new

Can you give a good reason why you believe child pornography ahouldnt be illegal? Because to me it sounds like youre justifying child rape in the name of "anti-censorship"

I’m not doing that at all, and you shouldn’t put scare quotes on anti-censorship.

First, let’s go over a few incidents. Recently, I heard about an acquaintance of mine whose 16-year-old son’s 17-year-old girlfriend attempted to send him a topless selfie but instead accidentally texted it to her neighbor, an old lady who freaked out and called the police. And the first reaction of the police was to begin the process of indicting ALL THREE OF THEM for possession of child pornography and adding them to the sex offender registry for life - and it’s only because the girl’s dad was a golfing buddy of the chief of police that it ended with all of their cell phones being confiscated and wiped instead. Does this sound like a reasonable way of dealing with this situation? Were all of them child rapists? How much prison time should you get for the crime of receiving an unsolicited JPEG file exactly?

Let’s consider also the Playpen incident last year, which was what prompted that post you’re probably responding to, in which the FBI ran a sting operation that disseminated a massive amount of child pornography through the dark web, which was so badly mishandled that very few people they caught downloading real hardcore child rape pornography can be prosecuted. The US federal government is itself unquestionably the biggest distributor of child pornography there is. This is the same federal government that ran COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, etc. And they are now headed by Donald Trump, who is one of several political figures who went to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island before Epstein was convicted of trafficking in underage prostitutes. Donald Trump of the Republican Party, which recently had Dennis Hastert as the Speaker of the House, who has since been convicted of raping an underage boy. And let’s not even get into all the shit the Democrats have been caught doing. Are these the people you trust to fairly enforce these laws? Do you think it would be difficult for any three-letter agency to put child pornography on your computer without your knowledge if they wanted to, so they could prosecute anyone they wanted and claim they were secretly a pedophile, to destroy their reputation? Is that a power you are comfortable with Donald Trump and the deep state having? They haven’t been willing to legally define ‘pornography,’ even. Having laws forbidding certain combinations of ones and zeroes hands those people a blank check to destroy whomever they wish.

Let’s go back to what prompted my personal interest in this whole debate, which was the relationship I had with an older woman when I was 16 - when I had a job, I was going to college, I was allowed to drive a multi-ton motor vehicle, I was talking to a recruiter about joining the Marine Corps, etc. but had no access to many other legal rights arbitrarily withheld from people under 18. If she had sent me racy photos of herself or vice versa, well, she might still be in prison today. As it was, we carefully avoided putting her at risk for two very long years until I was 18, at which point we had a rather normal romantic adult relationship for several years that ended amicably, that I look back on fondly today. As the person who was supposedly protected here by being forcibly kept apart from the person I loved, how do you think I feel about the state’s interference in our relationship now? If you guessed ‘immensely resentful even after all these years,’ you are correct. Would it have been child rape on her part if I had sent her a picture of my naked body unprompted? Does it make any sense that I could pledge to sign several years of my life over to the military at that age but I couldn’t send someone a picture of myself? Do you get how that experience molded my opinion on the subject and made me willing to speak out on the subject even if it meant people would call me a pedophile?

One of the most famous home movies in history is the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. We’ve all seen it, right? But it’s photographic evidence of a crime. Shouldn’t we all be charged with condoning the murder of the president for watching that footage, by your logic? Surely you agree that murder is worse than rape. Shouldn’t possessing media of a person being killed be illegal, if possessing media of a person being raped should be? And if animated or drawn child pornography is illegal, shouldn’t possessing any movie or video game in which a person is shown being killed be grounds for imprisonment as well? The logic that you folks use has implications far beyond this subject, but you never really pursue those implications (and you shouldn’t, because they’re insane).

My point is, that’s because you’re fabricating unsound legal principles here to support the existence of this unjust, unconstitutional law (probably because anyone who questions it gets accused of being a pedophile, and you don’t want to wind up with clueless anons accusing you of justifying child rape, for example), instead of coming up with law based on sound legal principles. In any other context, anyone would tell you that possessing a picture or video of a crime is not the same thing as committing the crime yourself and the harm was entirely in the original crime, not just watching it. Are you justifying robbing convenience stores by saying it shouldn’t be illegal to watch America’s Dumbest Criminals? And if we took that principle to extremes it’d suppress important political speech - for example, after Vietnam the American media was pressured by the military to stop showing images of US soldiers in body bags, and as a consequence we’re more emotionally isolated from the wars currently being waged and information about the circumstances of the deaths of soldiers has been kept from the public ‘out of respect.’ Laws against pornography were used not so long ago to suppress information about birth control and sex education. It’s not unimaginable that there’s something important we’re not being allowed to know about, or that we’re all afraid to discuss, because it’s been declared child pornography. Censorship is absolutely something you should be afraid of in any form, and even well-meaning censorship can inadvertently suppress the truth. A free society, especially a democracy, depends on open access to information to function and I’m skeptical of anything that nibbles at that around the edges, even for the noblest of causes. These things always have chilling effects on expression far beyond their official limits as well. If some JPEGs can be illegal it requires all this machinery of surveillance and enforcement that can be just as easily used to suppress other things, and if we don’t trust the state, which we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t be comfortable with that machinery of censorship existing at all. We can’t trust them to stay within their mission - look at all the NSA personnel spying on their girlfriends instead of terrorists. Look at how the state has far outgrown its constitutional bounds. Stopping a few fucked up people from getting access to their preferred masturbation material is not worth having to give Leviathan access to all of our digital communications.

