John Nyzell

I have numerous opinions considered heretical by the pecksniffian clergy of modern society, the bleach smiles and moral guardians who protect us from our own emancipated minds, but I can honestly express one view that, when it reaches their ears, causes the otiose little skulls of the unctuous hoi polloi to nod in sanctimonious agreement. You see, I hate Nazis. Their wretched ideology is a mix of so many things I abhor that it might as well have been designed with the intent to make me disgorge my filmjölk breakfast on the face of whoever claims to find merit in its teachings.

The thing is, the thoughts (called so only if one allows oneself to be generous and dignify them by calling those “thought” anything but confused and base urges) making up the execrable memeplex that is not only Hitler’s Nazism but also Mussolini’s fascism, Salazar’s integralism, Qutbism, Stalinism, Lukashism, Maoism as well as every other ideology celebrating strength above reason, force above debate and the destruction of freedom itself are not thoughts feeding on ignorance in the minds of the odd, the outsiders, the weirdos. No, the sad truth is this: The majority of human beings are Stalinists in will and soul, there’s a little integralist chained only by fear and shame inside most people you encounter in a normal town. There are Nazis in the supermarket.

If we lived in a healthier culture, we would probably never be able to tell these disgraceful beings from those of us who believe in liberty and reason. Sadly for those interested in living in a culture embracing Enlightenment values and luckily for those interested in not befriending the scum of the Earth, our Western culture, while certainly more desireable than most other cultures existing on this planet, have several gaping wounds in it, and the maggots born out of them do nothing but soil and rot the already dying flesh of our society.

Let us focus on one of these wounds: The attitude towards pedophiles. The rape of anyone, including any child, is naturally something the state should try to avoid by using therapy and/or threat of punishment. We can discuss the meaningfulness of the concept “statuatory rape”, the usefulness of different ages of consent and so forth, but all the details are frankly rather irrelevant to the point I want to make.

First of all, in a liberal society we don’t punish people for thoughtcrime. An individual is allowed to think whatever she wants. She can fantasize about theft, rape and murder. She is not allowed to steal, rape or murder. It should not be illegal to covet your neighbor’s house, to covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Second of all, in a liberal society we don’t punish people for expressing an opinion. Freedom of speech is perhaps the most important freedom we have, and any attempt to limit it must be resisted. A law limiting freedom of speech should not be respected, even if it has been legally adopted by a democratically elected government.

Unfortunately, neither the rabble nor our elected officials seem to understand that punishing thoughtcrime and limiting freedom of speech is incompatible with the kind of society noble humans have struggled thousands of years to create. As you know, there’s a witch-hunt going on. The beet-faced thugs and drooling hooligans who breed like flies and populate this nation and every other I know of want to punish pedophiles for being pedophiles. Not because of something they have done, but for their thoughts.

At any given moment 750,000 people are looking for child pornography on the Internet. There are four million websites exploiting children by showing pornographic pictures of them. Every day 200 more pornographic pictures are added and the amount of children hurt by this numbers between 10,000 and 100,000. The child pornography industry is making between 3 and 20 billion US dollars each year.

That’s at least what Najat Maalla is telling us in a (over two months old, turns out Swedish media can be a bit slow) special report from UNICEF. There’s only one problem: All those numbers are made up. Whole cloth. Fabricated. Fiction. Prevarication. Pulled out the ass. Lies. There’s no nice way to put it, and no way for a friend of truth and skepticism to excuse the inane naïvete of the media. Every single news site I’ve read on the Internet has reported the fancied numbers without a hint of respect for the dead and by now probably fossilized art known as “investigative journalism”. I doubt the cretins even bothered to read the report. Well, I have read it, as have other bloggers, who apparently have to do the journalists’ job for them - without any form of monetary compensation, of course. I can’t say I’m impressed. Most of the numbers have no source whatsoever, and a few seconds of investigation show that the information about “750,000 predators on the Internet at any given time” is simply copied from another from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), where Najat Maalla works. Of course, we are given no source there either. That’s because there is no credible source. At all. The number is false. The same is true of the other numbers I wrote about in the first paragraph. No source is given for any of them.

