Repression in Netherlands rivals Russia’s

For saying something the state doesn’t like in Putin’s Russia, you get off with a modest fine. For doing the same in the “tolerant” Netherlands you go to prison.

Appallingly, this observation is drawn from reliable news reports this month, not from propaganda or dystopian fiction. A Russian court fined broadcaster Marina Ovsyannikova just 30k roubles (£215) for her courageous demonstration on live TV against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Worse may yet befall her, we are told. Meanwhile, though, worse has already happened to a pair of Dutchmen who have dared to campaign in their own country for a more enlightened view of child sexuality and consensual sexual contacts between children and adults. They have been given prison sentences for continuing the activities of the banned Martijn Association, dubbed a “paedo club” in the media.

The Rotterdam court sentenced Marthijn Uittenbogaard to six months and Norbert de Jonge to four months. Neither of them appeared in court, either for the trial in early February or the verdict and sentencing earlier this month. A third accused, Nelson Maatman, reportedly fled to Mexico before the trial, and is said to be applying for political asylum there. All three remain at liberty for the moment. Marthijn has indicated his intention to appeal. Norbert expects to be required to start his sentence soon, probably within a few weeks. Judicial mishandling of Nelson’s case could result in a retrial. Reportedly, Marthijn was given the longer sentence because of his “leading role”, Norbert had played a “facilitating role”, and Nelson had been the public “face of legalisation of child sex”.

Many heretics here will already be familiar with the names of these activists. The background to the case, and to the increasingly intolerant and illiberal political climate in the Netherlands that made it possible, have already been noted with alarm in several Heretic TOC blogs, notably in this one from last year: Where prejudice legally trumps truth.

All three continue to defy what they regard as a charade, a politically motivated show trial devoid of justice. “Fascist” is Marthijn’s preferred and repeated epithetic in an angry post-trial statement posted at his personal website titled “Speaking The Truth Is A Crime”. The heading is strongly substantiated when he writes:

…when you look at all the scientific studies concerning harm in pedosexual relationships, the harm seems to disappear when the relationship was wanted by the minor. This is not my OPINION, it is the conclusion of scientific papers, approved for publication in scientific magazines.

Quite so. Trauma may arise later from the taboo against such relationships but not from wanted intimacies per se. The prosecution claim was not that any crime had been committed against children but that the three activists had “glorified” paedophilia by such means as drawing attention to peer-reviewed academic studies showing exactly what Marthijn says. On that basis Heretic TOC would certainly be illegal in the Netherlands now based, on many blogs here, including last month’s, which focused on Bruce Rind’s work. So, if I visit the Netherlands, will they arrest me because this blog is visible to readers there? Dutch academics, too, must be anxious now over publishing further studies that come up with the “wrong” findings.

Lawyers Theo Hiddema (right foreground) and Sidney Smeets (immediate left of Hiddema). Both are prominent advocates in the Netherlands. Smeets represented Marthijn Uittenbogaard; Nelson Maatman was Hiddema’s client. Norbert de Jonge had no lawyer. Smeets argued that Marthijn (with an “h”) had not revived Martijn Association as alleged but had acted only in a personal capacity. He had no criminal record. His freedom of speech was being sacrificed to public opinion. An appeal would be lodged. Nelson’s case was derailed after he protested that he did not have a good video connection to the court from Mexico. Following this, Hiddema had no opportunity to present his client’s case. The court meanwhile published a draft of its judgment, in which Nelson “was acquitted by mistake“. The presiding judges expressed regret over the fiasco and called for replacement judges to resume the case.

Norbert refused even to engage a lawyer for his own defence. As he publicly made clear in an online statement last October, he felt there was no point. The trial was obviously being rigged, in his view. The result was a foregone conclusion. Last month, with the trial underway, he went so far as to release a highly provocative statement, sent to the media and to Fight Against Abuse, the organisation that had filed a complaint leading to the prosecution.

Significantly, he wrote expressly in his capacity as secretary/treasurer of the political party PNVD, making clear why he was not waiting for the outcome of the case, which he said was of less concern to him than the Supreme Court ruling that had banned Martijn Association some years earlier. He called for those judges to be prosecuted! Correctly anticipating a prison sentence, he also predicted that PNVD (Party for Charity, Freedom and Diversity, dubbed the “paedo party” in the media but its platform includes animal rights and much more) might also be banned in due course – which would be an even greater and more undisguisable attack on freedom of speech and also on the democratic process itself, which vitally depends on such freedom.