I am an anarchist. I discuss radical libertarian politics here. That’s why I’m against this law that’s been abused so much, the enforcement of which has been a massive travesty of justice for decades. Not because I’m ‘trying to justify child rape.’ My ideology is rooted in the nonaggression principle, which rape obviously violates. Do you think I should take the position of ‘we need to remove all power from the government except the power to prosecute people for child pornography?’ There’s no exception here to my general critique of the state. And what do you think would happen to child rapists in Ancapistan, anyway? ‘Hunted for sport’ is my guess. A convicted child rapist would probably not be able to retain the protection of a DRO (I’ve conjectured for a long time that that might be the one thing all of them would refuse to deal with) and they’d have the status of a medieval outlaw, they’d have no legal protections - likely a de facto death sentence with all the people who’d be lining up to kill them. Meanwhile, the state plays catch and release with child rapists - go check the sex offender map and see how many live in your community right now, I dare you.

Anyway, Anon, you are the unwitting pawn of someone who has started a harassment campaign against me, who has accused me of all kinds of other ridiculous vile shit in the past few days as well, and sent messages encouraging me to commit suicide. They dug up a post from nearly two years ago and reposted it outside of the context of the ongoing debate we had had, triggered by the revelation that the FBI had disseminated a massive amount of child pornography on the deep web. I had explained all of this back then in even greater detail, but then someone sent me an anon asking me about banning violent porn and I made the mistake of mentioning my position again without that context, so it could be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with my ideas.

So yeah, I don’t condone raping children, I’m not a psychopath, I just really don’t trust the government, in large part because there are so many actual child rapists at the highest levels of government, and I think we can do better than the current system. I hope this clarifies my thinking for you.

Those of you who have had some degree of understanding about the New World Order -- that fiendishly clever conspiratorial movement to slowly bring about a super-centralized one-world dictatorship -- have no doubt experienced the frustration of trying to convince family and friends that A: You are not "crazy," and B: The trans-generational monster plot to take down America is real and not even that well-concealed any more. The torment that comes with seeing the world as it really is, while the willfully blind ridicule you, is a terrible burden that we "conspiracy theorists" have always had to bear, in spite of the world's stupidity and hostility. After all, "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." (Thomas Paine).

But what if one of the 20th Century's best known and most trusted news media "rock stars" was to confirm, on camera, the validity of our nutty "conspiracy theory" . And what if an equally famous woman, the First Lady of the United States at the time, who came damn near close to becoming our 45th President, then congratulated that same man for his honest remarks while expressing full agreement with his totalitarian world government scheme? Would the doubters still be laughing? Try using this piece on them, and let us know what kind of reaction you get.

The logo of Cronkite's CBS depicts the same all-seeing eye as the logo for the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (New World Order for the Ages) found on the back of a $1 dollar bill.

THE SETTING

CBS propaganda had dubbed the legendary anchorman "the most trusted man in America” and the people believed it. From those early 1962 days of TV News (when there were only three networks and no cable stations) through 1981, Cronkite's carefully cultivated marketing image as a grandfatherly sage was unquestioned. In those naive pre-Internet, pre-talk radio days, "Uncle Walter's" leftist propaganda was difficult for amateurs to detect -- but it was always there.

In 1999, Cronkite, who was by then retired, appeared at a United Nations room to accept the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the openly pro-world government World Federalists Association. He told those assembled, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (watching by video feed), that he had always believed in world government but could not say so openly because of his position as CBS Anchorman.

Some excerpts, coupled with editorial analysis:

Cronkite: I am greatly honored to receive this award for two reasons: first, I believe as Norman Cousins did that the first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world law that will assure peace with justice among the peoples of the world; second, I feel sentimental about this award and this organization because half a century ago Norman offered me a job as spokesman and Washington lobbyist for the World Federalist organization, which was then in its infancy.