Some sources are provided in the report, though. Not for the important and spectacular numbers, of course. You know, the numbers every deuced newspaper are reporting. But fair enough, some numbers have sources. For example:

According to an American study, 83 per cent of individuals possessing child pornography material had images of children between the ages of 6 and 12; 39 per cent had images of children between the ages of 3 and 5; 19 per cent had images of babies and infants under the age of 3; and 87 per cent of perpetrators had very explicit images of prepubescent children.

So, who provided those numbers? The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC. Ah, I see. The same NCMEC which claimed that between 4 and 20 thousand children were abducted by total strangers each year, when the number provided by the FBI was 67? The same NCMEC which claimed to have “assisted law enforcement personnel with more than 119,800 missing child cases resulting in the recovery of more than 102,200 children”, even though the numbers were, as seems to be theme for today’s post, complete fabrications and even though that “help” consisted of sending out a few faxes? The same NCMEC which has several times over the years been shown to be full of habitual liars who simply make shit up to look important so they will get their 40 million dollars each year for sending out faxes? Oh, right, that NCMEC. Good job, UNICEF.

The next piece of information with some form of course is the following:

The number of images “of serious child exploitation” quadrupled between 2003 and 2007 and 47 per cent of the websites assessed depicted grave child sexual abuse images in the most severe categories at levels 4 and 5.

The source here was the Internet Watch Foundation, IWF. Hnh. The same IWF which blacklists completely legal websites on its secret list which dictates what roughly 95% of the citizen of the UK may and may not see on the Internet, without informing the owners of the websites? The same IWF which isn’t really a charity at all but finds it convenient to be registered as one? The same IWF which answers to no legal authority yet which have taken it upon itself to decide who are allowed to see what on the Internet? I see, that IWF. Nice going, UNICEF.

Now, let’s take a look at the third source this report has:

Likewise, according to the FBI, the number of online assaults on children increases by 10 per cent every year.

Well, that one seems simple: It’s the FBI, right? No. The number does not come from the FBI but from End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, better known as ECPAT. Is that so? The same ECPAT which, like the IWF, has taken it upon itself to force ISPs to block completely legal websites, claiming they are full of “child pornography” when in fact there are no pictures of naked or sexualized children anywhere to be found on many of the websites? The same ECPAT which puts websites on its list for purely political reasons? The same ECPAT which claims to be a non-religious organization but which is no matter how you look at it a completely Christian organization and which has a clear moralistic, anti-sex agenda? So it is that ECPAT? Well done, UNICEF.

If I was a teacher and Najat was one of my students, I would give her an F- on this assignment. I have come to expect the UN to be full of corrupt and incompetent liars and crooks, but this is just ridiculous. The media? The media is sickening. What the hell do they teach people in journalism school, anyway? That nobody ever lies and that you can take what biased organizations write at face value, that investigating claims is unnecessary? It sure seems that way.

The interesting part is seen at the end of the report, however. Check this out:

(b) Adoption of clear and comprehensive domestic legislation that guarantees respect for children’s rights and protects them from the crime of sexual exploitation on the Internet. Such legislation should:

(i) Define, prohibit and criminalize child pornography on the Internet, in accordance with international human rights instruments, defining a minor as a human being under the age of 18;

(ii) Stipulate that a minor can never be considered to be in a position to consent to participation in sexual exploitation, including pornographic activities;

(iii) Criminalize the production, distribution, intentional receipt and possession of child pornography, including virtual images and representations that exploit children, as well as the acts of intentionally using, accessing and watching such material even in the absence of any physical contact with the child;

(iv) Criminalize solicitation of children on the Internet for sexual purposes (“grooming”);

(v) Require Internet service providers (ISPs), mobile telephone operators, search engines and other stakeholders to report any violations to the police; block access to the sites; keep records, in accordance with established standards, for the purpose of investigation and prosecution before the courts;

