On Paedophilia
Over the long term means that one has a very large observational yardstick by which to measure things. These can be broad general tendencies in society. It is not empirical but experiential. One single anecdote does not count. Yet cluster several together within one lifetime gives anecdotal evidence that at least suggests evidence. Giving one observational power. The point of view of wisdom. The recollected wisdom of years.

Where I live I have lived for nearly 30 years. I have seen some things. One of the things one sees even over a 15 year period is the rapid decay into decrepitude of people on drugs and booze. They become empty vacant zombies. This is especially apparent in observing the last 15 years in the life of someone who's been drinking for 40 or 50 years. At this stage even when apparently sober they appeared to be incapable of putting together two or three coherent sentences. Anyone who even drinks half a glass a day but must have that half glass, in a soft definition, could be counted as an alcoholic. This is one way to define the state. However I am not talking about the one who must have at least half a glass of booze a day every day and cannot avoid it. I am talking about the one whether he can afford it or not, or she, appears to drink rather substantial quantities: such as three cartons every time they go shopping even if it's only once a week. If it is drunk all in one sitting and the person is unable to afford any more booze that week, that to could constitute an alcoholic. This is the binge drinking style. And they must do it every benefit payday. This can go on for years; this can go on for decades; this can constitute virtually one's entire life. Such is the life of an actual alcoholic. Nobody bothers them too much they don't seem to harm anybody most of the time, a little loud on other times perhaps, but not always. People who are otherwise well-behaved may still drink to this excess. All of them gradually lose their brainpower. That cannot be denied.
Alcoholics like this which abound in our society are everywhere. Yet it is not alcohol I am condemning here.

These are the ones when observed by others to be less than fully capable are often set upon by thieves or harassed by thugs. Sometimes, though hopefully rarely, they are beaten up.

It is another group entirely to which I wish to draw attention. Harmless men, probably harmless men, and all, merely possibly harmless men – who drink in the manner described above. Who are victims not of thieves nor of thugs yet are nevertheless victims. The victims I wish to talk about here are these drinking men who basically do little harm as social drinkers on the way home with the cartons of booze. They probably drink in front of the TV while the rest of their family tries its best to ignore them. All they have in common is the deterioration in their brainpower. They do become harmless idiots incapable of coherent thought or speech yet otherwise morosely peaceable. Other people pick on them as they are easy targets. They are also very unattractive citizens and members of the public. The spouse one keeps around with embarrassment, the family member who is much ignored, the dull company shunned by most.

The victimhood consists of this; they are easy marks for any kind of feminist accusation. A school women's group. A mother who doesn't like him being around. A society basically that just wishes he would go away. Any situation will do to get rid of him. He may not in any proactive way deliberately do harm, have the intention to do harm, or actually do any harm. Yet he is not wanted around. Nobody wants him around. Therefore the normal watchfulness for his legal protections are almost entirely absent. So that when he does get into trouble everyone backs off from offering him a robust, determined and stout defence. Everyone senses this. No one wants to be cruel. Yet no one wants to be entangled in a cruel and unjust accusation. In court he puts up a weak defence and is basically rolled over by the process. No one defends him, nor can they, for all the participants have the same thought in their head – even the victim. "I might have done it" thinks the man inside himself. He cannot recollect, his wits are not about him, cleverness abandons him, he's probably thinking "I need a drink". And the thought they all share together? That it is men alone who abuse little children. New Zealand is the most feminised feminist country in the world in this consciousness. It cannot think that lesbians, women, children and other females can abuse little children. Yet if we ask the question who has the greatest access to children the answer is very clear. Let us briefly examine another issue, a third issue alongside these other two men as victims and men as drinkers. This time we will examine the whole issue of who has access to children and the nature of crime and criminality under a very commonly held and understood viewpoint. The viewpoint being that the components not only of the murder mystery type of tale but probably all crime contain common elements.

These common items as everyone immediately recognises when you hear the begin with motivation. What is the motivation for the crime? The next question is to ask about the occasion, the access, the availability – or basically who has the opportunity to commit the crime? The third and last thing to ask is who gains, what is the payoff, is it money, is it pleasure, is power, is it attention, or is it some other psychological, social or ideological point in consciousness to be made? With these men as suspects no other questions are as is that not a little suspicious? After all almost everyone in the courtroom believes he did do it by the sheer force of an all pervasive feminist ideology which officially endorses that all men oppress all women. What easier fall guy could there be? Then this mute indefensivable inadequate and even incompetent drinking individual before them? Feminist justice shows no mercy. He is a target. Go get him. He'll serve our ideologically purposed nicely. See. What a dirty lowdown criminal he is.

