A rare escape, without bribery or bloodshed

In An Open Letter to the Labour Party recently, I revealed that the official reason given for my expulsion from the party with no possibility of defending myself was because the party had learned, apparently from a Daily Mail report last month, that I had been convicted in December of a “serious offence”.

My priority last time, as the “Open Letter” title suggests, was to focus on the Labour Party. I drew upon the thinking of radical leftists, from Friedrich Engels on the family to Roy Jenkins on the “permissive society”, to explain why I had become a member and why I thought the party should think again before repudiating the socially liberal strand within its own tradition. Fat chance of that, I fear, although I note that leader Jeremy Corbyn is now publicly saying prostitution should be legalised, thereby infuriating his own more censorious MPs. Well done Jez!

This focus of mine on politics meant I could only briefly touch upon the “serious offence” in question. It is now time to put the record straight. Heretics here know better than to take mainstream media monsterings of Kind people at face value, so thank you everyone for taking it all in your stride and waiting patiently for me to begin.

As I briefly indicated in the Open Letter blog, I was intimately involved with a 10-year-old boy in the 1970s. Recently, in December, his adult incarnation testified at a trial in Caernarfon, Wales. A Daily Mail report said I had “narrowly escaped jail” last year after “preying” on the boy and his 9-year-old brother.

The question that will leap to mind is how could I possibly have got off scot free, with no time whatever behind bars? In today’s savagely punitive climate, “predatory” offences against children are routinely attracting prison terms into double figures, including a whopping 35 years, no less, for the “ringleader” in the Rotherham “grooming” case last month.

So how did I “escape”? Did I bribe the judge? Did I whip out a smuggled gun, leaving a trail of bloodied corpses as I blasted a way clear of the courtroom?

There is another explanation, one the Daily Mail was understandably coy about because it failed to fit their preferred narrative. The real reason I left the court a free man is that neither the judge, nor the prosecution, nor crucially even the “victims” themselves, appeared to have seen me as callously “predatory”. Which might leave you wondering why this “historic abuse ” case came to court at all after nearly forty years.

All will be revealed.

First, we need to take ourselves back all those years, to 1977 and a very different social climate. As a young man then, I worked for a while as a group leader at an outdoor activities camp for kids, in Wales. One of the youngsters in my charge was a nine-year-old boy I will call Adam (other names will be changed too). Unlike some of the other kids, who were with their school mates or a sibling, Adam was on his own. He latched onto me, and during his week’s stay we became fond of each other. At the end of the week he gave me his address – I hadn’t asked for it – and he invited me to come and meet his family sometime.

A year later I did. It would have been about August when I met his parents at the family’s country home, and also his younger brother, Zac. By now Adam was 10 and Zac 9. These were by no means “vulnerable” children from a disadvantaged background. Quite the contrary. Their father, Sebastian, headed a significant organisation and was later knighted for his services. Their mother, Cassandra, was a highly cultured woman. The privately educated brothers now in their mid-forties, are doing well in their own careers, with families of their own ranging from young adult to early teens. They are in good shape, too: tall, slim, handsome. Adam’s relaxed warmth is still apparent. Zac has style, a touch of rock star glamour.

I felt I got on well with the whole family at that first meeting, an impression borne out by the fact that a couple of months later I was allowed to take Adam and Zac for a week’s hiking based at a holiday cottage in Snowdonia. We had a great time. Cassandra’s diary from all those years ago was an exhibit in the case. Her entry, when the boys arrived back home, records that they went straight off to some friends to tell them “what a fantastic holiday they had had.”

Adam, the only witness in the trial, had plenty of good things to say about me. I had seemed “a really nice guy” when we first met, an impression that did not change. He remembered the week at the cottage not just for the mountain walking, which he enjoyed, but also the fun. He liked my humour. There was plenty of joking and laughter. I was always “very respectful” towards him. He told the court I had been “very charming”.

He had not been sexually unwilling either. At age of seven or eight an older boy had introduced him to “wanking”, and he needed no further encouragement. When he did this quite openly at the cottage, naked and in full view of his brother and me, he had not objected when I became intimate with him. He didn’t feel pressured into anything. He did not feel he had been harmed in any way.

Asked in court if such activity might unconsciously affect a willing child participant, he agreed that it could: it might cause them to grow up with ultra-liberal sexual views without knowing why! This was as close as Adam came to saying why he eventually gave a statement to the police more than six months after Zac had done so. Zac, it is clear, was the prime mover in the case. He never claimed I touched him sexually, but on the basis that he saw me in a sexual situation I eventually admitted gross indecency towards him.

Zac, it has to be said, was always a very different character to Adam. Both were great kids. But, unlike Adam, Zac was just not physical. Whereas Adam loved to hold hands and snuggle close, Zac preferred to keep his distance. I thought I respected that. But not enough, apparently. He was the one who brought matters to the attention of the police. He claims to have suffered erectile dysfunction and marital problems as a result of his childhood encounter with my sexuality. I do not doubt his sincerity. I am sure he has suffered the issues he mentions but do not think they can reasonably be attributed to any aspect of his time with me.

The fact is that people with all sorts of problems, not just sexual ones but also drugs, gambling, business failure, you name it, are apt to look for a scapegoat. We all try to blame our woes on something beyond ourselves. In recent decades the scapegoat of choice has been childhood sexual abuse. Even people who were never “abused” will go to therapists, desperate to be told that they were, because that would “explain” everything.

Fortunately for me, Zac was not vindictive.  As part of his victim impact statement in court, he said he did not wish to see me punished. As for his testimony as a witness, that was not needed. Following Adam’s testimony, word reached me through my barrister that changing my initial Not Guilty pleas to Guilty (indecent assault against Adam and gross indecency towards Zac) would result in a suspended sentence, and I accepted that.

So, if Zac had not been out to punish me, what did he want? His written prosecution statement was very revealing. What prompted him to make his complaint against me was not just what happened on a very enjoyable holiday in 1978 but what was going on in the media in 2014 shortly before he went to the police. Specifically, he objected to what a TV news bulletin had reported me as saying about paedophilia at a time when PIE’s supposed political connections were under the media spotlight. He wrote:

“What concerns me is that paedophiles may have read his book or his online blogs and used that information to justify their own actions.”

In other words, he was bidding to use a criminal prosecution in order to shut me up. His ideological motivation is to be seen even more clearly in a remarkable admission: until several years after the holiday he “felt no resentment” towards me and “probably thought upon him as a nice guy”.

That changed only after I went to prison in 1981 for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. He knew about this because his mother told him. She had found out from the Guardian. Nothing surprising about that. What might astonish many now, though, is that Cassandra’s response was remarkably civilized: she wrote a very kind letter to me in prison and received me at the family home again when I came out in 1982. By this time she had even dipped into my book Paedophilia: The Radical Case. I had given her a copy before the public morals trial, in part at least because I felt she and her husband should learn about my philosophy through my own words rather than media distortions. She showed no sign of agreeing with my views but had the grace to say she thought my position was well argued.