(vi) Require financial institutions to report, block and impede the functioning of the financial mechanisms that provide a foundation for child pornography sites;

(vii) Oblige all ISPs to block access to sites that contain images of children being sexually exploited, in order to protect the privacy of victims;

(viii) Ensure that child victims of sexual exploitation are not considered to be criminals or punished for acts directly linked to their exploitation, but are deemed, rather, to be victims of human rights violations receive appropriate care;

(ix) Establish extraterritorial jurisdiction for all cases of sexual exploitation of children and adolescents and abolish the principle of double jeopardy, facilitate mutual legal assistance with a view to guaranteeing the effective prosecution of such crimes and the imposition of appropriate penalties, and consider all acts involving sexual exploitation of children and adolescents to be covered in existing and subsequent extradition treaties;

Let me translate that for you:

(i) You should throw teenagers in jail for taking pictures of their own tits since there’s no difference between raping a child and being a sexually active grown human being caught on camera.

(ii) If you’re participating in normal pornography, which is completely legal is most civilized countries, you’re being exploited.

(iii) Looking at hentai hurts children. True story.

(iv) Talking to a minor while not thinking about sex should be legal. Talking to a minor while thinking about sex should be illegal. Therefore, countries should adopt laws against thoughtcrime.

(v) Private organizations and citizens should become a new form of police force limiting other private citizens’ freedom of expression as they see fit, without pay.

(vi) The government should force banks to freeze the accounts of people who look at hentai on the Internet.

(vii) Private organizations and citizens should become a new form of police force limiting other private citizens’ freedom of expression as they see… wait, I’ve already said that, haven’t I?

(viii) This point is completely necessary and not entirely obvious, no sir.

(ix) We don’t know what “double jeopardy” implies.

Fuck UNICEF. Fuck media. And fuck each and every one of you who allow yourself to be fooled by this shit.

One of the lesser crimes of a totalitarian government is that its bullshit produces fertile soil for that which all originative authors strive to avoid, clichés. Clichéd responses are often the result of the clichéd actions of dull and unimaginative power abusers, and few countries have the shame of containing as dull and unimaginative power abusers as the United Kingdom. The latest dystopian themes explored by the British government are state-supported paranoia, the inversion of the presumption of innocence and the last bursts of creativity allowed the sad little tie-monkeys, the almost artistic invention of new klepotocratic methods to steal money from the population. I am of course talking about the insane Vetting and Barring Scheme. “Parents who regularly drive children for sports or social clubs will have to be vetted or face fines of up to £5,000 under new rules.” To add economic injury to this insult to everything good and decent about liberal democracy, registering with the Home Office’s Independent Safeguarding Authority (currently) costs £64, so no matter what you do, if you live in the UK and interact with children in any way, the government will squeeze more money out of you. A conservative estimate of how many citizens will be forced to register places the number above 11 million, giving the government more than £700,000,000 to ineffectually protect children against a largely fabricated rumour of a threat, that which involves evil, ugly, swarthy, male paedophiles driving around in scary vans to abduct and rape blonde little innocent girls who are skipping rope while their parents are presumably coping with their fearful lives by pouring boxed wine down their throats.

As the stereotypical young, male, long-haired lover of liberty, allow me to engage in the seemingly boundlessly popular activity of comparing the actions of current governments with the actions of older organizations widely considered to not have been cricket. It’s not hard to see the parallels with the old Catholic indulgence, paying to get a nice piece of paper telling you that your sins were forgiven. There’s a difference, though: Even the medieval Catholics weren’t so wicked that they thought they should sell indulgences to forgive original sin, that is, a sin you hadn’t actually committed. The United Kingdom, along with several other “civilized” countries, have brought back that degrading and disgusting concept. The name of the game is no longer even “guilty until proven innocent”, it’s “guilty until offering the state a large bribe to remove the guilt”.

Edit: Looks like Swedish newspapers have finally woken up.