He defiantly repeated claims that had been declared illegal in the Netherlands, claims “glorifying” paedophilia, saying voluntary child-adult sexual contacts are “lovely” for both children and adults and should be legalised. Just in case his utter contempt for the politically manipulated state into which the Dutch courts had fallen, he signed off with a flourish: “Go fuck yourselves!”

Why so provocative? There is method in Norbert’s apparent madness. An attack on PNVD, perhaps launched by the same anti-abuse group that had brought down Martijn Association, would force the government into a potentially indefensible position. If they were to support a prosecution that led to a ban on a political party, the ruling could well be contested successfully in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Indeed, as part of his statement, Norbert expressly said he would challenge any prohibition against PNVD in the ECHR.

It worked like a charm. Within days of sending out his statement, Fight Against Abuse announced that they would file a complaint against PNVD, giving Norbert’s statement as their reason!

So it looks as though the Rotterdam case was just one battle in a long legal saga that is not over yet. At the moment, the Dutch state appears to be as successfully intolerant as autocratic Russia, but the repression will not necessarily last, in either country. Putin could be overthrown and face a war crimes tribunal, perhaps sooner than we think. Even if he stays in power, the invasion of Ukraine has given Europe a powerful reminder that freedom is precious and that democracy critically depends on freedom of opinion and its expression. Will the lesson be heeded, in the ECHR and more widely?



Bill Nash, who was my defence solicitor for decades thanks to my numerous brushes with the law, died in December following a short illness. He loved his work, never retired, and remained in practice for almost 50 years.

He had become a friend as well as an advisor. The last time we met was for an evening in highly heretical company at the National Theatre, where we went with several of my friends to see Downstate, a play about four men convicted of sex offenders against minors. Surprisingly, given the topic, there is plenty of humour in the dialogue, as there was in the dinner we enjoyed together afterwards.

Back in the period 1978-81, from the arrest of PIE committee members, including myself, to our trial at the Old Bailey, the many hours Bill and I spent on the case were often followed by ending up at the pub together. At one especially busy period, office hours were not enough and at the weekend we pored over the paperwork at his north London home, where I met his wife and family. It did not seem to bother him in the least that his young daughter might be tainted by my presence or disturbed by evidence in the case that was spread out on the living room table – including photocopies provided to us by the prosecution showing photos from magazines with titles like Lolita and Golden Boys.

Bill Nash, who had “a talent for friendship” with all sorts – including seagulls! [Added later: A reader tells me the bird here is actually a pigeon. Apologies for the error.]
As his obituary in the Law Society Gazette put it, he had a “natural empathy with his clients” and showed his skills as “an exceptionally gifted advocate” after it became possible in the 1990s for solicitors to appear in Crown Court trials.

Bill had trained with pioneer human rights lawyer Ben Birnberg, and was then appointed legal officer at the National Council for Civil Liberties. At his funeral in January, which I attended, fellow NCCL lawyer Hilary Kitchin gave a eulogy in which she spoke about some of Bill’s most high-profile legal successes, such as his role in bringing an end to birching in the Isle of Man.

Another big trial of his, at the start of the 1970s, was the Mangrove incitement-to-riot case at the Old Bailey, when nine protesters against police racism were acquitted. A film about this famous victory, Mangrove, directed by Steve McQueen, came out in 2020. The case arose from police raids on the Mangrove restaurant in Notting Hill, a fashionable place with Jimi Hendrix, Nina Simone, Christine Keeler and John Profumo among its patrons. Yet another big one was the ABC case, a name invented by Bill that caught on in the media. This was R v Aubrey, Berry and Campbell, tried under the Official Secrets Act over these three men’s civil-liberties inspired scrutiny of government-authorised wiretapping and their work to limit CIA operations in Britain.

Peter Redmond, an old friend of Bill’s who had been a fellow student with him at Oxford, aptly described him as having “a talent for friendship”. He remembered Bill’s rooms as a gathering place for a wide social set that even included future president of the United States Bill Clinton, who was studying there in the late 1960s after winning a Rhodes Scholarship.

Unsurprisingly, this man with many friends also had many mourners. Enfield Crematorium was packed to overflowing, with dozens obliged to listen to the proceedings from an audio feed to the gardens. The wake that ensued, likewise, was an event that crowded out an entire pub for six hours, where solicitors and barristers found themselves thrown together with dodgy characters like me and doubtless a few other old lags. Discretion prevents me from naming names, but I shared a table with a veteran GLF activist, a barrister who had represented me superbly and successfully after being briefed by Bill, a high-profile civil liberties worker, and an author of numerous books on human rights who has written for the Guardian and other national media.