Whereas Cassandra was calm and compassionate, resolutely refusing to be freaked out, her newly teenage son Zac started to take a much dimmer view in ’82 and has continued to do so. In his victim statement he said his object was to dissuade me from encouraging others to break the law. Regular readers of Heretic TOC will know that I absolutely do not do that and could be prosecuted if I did. But Zac appears to have been under a different impression.

The judge, in his sentencing remarks, quite properly emphasised that I was entitled to express my views. He seemed genuinely puzzled, though. He could see just from my bearing in the dock that I was deeply upset by the case. So he knew I was very much taking to heart everything that was said, including Zac’s own emotional statement as to the pain and distress I had caused to him and his family. What was going through the judge’s mind, plainly, was the paradox of my sincere response to Zac’s certainty that I caused harm, combined with the fact that I had given no indication that I intended to stop blogging, or otherwise speaking out publicly in ways that Zac feels are wrong and dangerous.

Through my barrister, I had said  that if I had known in 1978 what I know now, I would not have behaved as I did. It was an honest statement. When we defy the law we put children at grave risk of growing up feeling they must have been damaged – because our culture virulently insists it is so, on a daily basis – even when that is not how they felt at the time. Only in a culture which has changed so much that it is ready to accept more liberal laws will child-adult sexual relationships be ethically feasible. It is because I refuse to give up on that vision that I continue to write.

Zac said in his written statement that he wanted to “challenge” me. But he has made it impossible for me to answer his challenge. Part of the sentence was a court order preventing me from contacting him or Adam, so I find myself unable to pick up the gauntlet he threw down: I can neither explain myself to him, nor probe his thinking. I find this hugely frustrating. To coin a phrase, it is hard to find closure.

I wish him well, though. Adam too, and Cassandra and Sebastian. They are a remarkable family and I still have fond memories – shattered ones now, but still precious, like shards from a dropped Ming vase.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
78 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DSM

>Zac said in his written statement that he wanted to “challenge” me. But he has made it impossible for me to answer his challenge. Part of the sentence was a court order preventing me from contacting him or Adam, so I find myself unable to pick up the gauntlet he threw down: I can neither explain myself to him, nor probe his thinking. I find this hugely frustrating. To coin a phrase, it is hard to find closure.
Zac and ToC both wrong.
Via worthy WordPress, this ongoing blog is where ‘challenge’ and ‘gauntlet can continue to ‘closure’, their typically adversarial Anglo mediEVIL jousting contest,
About as ‘Modern, Fair & Just’ as the monstrous 90% Right wing mediEVIL Anglo modern media. Going nowhere fast but further down into alien unelected Right-tard Rupe’s pseudo defunct ‘Sewer of The World’.
Quote alien unelected Right-tard Rupe with no hint of irony at UK Election ’05,
” It matters not who is P.M. UNDER me!”
Alien unelected multi-billionaire Right-tard Rupe STILL Rules UK – NOT OK!

[…] way, obviously, I felt the time had come to give my side of the story. So I wrote about it in “A rare escape, without bribery or bloodshed”, explaining my good fortune in remaining at liberty despite the present trend towards very long […]

A.

I’m really sorry. I mean, I’m delighted at the legal outcome, of course, but it still sucks. I don’t know what else to say.

gantier99

I’m wondering if, in years to come, this trial will be thought of as the beginning of something quite new. A small but significant step towards rapprochement between “victims” and “perpetrators”, with the judicial system acting more as peacemaker than agitator. Even if this proves to be mere wishful thinking, the story is an incredibly tantalizing follow-up to “Radical Case”, given the alphabetical connection to the book. What a wonderful thing it would be if Adam and Zac felt inspired to comment on this blog!

gantier99

So, there must have been long and hard discussions within the family in the run up to charges being made. Anyway, if Adam and Zac were to post on your blog I’m sure you would be a perfectly good referee. What a coup that would be 🙂

Sugarboy

As far I as I understand from your description, nothing happened between you and Zac, so I don’t quite understand why he should be the one who is upset?!

Dissident

From what I understand of the reports made of the case, the gist of Zac’s complaint is basically that because he witnessed certain things, they might be responsible for later difficulties he had in life, and even if they weren’t, they easily could have been, based on what the popular narrative of the past 30 years has insisted. From what I gather, it seemed as if he was more interested in having Tom confronted about this in a court setting where he would be a captive and intimidated audience rather than prosecuted.

gantier99

Exactly, but who knows what underlying conflicts there may have existed between the two brothers. Zac may have been confused by what he saw. Adam may even have been angry that his little brother was getting in the way. And instead of a quick resolution with the help of an understanding parent, the seeds may have been sown for long-term trauma, with “society” only too happy to heap on the fertilizer! Which is of course why Tom writes: “we put children at grave risk of growing up feeling they must have been damaged – because our culture virulently insists it is so, on a daily basis – even when that is not how they felt at the time.”

YoungBL

In general I wish that people know the other side of paedophilia. It’s sad that for some reasons people can get hurt by people that might haven’t actually hurt them. If everybody tells you a lie is the truth you believe it’s really true.
Despite the sad part relating Zac, I think this is the sort of story that could make people’s view change regarding adults-children relations, but where can we get space to write about the side no one knows? TV no way! If one write a book nowadays I dare one will be able to make publishable. Type in Paedophilia on Amazon for instance and see the covers only, it’s hard for the general public to find books on paedophilia that aren’t biased. The situation is very sad very sad…. People may be acceptable of man-boy relations we actually don’t know since they don’t know what it really is.

BJ Freedman

Great post and swell comments. I won’t get into the “choice” and “harm” arguments, my side (I’m all for choice, without harm) is well served by others. Also, at my age, I’m pretty much harmless even to those who might choose.
But I dunno about the Ming vase. How about, “…precious…like the crusty size eight underwear discovered years later at the bottom of the drawer”?

