteria is a meme—these people, especially from the lower sections of society, who are the most vulnerable to sentimental propaganda, will actually treat a 25 y.o. who sleeps with a 15 y.o. as the same he as if he slept with an 8 y.o. (a true crime against nature that causes a disgust reflex).
That’s because they’ve been programmed by the system to be like that—but if you stop and think about it, if you examine the history behind it, the whole framework is incorrect and a distortion. “Oh, so you’re a nonce—you’re one of those posh nonces…”. A bit like “racism” with blacks and Asians, the white underclass has glommed onto the fact that “nonce” and “paedo” can be used to shut someone down—say the “magic” word and all reason goes out the window.
Rather like the constant campaigns to raise the age of compulsory schooling, the left always wants to raise the age of consent (American readers should bear in mind that the age of consent in Britain is 16, whereas it varies in America from 16-18—and this somewhat illustrates how arbitrary the “paedo” label is).
So, in my view, the people at Epstein’s didn’t do anything wrong—or, at least, not wrong as is suggested; it’s exaggerated because people hate the Jews and/or the royals. I’d also add that although Savile committed various sex crimes, the extent is grossly exaggerated—a lot of these “crimes” were just groupies who pressed themselves on him, would have done so anyway, and later cried “rape!” when the scandal broke.
I saw a documentary about Savile where one of his supposed “victims” spoke out—she had herself just been to a concert with her daughter and she cooly complained the singer “brushed up” against her. In other words, she’d always been this way—she’d always been a groupie, still was in her middle age (still was going to concerts to be “abused”).
Sure, Savile committed real crimes—he molested corpses in morgues, he pressed himself on people who were incapacitated; but the true figure for his victims is probably 75-100 tops, not “1,000s” as advertised. I don’t deny he was a malevolent and malicious man—wouldn’t rule out that he was involved in murder, albeit in an indirect way; but the actual “sex crime” aspect around him is mostly hysteria.
*****
A final note on filmic “abduction” stories. At the moment, people are very enamoured, particularly rightists, with Sound of Freedom (sounds like Liberty Bells and the good ‘ole clip-clop of Paul Revere’s horse on those colonial cobblestones and Jesus H. Christ himself…mmm, they know their audience).
Well, I noticed a bus with an advert for this film spin past me today, and I noticed it showed a guy protecting a little girl…Ah, “our girls”—that’s what it’s about, you see. In other words, it’s a feminist film—its antecedent is Taken (2009) in which Liam Neeson (Aslan from the Narnia films—for the Christers) is what is called, so I believe, “an operator” for the CIA.
Neeson’s incredibly obnoxious spoiled teenage daughter (17) swans off to Paris and is subsequently kidnapped by Albanian sex traffickers so ferocious “even the Russians won’t touch them” (that bad, huh?). Neeson has to jump into action and save her.
You notice her age plays with the age of consent issue from an American angle, she’s 17 (i.e. jail bait)—like all these “sex-crime hero stories”, like all real tabloid stories, there’s a prurient angle. You root for Liam to save his daughter from the Albanian sex beasts, but we’ll also show you a scene where she’s in her bra and panties being auctioned off to foreign men. Mmm…fresh meat.
“Um, am I a paedophile then? Because she’s only 17…”. But that’s all in your head, that’s “Reddit” (the most propagandised and loyal Internet discussion board)—the film just plays with that arbitrary legal age limit that people (in America) have been propagandised into thinking is a “red line” but isn’t really unnatural at all. It’s all hypocrisy—if you’re invested in the idea that to sleep with a 17 y.o. is some “horrific sex crime” like sleeping with an 8 y.o. then the whole thing has a certain frisson—not to mention it’s her dad watching her in her bra and panties (stop!).
However, if you’re not invested in that “age limit storyline” the film has no particular significance—but, like all these things, all these things associated with feminism and Puritanism, it has a strong prurient and hypocritical element. And what you’re hysterical about isn’t even really a crime—she’s 17! (you are propagandised and hysterical—and a hypocrite who gets off on it). That’s the point, that’s the game.
Anyway, the whole film sets up the typical role model for Western man. Neeson, despite being this practical hard-working father (and patriot), has been dumped by his wife who has taken up with some drip called “Stuart” in Beverley Hills (who, handily, has a private jet on order when it comes time for Neeson save “our girls” in Paris). Until that happens our Liam is left in the proverbial motel with the fold-down bed and a few unpacked boxes (“men will really live like this”).
But he’s the model modern father, so despite being treated like dirt by his ex-wife and obnoxious daughter he does “everything and anything” to save her (to please her beforehand)—because men exist to serve women in our world, anything for “daddy’s little girl” (you notice how this sentimentalisation, this desire to “protect women” to “protect daddy’s little girl” also contains within it shades of its opposite—hints of incest, of Lolita, of daddy-daughter romance).
If he does “everything and anything” she’ll see him in the end—the feminist illusion, if men just “try harder” the family that has been destroyed will agree to see him, but it never will; it doesn’t work like that, it was never his fault in the first place—there was no “reasonable complaint”, women just like to test the boundaries and always seek better so they’re always champing to pull the divorce cord once it’s there (the complaint is not rational—but you’re told it is something that can be negotiated).
Sound of Freedom is like Taken but ++. We’ve moved on since 2009, things are more extreme—so the child in question is 11 (again, remember that the common law age of consent was 12). So we’re at another borderline, but a borderline further back, closer to the original, than contemporary America’s fantastical 18 (or Britain’s 16)—but that’s necessary because everything has become more extreme since then, and nobody would get frothy about an abducted 17 y.o. anymore.
It’s the same dynamic though (the same prurient dynamic, girl at the borderline of pubescence—when did Mohammad get married, anyway?)—well, it’s a feminist film, so men have to go “above and beyond” to save their little girls (and Mohammad was a paedo—that’s what the neocons and their feminist allies told me, anyway).
Now, there is a little boy who is abducted in the film—but he’s not on the poster (and isn’t in the film much, even though he’s younger—the film is about saving girls, because feminist). That’s because we don’t want to know about it. What? Boys—homosexuals, pederasts. It’s a big turn-off (not to mention the “gay lobby”—wouldn’t want to go back to talking about pederasty, would we? Let’s keep the accent on “paedos”, to conceal which sexual orientation is over-represented in these crimes…sure the problem is “white heterosexual men who abduct girls”…not).
To reiterate, the girl is 11—not, for example, 8—because soon she’ll be “over the line”, so the audience can still feel that prurient attrac…(stop!).
Put a little boy on the poster and nobody would feel sentimental—it would be a huge turn-off, nobody would want to go. Anal sex. Homosexuals. Ick. We don’t want to talk about that—we don’t want to know about it, it doesn’t stir any sentimental feelings (just genuine disgust).
No, we want to talk about “daddy’s little angel”—I’d do anything to save my angel, my princess (okay, steady on Humbert Humbert). That’s the problem you see, all this sentimental talk about “our girls” is not “pure”, it’s mixed in with ambivalent desire to own, to control, to participate…it’s so bad but it feels so good…careful…who’s the cop and who’s the robber now, then?