Analysis: Norman Cousins was a Jewish-American journalist, author, professor and tireless activist for world government. The fact that Cousins offered young Walter a job with the World Federalists a "half century ago" confirms that Cronkite was always a Globalist-Socialist, if not a full blown "McCarthy-era" communist.

Cronkite: For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible to achieve. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience.

Analysis: Nonsense! Cronkite's reporting was always heavily slanted leftward. It was harder to notice in those days because the viewing public had few alternatives to compare with.

Cronkite: Now, however, my circumstances are considerably different. I am in a position to speak my mind. And by God I'm gonna do it! (loud applause)

Analysis: You see, now that the retired old man has got nothing to lose, he can finally and completely drop his mask of "objectivity."

Cronkite: Those of us who are living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law ...

Analysis: A "monumental educational and political effort." -- Cronkite is talking about mass brainwashing, beginning in grade school, such as is now the case with the Global Warming / Climate Chamnge hoax to usher in world taxation.

Cronkite: ... where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.

Analysis: An "individual violator" is any foreign government that dares to defy the New World Order. The term "brought to justice" means that the "violator" is to be killed.

Cronkite: For how many thousands of years now have we humans been what we insist on calling "civilized"? And yet, in total contradiction, we also persist in the savage belief that we must occasionally, at least, settle our arguments by killing one another.

Analysis: Classic projection tactic. It is the warmongering "one worlders" who have, directly or indirectly, engineered just about every major conflict of the past two centuries! (Read: "Planet Rothschild")

1. "Peace...Peace ...Peace" -- the phony mantra of Globalists like Norman Cousins.

2. The "Planet Rothschild" two-volume set blows the cover off of this monster plot to turn humanity into a global bee-hive of raceless alienated tax and debt slaves.

Cronkite: While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort in establishing peace.

Analysis: Here is the "inside joke." -- In the Globalist code language, "peace" is defined as the absence of resistance to the Globalists. When all nations finally and unconditionally surrender to the New World Order (a global EU), then and only then will the Globalists finally stop their endless bombings, sanctions, bribing, blackmailing, coups, assassinations, "color revolutions," wars, and proxy wars against the "violators" -- thus bringing about "world peace." See the trick?

Cronkite: It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. ... We Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That's going to be to many a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith and a lot of persuasion for them to come along with us on this necessity. ... But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.

Analysis: Cronkite leaves no doubt. He and his ilk seek the end of America (and all nations) and the emergence of all powerful one-world-super-state to be erected behind the phony platitudinous facades of "federalism" and "democracy" and "peace" and "human rights" . And if they don't get it done "peacefully," they will have no choice but to unleash an "eventual catastrophic world conflict." (World War III)

Cronkite: Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system of enforceable world law --a democratic federal world government. ... Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law.

Translation: National sovereignty = chaos and anarchy. Nations = bad. World Government = good.

Cronkite: Ours is never going to be perfect world, nor a world without disagreement and occasional violence. But it will be a world where the majority of national leaders will consistently abide by the rule of world law, if we have our way, and those who won't will be dealt with effectively and with due process by the structures of that same world law.

Translation: Those who dare to defy our New World Order will be "dealt with" (Hussein of Iraq, Chavez of Venezuela, Qaddafi of Libya, Lil' Kim of North Korea, Assad of Syria, Putin of Russia et al.)

Cronkite: Consider... the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision making at the U.N. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system for the General Assembly. The World Federalists have endorsed Richard Hudson's Binding Triad proposal.

Analysis: By removing the veto of Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) each of the major powers will be powerless before the General Assembly's mob rule -- a mob directly controlled by the top Globalist mobsters who will have by then discarded "hit man" America like a used-up lemon.

Cronkite: George Soros, in his recent book "The Crisis of Global Capitalism," has given serious attention to this concept which would be based upon not only one-nation-one-vote but also on population and contributions to the U.N. budget.

Analysis: There it is!!! Mafia journalist Cronkite and George Soros (a "capo" of the Rothschild gang) dream of a "one-nation-one-vote" system in which hundreds of Turd World mini-gangster states get to rob the "evil rich White people" of America and Europe blind while flooding the West with their dirt-poor and criminal elements -- all done "democratically," of course. (rolling eyes sarcastically) Mind you, this was stated 20 years before the Soros-funded immigration invasion that we are witnessing today!

For nearly 40 years, the notorious billionaire George Soros has been pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in radical leftist causes, Globalist political campaigns worldwide, and world government groups. Gangsters like Soros make and promote men like Cronkite.

Cronkite: Resolutions adopted by majorities in each of these areas would be binding, enforceable law.