Dissident

Thank you for the response, Nick. I’ll endeavor to make my responses as succinct as possible, both for ease of Tom’s moderating nd your own ease of reading.
Dissident, I certainly understand Tom’s point and objectives, as well as yours. It is your tactics that I don’t understand. If you were making progress towards liberalizing attitudes about adult-child sex, I could understand why you would be opposed to what VP does. But you are not.
I am opposed to much (though certainly not all) of what VP does because I strongly believe that B4U-ACT does the job better, by giving deference to both the emotional volatility surrounding the more controversial issues and for including and offering help to MAPs of all ideological persuasions. I will not follow a tactic that is currently more popular, as opposed to one which is much more honest, much more inclusive, and which I believe will be much better for all concerned in the long run.
Also, though once again we have been over this numerous times before, it’s only your opinion that progress towards liberalizing attitudes is not taking place. We have linked several YouTube channels owned by Non-MAPs who are putting objectivity over popularity on this very blog over the past few months, and noted that all of them have not been taken down, as they would’ve been within mere days just a few years ago.
This also includes the recent appearance of websites such as Consenting Juveniles (http://www.consentingjuveniles.com/About_the_Research#Sct_1_MB), which focuses entirely on research giving voice to individuals who had positive intergenerational relationships when they were underagers. This new site is one by no less then researcher Marshall Burns, who has participated on the Sexnet listserv, and one of the several prominent Non-MAPs who supports Dr. Burns’ research is Dr. Michael Bailey, who was supportive of both Virped and B4U-ACT. Continuously ignoring all of this when it’s repeatedly cited does not mean that serious researchers who are “on the fence” about the issues are going to do the same.
We have been on the scene for about three years now. Tom has been working on this for about 50 years. This means that he had about 47 years to accomplish something before we came on the scene. I think you would have to admit that things have gotten worse for your cause, rather than better.
Your statement was made out of context of how the political situation changed since Tom began his work, Nick. Tom and his counterparts on this side of the Atlantic were beginning to make progress during the 1970s… but then the conservative takeover of the 1980s happened, which brought with it the sex abuse hysteria and the yellow capitulation of the mainstream liberals to that particular agenda. This also set back the youth liberation platform, which was likewise making progress between the late 1960s and 1970s. Moral panics often take a generation or more before subsiding. What began occurring prior to the conservative takeover and the hysteria that coincided with it, and the political climate that has existed since that time, needs to be taken into account. It has been proven that a MAP patient advocacy organization such as B4U-ACT, which compromises with with public sentiment without compromising scientific integrity, can exist and achieve success over the course of the past decade to the present. In contrast, an organization like Virped is designed to pander to popular sentiment rather than simply taking it into account, which forces it to compromise scientific integrity in order to maintain a specific moralizing stance.
If I were in your shoes, which I am not, I would recognize the futility of my approach and try a different tack. I would hope that by softening attitudes towards pedophiles generally, as VP is doing, maybe sometime in the distant future, society would be more open to my message.
VP has indeed made successful measures to soften attitudes towards MAPs, but many believe it has done so at too great a cost. As noted, you can compromise with public sentiment without compromising the community and scientific objectivity. If Virped had followed the lead of B4U-ACT it may have further strengthened that softening without driving such a rift within the Kind community on ideological grounds and presenting Dr. Cantor’s frequently challenged and often times just plain incorrect research as virtually the only relevant research on the subject. That is not objectivity, and is in fact disingenuous.
As for your contention that a pro-choice stance is futile at this point in time, I provided evidence once again that there may be signs that the hysteria has reached its peak. That is not the same thing as advocating that any MAP advocacy group should be actively promoting or pushing a pro-choice agenda. But there does need to be certain places where the scientific data backing up that stance and allowing voices which the anti-choice proponents actively ignore and even deride can be presented for those who wish to explore and study the full spectrum of the topic. That being said, an organization that simply avoids the more contentious issues altogether while focusing on advocating for the common humanity on MAPs is also quite possible.
In terms of Dr. Cantor, I’m not sure I understand your point. He has said that he believes that pedophilia is caused by deficiencies in white matter when compared to the brains of teliophiles. The folks at Dunkelfeld believe this as well based on their research.
But the folks at Dunkenfeld are far from the only other researchers on this topic out there (e.g., Okami, Brongersma, Riegal, Rind, Tromovich, Green, Friemond, Kirkpatrick, Burns, just to name a few of those whose conclusions strongly conflict with that of Dr. Cantor and the Dunkenfeld crew), and the only reason Dr. Cantor and the administration of Virped cites them is because their work is based on the same a priori moralism-based assumptions that Dr. Cantor’s research takes a back seat to. Tom’s response was a sufficient refutation of the science itself, including the source he cited.
I understand that you think this is mistaken, but I’m not sure why you think this is important as a political/social matter.
I believe that how MAPs are presented to the public, and which type of ideology is actively promoted around them, is extremely political. This is especially the case when the scientific research itself has in many ways been tainted by social assumptions and the political climate.
Like any other sexual orientation, pedophilia is undoubtedly caused by genetic factors, pre-natal experiences, early childhood experiences, or some combination of the three.
However, other orientations are no longer described as disorders, or presented as carrying serious and inherent potential harmfulness to society. At least not any longer, that is.
None of this implies that pedophilia is a disorder or that pedophiles need to be constantly monitored or controlled.
I’m sorry, Nick, but I believe that Dr. Cantor has strongly implied that very thing. If anyone disagrees, then I strongly suggest that they watch the new documentary I, Pedophile. Those who do will note that Dr. Cantor and the Dunkenfeld folks were the only scientific researchers interviewed for that Canadian TV special, and where Dr. Cantor claimed they were the only individuals in the world conducting research on this topic (very incorrect!). On top of it all, this documentary actually grossly slandered B4U-ACT by putting on screen the words “members of B4U-ACT have been known to pursue sexual relationships with minors.” The way this was worded could easily imply that the organization members are not law-abiding, promotes a pro-choice agenda, and that no member of Virped has ever run afoul of the law (all very incorrect). This documentary is currently only available on the Canadian station CBC, but those who do not live in Canada can see it now if you happen to have a satellite TV station that can legally receive Canadian stations (as one of my neighbors does); otherwise, it will hopefully show up soon on YouTube and/or Hulu.
As you know, DSM says it is not a disorder unless it causes marked distress or leads to pedophiles acting sexually with children. Moreover, I know that neither Dr. Cantor nor the folks at Dunkelfeld believe that pedophiles need to be constantly monitored or controlled, though many pedophiles could benefit from therapy, primarily to deal with the depression that often accompanies pedophilia but also to help those who need such help to develop strategies necessary to obey the law.
This is pretty much what B4U-ACT says, Nick, but I honestly believe that some of Dr. Cantor’s public statements clearly suggest otherwise, including on the recent documentary. In all fairness to him, I do ask every reader here not to simply take my word for it, and to watch that documentary themselves as soon as they are able to gain access to itand carefully listen to what is implied on screen for yourselves (again, if you do not live in Canada but happen to have satellite TV, check your package and see which Canadian stations it may include).

