God I hate the media. And sure enough, that was the angle I took when I wrote about this topic previously. The point of that piece was to wonder at the nature of the media's discussion of paedophilia. Did you get the gag in that sentence? It was the word 'discussion', ha ha ha. How droll I am. There is no discussion. Well, there might be, but who can hear it with all the high-pitch screaming?
I vaguely concentrated on the media's role in making us hysterical about penny-ante pervies (and particularly a famous non-pervy artist) whilst astoundingly having nothing to say about the plummeting age of pubescence amongst girls. And they do this whilst also encouraging these ever younger girls to dress and behave sexily. It struck me that they were simultaneously debauching the victims, and the victimisers, whilst having the rest of us lose our wits at the prospect of this debauchery. But what did it all mean? And to what end?
Certainly the media desires us all to be fearful. Between toilet germs, appearing uncool in the eyes of teenagers, and those foreigners who hate us for our freedom, there's a lot they'd have us fearful of. But in the fear stakes, paedophiles win. It's every parent's nightmare that their child might be taken. But truth be known - there are paedophiles, and there are paedophiles - if you can dig it.
It seems that lately, the most numerous targets of our fear (certainly in the news) are those sad fuckers with hard-drives full of jpegs and mpegs. Every couple of months there'll be a big bust and dozens of guys will be hauled away. We've no idea if these people ever actually get away from their computers and fiddle with kids for real. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. Who knows? Has anyone heard a 'discussion' by the media about paedophiles who started with computer porn and then progressed into sexual assault? If there were such creatures, could the media pass up an opportunity to crucify them in public?
The other targets are less numerous. They're those sad fuckers who probably don't know how to use a computer and are the traditionalist playground pervies. You've seen these people. The media loves to tell us where they live so we can go and burn their houses down. Keep in mind that the media does not distinguish between the traditionalists and the digitally literate. That's just me. Just like I'm the only guy who'll ask, how many of these old-fashioned street-wandering pervies are there in our communities? Half of fuck-all? Just curious.
Oh yeah. I nearly forgot. There's a third category. These are the basilisks - the monsters of our nightmares - those creatures that beggar the imagination. Like Mark Dutroux. What sets basilisks like Dutroux apart is the fact that he operated as part of a 'network'. Perhaps it was just me, but when the Dutroux story was on the news, I recall saying to whomever I was with, 'How do these guys meet each other?' It's a fair question. Can we imagine a social event where one fellow casually says he spent the weekend kiddy-raping and another fellow says, 'Hey, me too. We should hang out.' The best I could figure was that they might meet in jail. But Dutroux hadn't been in jail and somehow he knew a lot of people. How does this work? What the fuck is going on?
As ever, the man with the answers is the mighty Dave McGowan. Dutroux is not an anomaly. If anything he's a cog in a machine. And it's a big machine and has cogs beyond counting. This child-abduction ring is not only massive, which is to say, global - it is also untouchable. We know this because occasionally a local branch would be busted - Dutroux in Belgium, the 'Finders' in Florida and Washington DC, the McMartin pre-school scandal in New York, military child care centres in the Presidio and West Point, the Country Walk Babysitting Service in Florida, etc, etc, ad nauseam. These were too big for the media to avoid. McGowan follows the trajectory of the media coverage of each of these busts as they slowly but surely sink beneath the waves. With the utmost diligence, the media would ensure that trails were not followed, facts were not uncovered, and questions were not asked. All these stories disappeared with barely a trace. In the media, these rings were not interconnected. There were no links connecting the paedophiles with the local police and government, the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, or the Whitehouse. Same, same, internationally. There were no links between the US and Belgium or any other countries. Like the US News said, in discussing the 'Finders' - "The group's practices, the police said, were eccentric - not illegal.” Story? What story? Apart from some crazy parents led astray by crazy child therapists, nothing happened. None of it ever was.
In the face of this third category it seems like the first two are barely different at all. Fine, let's start again: there's two paedophilias. One's amateur, small-time and the subject of much media screaming. The other is huge, professional, sanctioned, and untouchable. Ideally, never the twain shall meet. Not in real life, not in the media. Further to these differences, the individual sad fuckers we see in the media do not grow their numbers. It's a movement almost completely incapable of self perpetuation, certainly not of flourishing. I'm guessing they'll never go beyond a tiny decimal point of the population. The Pedophocracy is something else. It can reproduce and swell its population. It has defence mechanisms to combat environmental depredations such as getting busted. Provided it stays in the dark, it fears nothing.
The media is an inverse perception machine. The tiny threat is made huge. The huge threat is shrunk down to nothing at all. If you want to know how big the pedophocracy is, you need merely look to its treatment in the media.
Are we suprised? Does any of this differ from other things?
-Muslims, a tiny 'threat', are enlarged into Al Qaeda. Zionists (Who? Aren't they, like, out of fiction or something?) perpetually pop up in all over the globe (Georgia, this week!) and yet seem not to exist. Small threat - Big. Big threat - non-existant.
-Small-time drug users and sellers get busted in huge numbers. Massive sanctioned drug operations, from the Sassoons of yore, to the 'Russian' mafia of today, carry on unconcerned about exposure. Small problem - Big. Big problem - non-existant.
-Taxpayer pennies for welfare mothers is ever the standby bogeyman while the staggering amounts of taxpayer bazillions as interest to privately-owned reserve banks are... are... what? What privately-owned Reserve Bank? Small money - Big. Big money - non-existant.
Is there a pattern here? Sure, of course. But the three examples immediately above make sense in terms of money, power, and geo-politics. Where's the logic in the pedophocracy? What purpose does this huge machine serve? How does raping kids further someone's agenda? Agenda for what? More kiddy raping? What's the point? And why does the media expend energy on the penny-ante end of paedophilia at all? Why not hush it all up? Why are there two parallel paedophilias? Why not have just one and keep it secret?
These are all good questions and I'm glad you asked them. But there are other questions too. Subsequently I've split this thing up into three. Next I'll have a go at the bigger picture of what purpose it all serves. Following that, I'll ask what it means in terms of Charles Darwin. You know the guy - beard, Beagle, behaviour. If a thing doesn't get his tick, it doesn't fly. Does paedophilia get a tick from Darwin? Really?