Bill was a man I will remember with much fondness and gratitude. It was great to discover at his funeral and wake how widely my sentiments were echoed.



I’ll call him Monty (very close to his real name, actually) for reasons that will become apparent. This was a guy I had noticed at Bill’s funeral and saw again on the railway platform as we both headed back from Enfield to central London before hopping on the tube to Highgate, for the wake at at a pub called The Wrestlers.

It’s about an hour’s journey, long enough for an extensive conversation. And an extremely intensive one too, as it happened. Monty turned out to be something of a human rights buff, with some sort of connection to the NCCL, or Liberty as it is now known. Our mutual interest in the law quickly saw us deep into a discussion of British constitutional history, notably as written about by Sir Stephen Sedley, a distinguished legal figure Bill had once worked with.

Unsurprisingly, Monty began to take an interest in how I had come to meet Bill.

Awkward. Introducing myself as someone with a criminal record for child sex offences probably wouldn’t go down too well. So I said that, like Bill, I had a connection with the NCCL, in my case as a former member of its gay rights sub-committee.

I absolutely hadn’t bargained for what came next.

“Oh, right,” says Monty, “you didn’t know Tom O’Carroll by any chance, did you?”

This was getting surreal, and was about to become much more so. I could hardly say, “No idea who you’re talking about”, or “No, never bumped into him”. So, time to take the plunge.

“Well, actually, “I am Tom O’Carroll.”

Another surprise was in store for me.

“No, you’re not! Tom O’Carroll is dead. He died some years ago.”

“Really? What makes you so sure?”

“It’s common knowledge.”

“Strange, I feel as though I’ve been in pretty good health.”

“No, O’Carroll is dead.”

“Who do you think I am then? His ghost?”

“I just know he is dead. He is definitely dead.”

See where I am coming from now, with the Monty Python thing? This was turning out to be the famous dead parrot sketch with a twist: the “parrot” in question, yours truly, was very much alive and squawking!

My companion’s reluctance to accept this reality probably owed a lot to the dawning realisation that he might now feel duty bound to cross swords with me over my controversial views.

Reluctant or not, he certainly had a go.

“Right,” he said, “if you really are Tom O’Carroll, you’ll be able to tell me about PIE’s age of consent proposals. Is it true that you thought it was OK for four-year-olds to have sex with adults?!

“Oh, God,” I thought, “here we go!” I started to answer by trying to refer to PIE’s observation that children can usually speak by the age of four, with the possibility of verbalising their feelings. But he soon interrupted.

“Did you, or did you not, call for an age of consent of four? It’s a simple question!!”

“For fuck’s sake, this is not Newsnight. If you’ll just allow me to answer…”

“I don’t need to hear what you say. I know all about you. I have done lots of research. I have read reports about PIE from the independent inquiry into child sex abuse.”

“Oh, so you think you’re an expert, do you? Well let me tell you that I was asked by the official solicitor to that enquiry to give evidence to them about PIE, which I did, including on the ridiculous claim that we were funded by the government. Much of the inquiry’s work has been spent chasing crap allegations like that.”

“Well, that’s not all. I have also read this.”

Whereupon he magically pulls a relevant book from his briefcase like a rabbit from a hat. It’s not one I have heard of. It is Civil Liberties and Human Rights in Twentieth Century Britain, by Chris Moores, published in 2017. Sure enough, when he opens it, I see a chapter dealing with PIE, and my own name is mentioned. He tells me it is authoritative, written by a Cambridge professor. Birmingham, actually, as it turned out, but I won’t hold that against anyone.

Clearly, this dingdong had the potential for a long battle. Never mind, I soon found myself getting into my stride, challenging his assumptions about the sources of alleged harm to children, bringing in Clancy, Sandfort, Rind…

“Stop!” he yelled at last, “I’ve had enough, I don’t want to hear anymore.”

By this time, anyway, we were not that far from the pub, where we could both escape into more congenial company and mellow out over a meal and a pint or three. After a couple of hours we both happened to leave the event at the same time, bumping into each other at the coat stand. Calmer now, I apologised for perhaps coming on a bit too strong in our earlier encounter.