Nick Devin

Just a few comments in response to Dissident’s post. He raised some new points so hopefully you’ll indulge me.
1. I agree that there was a more permissive attitude about adult-child sex in the 1960’s. Things have swung very hard in the other direction. If you think things are showing any sign of swinging back, I suppose we’ll just have to disagree on this.
2. I don’t think the scientists that you mention are doing research on pedophilia in the sense that Cantor and the Dunkelfeld folks are. They’ve written a bit about harm and adult-child relationships, but not about the causes of pedophilia. That is what Cantor meant. I don’t think James has ever said anything about the harm question, and I don’t know if the Dunkelfeld folks have either. You keep saying that Cantor and Dunkelfeld have been proven wrong, but so far as I am aware, the vast majority of scientists who study these things agree with them. In any event, we don’t have a dog in that fight. While I find the question of causation to be interesting, and I find that what Cantor says to be persuasive, I am not vested in the outcome.
3. It is interesting that you cite Bailey and Tromovich in your critique. Bailey is actually our primary scientific advisor and is one of our strongest supporters. He helped us when we were developing the web site, and he continues to consult with us on all aspects of what we are doing. I never say anything of a scientific nature that he has not approved. I have had private correspondence with Tromovich. He is supportive of our group as well.
4. I was a member of b4u-act for about a year. I am supportive of some of the things that they do, but their support group is much smaller and less robust than ours, and they haven’t had much involvement in the more favorable press that we have seen. It is my view that we have had greater success precisely because we take a firm position that adults should not have sex with children. I tried unsuccessfully to get them to adopt this position, and eventually left because I did not feel they would gain any traction outside the world of pedophile activists. I think subsequent events have proven me correct.

stephen6000

‘It is my view that we have had greater success precisely because we take a firm position that adults should not have sex with children’.
Same position as B4U-ACT. It’s just that we don’t take an official position over whether it’s intrinsically wrong. Is it really right a stand on this tricky moral issue just because the general public think they ‘know’ the correct answer?

Dissident

Thank you, Nick. Tom, my response runs 356 words (I counted).
1. With respect, Nick, you and others of your ideology justify much of what you say or do based upon seeing only what you want to see. We’ve cited the counter-evidence numerous times, and I believe it gets ignored each and every time.
2. Fair enough in not being vested in the outcome of Cantor’s work. However, his work has indeed been criticized numerous times by many other researchers, I and others have linked to these reports here and elsewhere numerous times, and they can easily be found via Google. Dr. Cantor’s search for a “cause” for pedophilia is likely to prove as futile as similar attempts to find a cause for homosexuality. The fact that the implications of this research, and the ideology fueling it, coincides with your own ideology is why I think you find it persuasive.
3. Bailey and Tromovitch are also supportive of B4U-ACT, yet interestingly neither was given screen time on the documentary. Bailey has also shown support for the Consenting Juveniles website, as my link showed. He, and Tromovitch (who worked on the Rind Report) are known for supporting research into various areas of research that Virped, and Dr. Cantor, would find it ideologically inadvisable to go. They are considerably more objective on the topic than Dr. Cantor, and in their research have sought the voice of all Kind people, not just those of the Virped ideology.
4. I disagree that B4U-ACT has had less success overall. Consider, as noted, that they are less accepted by press outlets who depend upon sponsors that routinely have a say in what they can or cannot publish. I am well aware that their support group welcomes individuals from Virped, and many Kind people of that ideological persuasion are finding their way to B4U-ACT’s forum according to many MAPs in the community whom I know. I think the fact that B4U-ACT refuses to alienate MAPs of any ideology, and compromise with the public rather than pander to prejudices and deny the ambivalence of the science, speaks volumes regarding its methodology.

Explorer

“Okami, Brongersma, Riegal, Rind, Tromovich, Green, Friemond, Kirkpatrick, Burns”
I suppose “Riegal” is David Riegel and “Kirkpatrick” is Allie Kilpatrick (aren’t they?). Okami, Brongersma, Rind, Tromovich, Green – no questions here… And who are “Friemond” and “Burns”? I would interested to learn about some more non-hostile paedophilia researchers!
Meanwhile, I recommend you to read Harris Mirkin, Steven Angelides, Agner Fog, Thomas Oellerich, Diederik Janssen, Donald J. West, J. C. W. Gooren, Larry L. Constantine, Richard Yuill, Agustin Malon and Joan A. Nelson, among others – if you haven’t read them already!
*******************
P.S. And, Tom, a technical question exactly for you – did my reply to your question about the causes of changed attitudes to sexuality and childhood in Russia on your previous blog post (the one about the football player) appear TWICE? Because I posted it, waited for about two days, did not see it in a comment section and posted it again. This time it appeared, but it was a bit too late – the focus of the discussion had already moved to your new – current – blog post.
Very probably this is a technical problem on MY side, since it is not the first time my blog comments (on another blogs) and even e-mails vanish into thin air…

Pro

Kind TOC’s Home Truths on millions of mutual Peds & Adultos – aMused not aBused!

Pro

Kids CAN say, “No!” or, “I dunno?” or, “YES PLEASE!!”

Katherine

What a moving story! It is always great to ‘hear the other side’, the side too often not permitted by those who attempt to homogenise thinking. I do not know enough to comment in greater detail, but would like to say a big ‘well done you’ for daring to challenge the dominant narrative, and that I find it very refreshing in a world where we seem to be encouraged to think only the way we are allowed to think by those who make the decisions, whoever they may be.
I also want to say how sorry I am that you were expelled from the Labour Party – a gross act of intolerance and authoritarianism that is so at odds with Labour’s history as the champion of the underdog and the outcast.
I hope that you will continue to write for a very long time, as I find your determination and perseverance both inspiring and totally cool. Big warm hugs to you ?????

Katherine

You are so welcome, Tom, so pleased to have this chance to show solidarity with you. The Labour Party needs sensible, independent thinkers like yourself, if it is to avoid becoming a washed out version of the Thieves. Go Tom, am right behind you and all other voices of Sense in this mad, machine-like world!!

David Kennerly

Tom, I admit to being amazed at the outcome of this frightening encounter with British law. Perhaps it is down to some fundamental differences between British and U.S. criminal justice but, even so, the results seem extraordinary, especially given your high public profile, and in the context of the United Kingdom as it now metes out punishment.
Over the many months that I, as one of those who had an awareness of what you were going through, closely followed your case as it wended its way through the courts, it never would have occurred to me that this was a potential outcome, i.e. “guilty” but almost completely unscathed.
So I was completely dumbfounded when the courts handed you a free “get-out-of-jail card” (although you spent almost no time in one in this case, as I recall). It was simply amazing!
I realize, of course, that, had you not already been a “sex offender registrant” this would have made you one but, since you were already on the Registry, you seem to have come out of this relatively unscathed.
Nevertheless, you spent well over a year on pins-and-needles and this, no doubt, took a toll. Still, I was amazed at your personal fortitude, even alacrity, throughout the whole ordeal, even when it seemed sure that you would be spending at least a couple of years in Her Majesty’s lesser-palaces, indeed, her dungeons. You stood very bravely in facing a very frightening challenge.
I was very delighted when I received the news and still am to have you with us and able to continue your work, almost without interruption.
Good show, mate!

stephen6000

I second both David’s astonishment and his delight at the outcome!

leonard sisyphus mann

And if can ‘third’ that!?
Knowing what Tom was going through, over the past year, and the bleak prospect that seemed to be almost certainly awaiting him – I could only marvel at his fortitude and steadfastness and good-humour.
Tom has managed what would ordinarily be impossible – a public, out-of-the-toybox paedophile, who continues to be militant and unapologetic. One that society has been unable to silence or squash.
If today’s paedo community were to count its blessings we’d not break far into single figures – but one undoubted blessing is to have Tom around, to show us, and the world, that you can be a good, kind person, be a paedophile, and be open about it and proud.
As the seemingly inevitable approached last year, I tried to envisage what the ‘paedo-sphere’ would be like without him, and it felt like a much lonelier, bleaker place.
You don’t buy that kind of cussed resilience by the pound down at Sainsbury’s!