Analysis: "Binding, enforceable law" means that no power on earth, including the de-balled USA of the future, will ever be able to rebel against the New World Order. And that is why "liberals" are so obsessed with disarming all those millions of American "good ol' boys" who might find world government to be "a bitter pill to swallow." And you thought "gun control" was about "saving children." Ha!

Cronkite: Within the powers given to it in the Charter, the U.N. could then deal with matters of reliable financing,

Analysis: "Reliable financing" means a system of world taxation. That's what the Climate Change hoax and its proposed "solution" of imposing "carbon taxes" on "wealthy nations" is really all about.

Cronkite: ... a standing U.N. peace force, development, the environment ....

Translation: Cronkite envisions a multi-ethnic global goon squad enforcing tax collection and compliance with the world system.

Cronkite: ... and human rights.

Analysis: More code language. When Globalists speak of "human right," , they are referring to the "rights" of their paid trouble-makers within any "violator" nation to subvert that particular government. When the target government is forced to crack down on the CIA-NGO backed agitators, saboteurs, terrorists and subversives, the Globalist media, led by the New York Slimes, will immediately accuse that nation of "human rights violations" and call for sanctions, bombing, war etc.

Cronkite: As with the American rejection of the League of Nations after World War I, our failure to live up to our obligations to the U.N. is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation's conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing.

Analysis: In order to avoid the sound logical and moral arguments against One World Government, Cronkite is setting up the straw-man of the goofy televangelist Pat Robertson.

Cronkite: Their leader, Pat Robertson, ....

Analysis: I didn't know that Pat Robertson was "our leader," -- did "youse guys" (New Jerseyese for the plural of you) know that?

Cronkite: ... has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. "Attempts for world order before that time must be work of the Devil." -- Well, join me, I am glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.

Analysis: Given the freaky fascination with the occult that many of these elites have been known to dabble in, Cronkite's shout-out to Satan might very well have been literal. Indeed, Cronkite was, for many years, the voice of Molech the Owl for the creepy-as-all-heck "Cremation of Care" ceremony at the secretive annual gatherings at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California. (here).

Cronkite: The only way we who believe in the vision of a democratic world federal government can effectively overcome this reactionary movement is to organize a strong educational counteroffensive stretching from the most publicly visible people in all fields to the humblest individuals in every community.

Translation: We still have got a lot of brainwashing to do before the American people will accept the New World Order as a good thing.

Now, here's the kicker. After Commie Cronkite wrapped up his open call for treason and full NWO "democratic" takeover, First Lady, future US Senator, future Secretary of State and 2016 Presidential nominee Killary Rotten Clinton appeared on the big screen to congratulate "the most trusted man in America" on his treason award.

IN HER OWN WORDS

Clinton: "Good evening and congratulations, Walter, on receiving the World Federalist Association's Global Governance Award. For more than a generation in America, it wasn't the news until Walter Cronkite told us it was the news. Every night at 6 o'clock, we listened as you explained the complex events of the day. ... You became a trusted member of my family and the families across America. For decades, you told us "the way it is," but tonight, we honor you for fighting for the way it could be. .. So thank you, Walter. Thank you for inspiring all of us to build a more peaceful and just world. We are still listening to your every word. And with your continuing leadership, we can sail across these un-navigated seas into the 21st Century, and there is no better captain that I can imagine than you."

Cronkite and Clinton --- "the most trusted man in America" and the neurotic hag who, were it not for Donald Trump, almost became "the first woman President" -- just a couple of meaningless and non-influential "conspiracy theorists" , eh? Believe it, there are plenty more big names who think just like them. Actually, the entire PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) is on board with the America-busting New World Order, or at least afraid of bucking "the tide of history."

Now, as much as the pro-Globalist prostitutes of the Piranha Press, Hollyweird, Corporate America (and Europe) and Academia all love Killary and Walter (who died in 2009), that's as much as they hate Trump and Putin. So why do the "great and the good" of the bought-and-paid-for pseudo-intelligentsia all hate on Trump and Putin so much? Read the quotes below, and the world situation will begin to make more sense to you.

Trump: “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. My foreign policy will always put the interest of the American people and America security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make.”

“America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration,”

Putin: "What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within....I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. "

Putin and Trump certainly sound like "violators" who need to be "dealt with" -- eh Walter? If you still think the New World Order is just "paranoid conspiracy theory," then there is little else that can be done to enlighten you --- short of an economic calamity and/or World War III with Russia and China (which kingpin George Soros had already strongly hinted at (here)). But if you are intrigued by this subject and would like to learn more, then please have a look at "Planet Rothschild" (also linked below). Your world-view will never be the same.