There are several more questions that ought to be asked in such a courtroom. Questions that every journalist knows. About all things specific. Such as who? What? When? Where? How? Why? Questions that supplement the overall motivational and opportunistic questions above. Then justice might well be served. Accusations alone are not good enough. A little girl can be browbeaten by her mother into forwarding and sticking with such cajolings and carrying on and carrying through the accusation that is so dreadfully suggested to her by that very same mother. Not that we can ever know. The mother may well be fully emotionally convinced he did do something. Why are these cases so lacking in physical proof? Accusation and a prevailing feminist ideology rule the roost here. What harm it does greatly to a 10-year-old girl that she have such power. Will she spend a lifetime accusing men for that same rush of power in the future? Who else will be harmed in such an open and shut case? How many more men will be damaged further down the line and a young woman ruined for proper relations and even from having a family? And other such virulent vicious and vindictive women encouraged by such a signal. We forget the harm on the other side of the equation. So busy are we hurting the easy mark. The drunk who cannot make sense. The unattractive figure he cuts. So uncool. Who would even bother to defend him?

We have raised so far two groups of matters, or three. Lastly then is another one. Those above must rest for now and await a larger essay. The last one is to consider some factors that emerge from cases of men being picked-on in the context of a supposed ''outbreak' of paedophilia up north, in the Northland province of New Zealand. The clue to one of them has already been given: booze.

There are several vectors arising from the case of James Parker convicted of molesting in a fairly deliberate and proactive way a number of boys in his care as a schoolteacher. He is the classic paedophile. He was abused himself when young in the same manner as he then went on to abuse others. It seems he deliberately sought a position where he could do this. He invited boys to sleepovers in his house where there were many activities including the paedophilia. There was drink available. He drank himself. James Parker was not old. He had been in trouble with the law over precisely these types of things before but was neither charged nor convicted. And from this case we can draw already some of the predominant factors or vectors in paedophilia. They are now listed below.

1. Drinking or drugs offered as a softener before committing the acts. Creating an atmosphere of forbidden deliscious pleasures.

2. Sleepovers, camping, trips, gifts combining to create obligation, obligation, opportunity and an exiting context.


3.Camoflage by taking female lovers, girlfriends and assiduously cultivating people to be on his side if gossip or suspicions arise.

4. Location away from town. Evincing remarkable deliberation in the wide ranging planning. creation of events and interests, as excuses for further visits. Electing favourites. Creating special chosen status for his victims.

5. What did he gain? What advantage was there in it for him? Was it a sense of power? Or just pure pleasure? Plainly he was fit and healthy and capable of sexual activity himself – he was not impotent.

Contrast this with the case of the Mormon elder who merely tickled a girl. This could be innocent. It could be harmless. Did any actual medical harm come to the girl from this tickling? Any psychological harm? Apparently she had to be worked over pretty thoroughly by the cajoling mum to encourage her to place this possibly trumped up charge against the man who was after all a very unattractive figure. No one in the right mind would want him around even if he did nothing at all. But that is not a criminal offence. Is he a criminal?
Compared to James Parker I mean.

James Parker was deliberate – he had as full faculties. The old man was an old boozer and did not have his full faculties he was virtually unable to defend himself in the courtroom. James Parker was articulate intelligent devious and had had a fairly marked previous record constituting several occasions where a report had been made on him. Did the old man at 68 have a record of such things? It appears not. James Parker plied his victims with alcohol in little amounts – did the old man do so too? James Parker went to an elaborate extent in organising his events trips and sleepovers where his offending occurred; he is the classic paedophile targeting little boys or does his homosexuality protect him? Is there any evidence that the old man created his occasions in any proactive way for any deliberate planned offending? No there is not. He neither set up the situations nor plied people with drink or drugs and was probably impotent as many such old drunks are. So what pleasure advantage or gain did he make for his very high risk that he was too stupid to notice. And thus he was unguarded. Or is it once again the cruel feminist politics that drives such an unjust outcome from such an unjust unprovable accusation. What is the crime here? Is it a feminist crime? Not the mother, not the child, not the man, nor the courts. But a hate crime with a token man as a stand-in for all the others. Guilt by association. Guilty by accusation. Guilty without proof. An unjust justice that is no justice at all. The man probably ashamed already at the accusation saw the comfort of a private session with a judge alone and no jury. He felt shame. He still had a conscience. Yet that Judge roundly condemned him. James Parker showed no remorse whatever. His crime was deliberate. He is a criminal. Right?

What do you think?

Send us feedback!