Dissident

I totally ‘fourth’ this sentiment! I too am glad to see that no matter how much the hysteria of the present era knocks Tom down, he always manages to get up again and get back on the proverbial horse. He’s always been a major source of inspiration to every heretic out there.

Edmund

” I still have fond memories – shattered ones now, but still precious, like shards from a dropped Ming vase”
I just want to comment that that is one of the most evocative, perfectly expressed sentences I have ever come across. I wish I could write like that!
Edmund, author of Alexander’s Choice, a novel, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alexanders-Choice/dp/1481222112/

Lukas

Over on Hugh Holland’s Facebook page (The Original Skateboard Photographer) he posted a video today that made the statement in pictures and music that nature doesn’t need humans to survive but humans need nature to survive. That is how important our struggle is. It is for the survival of our species.
OMG Tom you have been through hell: Hugs!
Lukas

Sapphocidaire

Don’t understand that. Humans are part of nature?! And THE ONLY way human civilisation can survive is if it continues to harness nature through changing it. Vegetarian scum who are in favour of all animals dying and so on are on their own little deluded and ,no doubt, self-satisfying island.
Do you really not think that were our so-called civilisation to break down, animals would be cleared from the forests after mere months? And, of course, thug elements would roam the streets causing peril for those who haven’t yet made use of the Second Amendment in your country.
I am INDIFFERENT to most of this, of course, however.

Lukas

I wasn’t talking about civilization. I was talking about humans.

Salem21

In The Radical Case, If I remember correctly, You mentioned being friends with a boy, but when you went to his house, They didn’t answer, and the neighbour came round and made you look like you’ve just come from a car accident; I’m assuming that’s a different family? No offence whit that quote, Just trying to state what I read in your book.

gantier99

This rather moving story gives hope in an otherwise quite bleak world. Thanks! And yes, such a shame that the younger brother could not think of a less resource-intensive way to challenge you.

Passing by

Thanks a lot for sharing this story. In the land of Habeas Corpus, I guess all rationality has not left the Justice system yet. Even if, of course, the laws are not well suited and making more harm than good to many victims or so-called victims.
Hopefully some day, our societies will be able to distinguish real, genuine abuse from consensual and positive intimate experiences. And help children get the best of their discovery of sexuality, in the way that is natural to them.

Nick Devin

I hesitate to comment because every time I serve up an olive branch, you kick me in the teeth, and I kick back, though sometimes a bit lower :-). I know I’ll regret this, but here goes.
I thought that was an interesting post. As I read it, I couldn’t help asking myself why you hate our group so. You say adults shouldn’t have sex with children due to grave risk of harm to the children. We believe this as well. You say the harm is due to the risk that our culture will cause the child to believe he must have been harmed. Many of us believe the harm is largely iatrogenic as well.
The only difference that I can see is that you refuse to give up on your vision of a changed culture in which adult-child sex laws have changed, which is a vision that we do not share. I fail to see why this is a cause for hatred. Moreover, as I see it, we have been able to make substantial progress only because we do not share that vision. I know you do not believe we have made any progress, but I look at all the articles in the popular press (many of which are listed on our web site), the documentaries (I hope you have seen I, Pedophile), the greater willingness of therapists to provide help, and fail to see how you believe that pedophiles would be better off without these things. None of these things would have occurred if we shared your vision.
In any event, before you put us back on the path of beating each other over the head, I would like to say that I’m glad your case was resolved in the manner that it was.

Dissident

I will start by saying that I will endeavor to be quite polite with you, Nick. No attempt to hit you at all, either above or below the belt.
I thought that was an interesting post. As I read it, I couldn’t help asking myself why you hate our group so. You say adults shouldn’t have sex with children due to grave risk of harm to the children. We believe this as well. You say the harm is due to the risk that our culture will cause the child to believe he must have been harmed. Many of us believe the harm is largely iatrogenic as well.
The only difference that I can see is that you refuse to give up on your vision of a changed culture in which adult-child sex laws have changed, which is a vision that we do not share.

I am genuinely glad that we can share certain concerns, Nick. But I think you may have missed Tom’s point, as well as the point of those who are pro-choice in general. If we can agree, as the evidence clearly suggests, that most of the usually after-the-fact harm that befalls younger people following an intergenerational liaison are either iatrogenic or sociogenic in nature (or often a combination thereof) then a continuation of the current blanket prohibition and hateful attitudes toward such liaisons no matter the circumstances is only going to result in the continuation of innocent people of all age groups being hurt. The only reason to continue the current course, with the only change being trying to provide “treatment” to attempts to monitor and force MAPs and underage youths alike never to “cross the line” as opposed to seeking more objective research and understanding, is to satisfy specific moralistic and hegemonic demands of the current status quote. This is where our disagreement comes from.
I fail to see why this is a cause for hatred.
Speaking for myself, no hatred or major ill will. Just a stern disagreement regarding some methodology and ultimate goals.
Moreover, as I see it, we have been able to make substantial progress only because we do not share that vision. I know you do not believe we have made any progress, but I look at all the articles in the popular press (many of which are listed on our web site), the documentaries (I hope you have seen I, Pedophile), the greater willingness of therapists to provide help, and fail to see how you believe that pedophiles would be better off without these things. None of these things would have occurred if we shared your vision.
The problem as many of us see it, Nick, is that the lack of moralizing neutrality and lack of focus upon all the scientists currently conducting research on this topic, as opposed to exclusively the frequently scientifically challenged work of Dr. Cantor and a few others following exactly the same controversial method and research conclusions, is resulting in progress that is coming at a major cost to both scientific accuracy and integrity in the hope of placating rather than challenging current public sentiment. It also continues to foster the attitude that MAPs suffer from a “disorder” that results in us needing to be constantly monitored and controlled, and to push one specific moralistic attitude that is treated as fact rather than what it actually is: a strongly held belief.
Further, all of these articles that you mentioned are appearing in mainstream media outlets with sponsors who would never allow them to strongly challenge the prevailing views. I’m not saying that Virped is doing no good whatsoever; what I am saying, however, is that its lack of moral neutrality is compromising the scientific data that is allowed to be presented to the public. I simply do not believe that this is the best we can do over the long haul, let alone that this is the best we actually deserve.

Nick Devin

Tom, I know we’ve gone over much of this before. Hopefully you’ll indulge me one last time, and I promise I’ll shut up for the next year or so (at least at this venue).
Dissident, I certainly understand Tom’s point and objectives, as well as yours. It is your tactics that I don’t understand. If you were making progress towards liberalizing attitudes about adult-child sex, I could understand why you would be opposed to what VP does. But you are not.
We have been on the scene for about three years now. Tom has been working on this for about 50 years. This means that he had about 47 years to accomplish something before we came on the scene. I think you would have to admit that things have gotten worse for your cause, rather than better.
If I were in your shoes, which I am not, I would recognize the futility of my approach and try a different tack. I would hope that by softening attitudes towards pedophiles generally, as VP is doing, maybe sometime in the distant future, society would be more open to my message.
In terms of Dr. Cantor, I’m not sure I understand your point. He has said that he believes that pedophilia is caused by deficiencies in white matter when compared to the brains of teliophiles. The folks at Dunkelfeld believe this as well based on their research. I understand that you think this is mistaken, but I’m not sure why you think this is important as a political/social matter. Like any other sexual orientation, pedophilia is undoubtedly caused by genetic factors, pre-natal experiences, early childhood experiences, or some combination of the three.
None of this implies that pedophilia is a disorder or that pedophiles need to be constantly monitored or controlled. As you know, DSM says it is not a disorder unless it causes marked distress or leads to pedophiles acting sexually with children. Moreover, I know that neither Dr. Cantor nor the folks at Dunkelfeld believe that pedophiles need to be constantly monitored or controlled, though many pedophiles could benefit from therapy, primarily to deal with the depression that often accompanies pedophilia but also to help those who need such help to develop strategies necessary to obey the law.

stephen6000

‘I would hope that by softening attitudes towards pedophiles generally, as VP is doing, maybe sometime in the distant future, society would be more open to my message. ‘
This sounds reasonable on the surface. But there is also the question of honesty. What if one is asked ‘Do you support these laws? Do you think they’re fair?’ Tom and most of the rest of us on this board couldn’t honestly answer these questions in the affirmative. I would concede that it isn’t a good idea to bring up the possibility of changing age of consent laws every time the subject of minor attraction comes up – at the present time, less contentious matters such as those highlighted by VP may be better to start off with. But one can’t – or at least shouldn’t – hide one’s views about more controversial matters that might arise even if one doesn’t raise them oneself. And while what we view as the honest approach may not presently be making much headway, it doesn’t follow that it never will. Pendulums swing in both directions.

Dissident

I would concede that it isn’t a good idea to bring up the possibility of changing age of consent laws every time the subject of minor attraction comes up – at the present time, less contentious matters such as those highlighted by VP may be better to start off with.
I basically concur, Stephen, but the thing is, Virped is not the only game in town, so to speak, who is advocating on behalf of MAPs. B4U-ACT (http://www.b4uact.org/) is also doing so, and in fact has been doing so longer, and this org has a policy on maintaining moral neutrality on the more contentious issues (e.g., sexual contact), allowing MAPs of all ideological foundations to receive support and participate in its activities (including usually annual in-person workshops) out of deference to both the emotionally charged nature of the more controversial issues that you rightfully expressed concern about, and the fact that the scientific community who has devoted significant study to this topic (which, contrary to what Dr. Cantor would have us believe, is not just him and a few other like-minded mental health professionals) do not have a consensus on these particular issues, thus maintaining scientific integrity. Virped, however, does indeed take a very specific moral stance and treats it as a fact, which alienates large proportions of the MAP community, exacerbates rifts within the community based on ideology, and continues to spread misinformation alongside some of the admittedly good info it disseminates.
It should be noted, in all fairness to anti-choicers as a whole, that not all Virpeds are against B4U-ACT (quite the contrary) and that many of them are indeed interested in unity with all other MAPs on certain important issues that we can all more easily reach agreement on, and have no problem seeking solidarity with law-abiding pro-choice MAPs. A good number of them do indeed believe that personal ideology is less important than the general well-being of all MAPs.
But one can’t – or at least shouldn’t – hide one’s views about more controversial matters that might arise even if one doesn’t raise them oneself. And while what we view as the honest approach may not presently be making much headway, it doesn’t follow that it never will. Pendulums swing in both directions.
Agreed, which is why there needs to be some places where interested intellectual explorers and researchers can find all of the scientific data and the less popular but very important side of the issues. This blog and Lensman’s blog are two of the best places to currently find this info, as is IPCE’s database (though it’s a bit BL-centric) and Cart ‘O Graph’s YouTube channel.

stephen6000

‘I basically concur, Stephen, but the thing is, Virped is not the only game in town, so to speak, who is advocating on behalf of MAPs. B4U-ACT (http://www.b4uact.org/) is also doing so…’
Yes, of course, I’m a ‘B4U-ACT man’ myself and I agree that B4U-ACT does a better job than VP does of representing the whole community. I mentioned VP because I was addressing a VP man and wanted to be conciliatory!

Dissident

Gotcha, mate! 🙂

David Kennerly

In the States, we also have RSOL who, it must be noted, is suing the U.S. government for its Int’l Megan’s Law. It’s also suing, on behalf of “registered sex offenders” various states and municipalities, on issues of residency and presence restrictions. It is actively lobbying a number of state houses (often successfully) to defeat more laws targeting “sex offenders”.
Shall we compare that to what VirPed is doing and contrast its ambitions with RSOL’s?
Looking at the two organizations, I see the difference between people with a willingness to fight injustice, on the one hand, and those who crave social acceptance and pity, on the other.
If you are looking for something to do, might I recommend looking to RSOL or, if you are not in the U.S., forming an equivalent organization in your country?

Christian

Nick Devin says: “You say the harm is due to the risk that our culture will cause the child to believe he must have been harmed. Many of us believe the harm is largely iatrogenic as well.
The only difference that I can see is that you refuse to give up on your vision of a changed culture in which adult-child sex laws have changed, which is a vision that we do not share.”
So, many VPs agree with pro-choicers that the current culture, by incapacitating youth, shielding them from adult sexuality, stigmatizing child sexuality and demonizing MAPs, is a major cause for negative outcomes of intergenerational sex. And both sides can witness that in some “primitive” cultures (especially Polynesia before colonization), children were more autonomous, were soon exposed to adult sexuality, and could freely express their own sexuality, including with adults, without trauma. So the logical conclusion is that one should change the culture in order to bring intergenerational relations closer to the model of pre-colonial Polynesia, this would make both children and MAPs happier. But no, the VPs want to maintain the present culture that keeps them as underdogs.
Why ? The present culture, with its dogma of childhood innocence and asexuality, its institution of the nuclear family, its demonization of adult sexual “deviance”, is in fact the culture of capitalism, the commodity-based economy. That is what the VPs want to preserve. They should rename themselves “Conservative Pedophiles” and write under that title the subtitle: “We defend capitalism, we stand with the nuclear family and childhood sexual innocence.” This would much clarify the debate.
No wonder that VPs get some success in capitalist-owned media. The latter can recognize their friends. But this will never substantially change culture, this would require getting rid of capitalism…

ew

Agreed. It’s ultimately the capitalist/bourgeois system and its nuclear/bourgeois family institution which is to blame for the current “child sexual abuse” hypothesis.

David Kennerly

As one of the few defenders here of capitalism and free markets and individual liberty, I want to go on record as saying that I agree that there is nothing intrinsically harmful in adult/child (or adolescent) sexual and affectional relations but I do not believe that capitalism has a damned thing to do with it.
The problem is not with economic systems but with superstition, religion, sexual jealousy, irrationalism, the lack of children’s rights, etc. I don’t want to pick a fight with those who do believe that, somehow, the least plausible and least direct explanation for pedo-hysteria also happens to be the correct explanation, as I know it will do absolutely no good and I’m bored with the go-nowhere tangential arguments that are guaranteed to ensue.
Instead, I just want to let readers here know that not every BL-supportive (or CL, if you will) person here also has an affinity for socialism and an undying belief in the possibility of making all-powerful governments our friend through the use of what must certainly be some kind of magic.
My experience has been that those who pursue the greatest economic liberty also happen to pursue the greatest personal liberty.
I am also strongly disinclined to pursue an impossible political goal as a prerequisite to having relationships with boys. That would be almost religiously self-sacrificing and thankless.
There, I’ve said it.

Dissident

I’ll say just a few things here, David, so I do not get carried away. Much more could be said of this topic than the space allows, of course.
Socialism is not about an “all-powerful” government controlling our lives, but rather a system based on collective social ownership of the industries and services we all need to survive. We do not equate “individual liberty” with the “right” of the individual to exploit others and earn a massive profit at the expense of denying the vast majority access to this cornucopia of wealth we all collectively produce, because that most certainly does NOT result in freedom for the vast majority. And we do not find anything to be an unrealistic political goal if the majority of people in this world get behind it and fight to make it a reality. Finally, a system based on class divisions is not a true democracy, but a plutocracy, and it’s bound to create institutions that follow a caste, hierarchical structure — including the nuclear family unit (heavily based upon economic dependence), the authoritarian schooling system, and a mass media owned and controlled by the few — all of which are in the perfect position to create and promote moral panics to control the rabble. I find it very disconcerting that so many brilliant people are swept up the likes of Ayn Rand and an ideology that worships selfishness and confuses crass individualism with “individual liberty,” and I never get tired of saying so.
There, how was that for brevity on my part? *takes a bow* 🙂

Dissident

Yay! Go me! I have been trying to work on that, because frankly, as much as I fully understand why my tendency towards lengthy posts is frustrating for you as the sole moderator of this blog and to other posters who may prefer more concise text, it’s no less frustrating for me to be more often lambasted for the length of my posts than any commentary being made regarding the quality (or, in all fairness, lack thereof) of anything I may have to say. I put a lot of time and effort into almost all of my contributions here, and it’s no fun to be singled out and be made to feel that I’m the equivalent of a “problem child” around here rather than a valued contributor and supporter of the person who runs this blog. Please do forgive me if I’m coming off as venting a bit here, but I do honestly feel I’m singled out at times for a problem that I do admit I have.

Dissident

Thank you for saying this, Tom, it was very much appreciated. Any time you may want to discuss why I feel money needs to go altogether rather than be “reined in” or “put under control,” I’ll be glad to do so, either here or elsewhere, of course 🙂

Lukas

Dissident there is enabling legislation already written and ready for Congress that will turn money from being used by the bankers to influence their own speculations and their asset speculating customers to “We The People” to be used for our needs: Health Care, Education, Infrastructure, Affordable Housing, Public Transportation, Guaranteed Annual Income ….. all without taxing anyone or creating more debt. This will make a world we can be proud to give to the boys we love. We will return money to what it was used for in the 300,000 years we spent as Paleo Man when our humanity was formed: Gift Giving.
This is what I am talking about: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l04xew7bsl4zo7e/Monetary%20Reform%20Manual.pdf?dl=0

Lukas

Tom, Actually money creation correction is the most important gift we can give to the boys we love. It affects everything. The way money is created now gives power to the politically correct psychologists who sincerely wish to help man but enables them to be the greatest enemies of man: men and boys.
Love and Respect,
Lukas

David Kennerly

I think you will agree with me, Dissident, Lensman, Tom, et al, that we should be very happy that a genuine belief in rights for children and adolescents is something that resonates across disparate political affinities and is something we can share even if other of our respective political beliefs are not points of agreement. That shared belief transcends those differences, especially given that so few others embrace it as we do, and enables us to work towards a common goal, it is hoped, with little acrimony.
There are lots of socialists in the world just as there are increasing numbers of libertarians, but very few who would take the positions we take here. Something we should always keep in mind.

Dissident

I fully agree with you on these points, David. As youth liberation comes of age, it has shown signs of breaking through partisan barriers and has been embraced by many different political and socio-economic platforms. I stand in full solidarity with you in regards to this, and I’m more than willing to overlook our other differences when it comes to the important stances we can work together on.

Lukas

David, It has taken me a long time to come to terms with the arguments that Capitalism really is the source of ALL our problems. Heck I have an Economics Degree in Money and Banking. But, it wasn’t until I learned how money was created did I begin to understand the problems money and banking cause for all of us.
4 years ago I watched a Livestream of an Economics Teach-In of Occupy Chicago. There were two lectures. The first one was done by a teacher much like I had in college. She put me to sleep. Then this guy gets up and starts talking about Aristotle, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington. OMG he blew the hinges off my doors. Much like the first time I heard Walt Whitman’s Poetry as a 17-year-old boy lover in High School. I knew there was scholarship I had not heard before.
It took befriending Occupiers and learning all of what they were concerned with, studying he hell out of a book “The Lost Science of Money”, going to conferences, befriending non-neo-liberal economists, & participating in study groups to figure out the causes of the hell we live in. Yes, most of us are living in hell, not just boylovers and boys. If Unemployment was counted as it was during the Depression the number would be 15%+ not the 5%- that we are told it is.
Capitalism sucks and it is not the good kind of suck. The alternative isn’t Government Dictatorship. The alternative is changing the way money is created and spent into the economy. Life can be sooooooo good. We can have everything we want, health care, free education, leisure time, guaranteed annual incomes, free public transportation cross country and inner city, ….. Life can be good. And, this can all be done without taxing anybody or going into debt: Really.
Let me tell you there is a “Jail Break” coming David. We have the know-how. We have the knowledge. The Enabling Legislation is already written. Puritans and your Protestant Work Ethic turn in your passports, get back on the Mayflower and go out to sea to never return to port again.
Best,
Lukas

David Kennerly

Well, I don’t disagree with your complaints about banking and money-creation at all. The problem isn’t capitalism, it’s ‘crony-capitalism’ and corporatism and the cozy relationship between them and elitist government. Our’s is not a free market system by any stretch and the U.S. is hardly its perfect expression; far from it.

Dissident

The U.S. is actually closer to a “fully free market” as libertarians often describe with its de-regulation frenzy than any other First World deomocracy. The “crony capitalism” you decry is the very thing that has enabled this rotten system to exist long past what should have been its expiration date, with the frequent bail-outs the government provides whenever the capitalists invariably screw up with their voracious need for imperialistic growth and for further enriching the tiny handful of the world’s population at the expense of everyone else. A fully unregulated system of capitalism would unleash the full fury of the rapacious capitalists on the labor class that creates their wealth for them, and workers will find it even more difficult to get ahead as every required service and product imaginable becomes privatized and denied to anyone unless they can pay for it. I’m sorry, but though we will always stand in solidarity in regards to youth liberation and what we have to deal with as Kind people, and I will always admire you for all you have done for the Kind community, I will nevertheless oppose this vile Ayn Rand worship that canonizes greed, needless & ruthless competition over goods in a land of plenty, and the “dog-eat-dog, every person for themselves” mentality every chance I get.

Dissident

Well said, Lukas, and thank you for saying it. I will point out that as a die hard socialist, I go even further than insisting we start spending money wiser… I say lets get rid of money altogether! Modern productive capacity is so advanced that we do not need a barter system or form of currency acting as a “middle man” for access to the bounty of the social store that we all collectively work towards creating. As long as we continue to rely on money as a medium of exchange, then competition, rampant greed, hoarding, and mass inequality will continue.

Lukas

Dissident, I just saw your Mar 27 post. I made one of my own just now. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create money. We have legislation to restore it to Congress and remove it from the banks that have it now.
We The People via our elected representatives will decide where money goes. The banks will be able to decide who they loan money too but it will not be money they create. We the people will have first use of new money and then it will circulate freely according to market decisions.
If you would like to read a complete history of money here is a PDF Copy of The Lost Science of Money. If you like it and can afford it buy a the book. Stephen Zarlenga the author wiill sign it for you and you can become friends with the worlds leading money historian.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l04xew7bsl4zo7e/Monetary%20Reform%20Manual.pdf?dl=0

Dissident

Thank you for the PDF, Lukas! I certainly support much of what you say here, including the compassion you have for the labor class who creates all the wealth. My main point is that in order to create all of these benefits for the workers, money – or any form of currency medium of exchange – is not needed. It only imposes artificial limits on what can be produced, and it still supports a general framework based on production for profit, competition, encouragement for greed, and inequality since this medium of exchange is required for products and services to be rendered. A system of full social ownership of the industries and services could do all of this without any need for currency or banks and all of the fiscal limitations and complications they create. Nevertheless, your basic support on this topic, and the experience you have culled from all of your work in banking, has led you on a path that I greatly applaud 🙂

Lukas

It gets even better Dissident. Here is a cartoon explanation a group of us finished up last night. It is a cartoon of a stick man and a stick woman in conversation. They start out wondering what is so fu*ked up about free trade and it ends up with her explaing the new money system. Good News: The Bank of England actually has a working group on this right now. Bad News: Our Federal Reserve is lost in the weeds. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s0hjn5w6hn0npv5/Debt%20Money%20and%20Free%20Trade%20%281%29.pptx?dl=0

CapitalismIsGreat

The free market is the ultimate bringer of freedom the world has ever known. Oh it is not flawless, but nothing is in a chaotic universe. The Great Depression, rising healthcare costs, the perpetual poverty, all linked to the state. Not capitalism. The federal reserve, which sought to control normal boom bust cycles, fucked everything up and caused the great depression (or was a major player in it). Regulations on the healthcare industry have steadily increased its cost. The welfare state has destroyed the black family, that and regulatory laws on drugs and firearms.
Socialism is not possible without a powerful centralized authority controlling everything (or living in a complete post scarcity society, which we are far from). Some seemingly intelligent people here have zero knowledge of economics and want to blame capitalism for why we can’t have happy sex time with our little lovers.
David, many of us who do not post scoff at these socialist/communist/leftists and nod our heads at your economically sensible posts.
Public schools will never talk about Mises, Rothbard, or Friedman.

David Kennerly

Thank you, “Capitalism”! I agree but add that the U.S. is very much a controlled-economy and very far away from being a “free market”. As a businessman, I have discovered that over-and-over with my worst recent experience being with the U.S. Patent Office and its very strong bias towards large corporations with lots of intellectual property attorneys and lots of funding for lobbying. The U.S. is small-business unfriendly to the extreme and could learn much from other countries, some of whom have pulled themselves out of command economies after decades of innovation-stagnation, to re-learn the advantages of truly free markets.
Little known fact: the U.S. has the highest corporate income tax in the world except for Chad and the UAE. Europe has some of the lowest corporate income taxes.
So much for stereotypes!

CapitalismIsGreat

Don’t worry, I understand America is very far from a free market and has been for a while. Ever since growth in capital got rid of child labor, terrible work conditions, reduced poverty, etc. the government has been enacting regulation and then taking credit. On top of that a lot of regulation was enacted for racist reasons.
Anyone who has tried to start a business in America will see how regulated our economy actually is.

stephen6000

Borat meets pedo-lib:
‘…we can’t have happy sex time with our little lovers.’
(Sorry – couldn’t resist it!)

Dissident

I’ll say just a few brief things here so as not to breach the brevity protocol, CapitalismIsGreat. Of course, I will not be able to do this topic anywhere near proper justice, as I will limit each point to three sentences, tops, but usually less.
Capitalism is the ultimate bringer of freedom, you say? Only if you define “freedom” as the “right” of a handful of people to force others to work for them and achieve opulent levels of wealth while the vast majority struggle from paycheck to paycheck in order to be able to buy back even a meager fraction
Sorry, but the welfare state in the U.S. did not destroy black families – the poverty level of all laborers, blacks and Hispanics included, increased exponentially when Bill Clinton passed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that left everyone to fend for themselves when few jobs that paid anything like a “living wage” were created during that same decade. Add to that the attempts at acquiring what amounted to legalized slave labor with the “workfare” nonsense that came about at the same time.
The government is responsible for bad legislation? The government is established and empowered by the 1%, with its lobbyists actually writing much of the legislation themselves, not to mention how it bails them out after every time they nearly destroy the economy with extremely inept speculation investments that deliberately give out bad loans to workers. Things would be considerably worse if we had to pay for every needed service out of pocket to the wealthy few, who are only interested in making profit.
Socialism would require a centralized government controlling everything? I’m not sure what deranged definition of “socialism” you’re using here, but the control source of “everything” would be everyone who does the useful work, and not a small handful of capitalists who control everything entirely for their own individual enrichment.
If scoff at the socialists/leftists here, that is your right, so feel free. But know that I’m very proud to be a socialist, and I more than scoff every time I see intelligent people in the U.S. (and occasionally elsewhere) get sucked into worship of Ayn Rand and her glorification of greed and economic hierarchy.
Finally, saying we don’t actually have a “free market” but instead have “crony capitalism” is simply a back-handed way of complaining that the wealthy are too heavily regulated by the government that exists under capitalism. The state is a lackey of the capitalists who are the true beneficiaries of it, not the other way around.

78
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top