He was gracious, and even made the surprising concession that I might have a respectable academic case for my position. But, he continued, it is bound to be hijacked by people taking advantage, just as radical trans people have elbowed their way forward ruthlessly, trying to trump women’s rights with bogus gender identity politics. I had to agree with him. It was a serious possibility. Mercifully, we parted in peace!


4.4 7 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thought id mention that the website that norbert created appears to have been taken down.. i spent much time on there, talking about teens mainly. but as all MAPs are being kicked off social media, i have to share space with actual paedophiles and also zoophiles. but i accepted that. i refuse to be silenced for my perfectly valid opinions.i wonder what Musky would have done with us had he gone through with deal..


I am almost of the same opinion. 1: You must be able to communicate with the other party. 2: You are certain of the other party’s intentions and that the other party is aware of your interests. 3: You are not misleading them with fraudulent words or actions. If the above conditions are met, there is no human rights problem. Age is not an issue.




I think USA has to be the most repressive … (land of free, joke). a guy in PA faced how long for photos of his 17 yr old gf? 10 years? nope.. 170. i apologise if my grammar isnt perfect, but ive realised that there is no point in perfect grammar.. if ur comment then gets censored. i hope thats not the case here. also glad your in good health.. im just over half your age and the state of the world has left me very angry , stressed, and depressed.
also, the UK is very repressive too. i had lots of stuff i wrote stolen by police.. and, notes are very important in keeping my brain organised. they are evil to me..


An interesting article, with many references, explaining that we should not worry about kids watching porn, it does not harm them:

warbling j turpitude

All the talk about “learning about how to have sex” often strikes me as more than somewhat absurd. Does any animal on the planet have to be taught “how to have sex”? Methinks it surely does not. Does this mean small humans are less smart than all animals? Methinks it more than likely does not. But instinct is not learned, instinct is ‘inherited’ wholesale, and the theory-of-evolution does not even begin to explain how countless creatures know how to do the insanely elaborate things they do to reproduce from the second they are born.

But i digress.

What we are really talking about then is never ‘how to have sex’, but how to best position oneself strategically in the race for possession of socially sufficient erotic capital – if such a knowledge is even possible. Isn’t this what is really meant by “learning to navigate sexuality” ? And what does it really mean to apply the “health” model to sexual “education”, when we all know at heart regardless of what we profess that what gives human sexuality its incomparable significance in the VERY FIRST PLACE is interdiction? That human sex means what it does to us precisely BECAUSE of stigma.. And that the “wave of license” we now hear about every day really means newcomers are having less sex than ever before. Because destigmatiization, mes amis, means de-eroticization. This is what neither left nor right wants to talk about. But i thought those who aspire to the heights of HERESY should begin to be capable.

Without God, everything is prohibited..The Paradox has landed.

Last edited 2 years ago by warbling j turpitude

Check out this 2020 study and news release about it:

Majority of childhood sex-abuse survivors achieve complete mental health (News Release):

Based on a 2012 Canadian nationally representative survey of 17,014 adults of whom 651 experienced CSA as minors, the researchers reportedly found:

“The negative association between childhood sexual abuse and complete mental health was completely explained when we took into account the individuals’ history of mental illness, substance abuse, chronic pain and social isolation. In other words, we now have an understanding of the pathways that decrease resiliency among child sexual-abuse survivors.” (emphasis added).

[Note: the authors excluded those who were “physically abused” or “had been exposed to chronic parental domestic violence,” and I have yet to check how they define “CSA” – if at all].

Results from the study’s abstract:
“After controlling for age, sex, race, education, and marital status, the association between CSA and CMH [complete mental health] was mediated by lifetime depression, anxiety, substance abuse, chronic pain, and having a confidant. The strongest predictor of past-year CMH among those with a history of CSA was lifetime depression (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07–0.20) followed by having a confidant (OR 6.78, 95% CI 1.89–24.38). The odds of CMH [complete mental health] was decreased by over three times among those with a history of substance misuse, and halved for those with lifetime anxiety and/or presence of pain.”

For those interested, the study in question is titled “From surviving to thriving: factors associated with complete mental health among childhood sexual abuse survivors” and can be found here:


a bit old study from 2007 about early teen sex, but may be it’ll interesting to you

The study suggests that early sex may play a role in helping teens develop better social relationships in early adulthood. The finding runs counter to most assumptions that relate early teen sex to later drug use, criminality, antisocial behavior and emotional problems.

«There is a cultural assumption in the United States that if teens have sex early it is somehow bad for their psychological health. But we actually found that teens who had sex earlier seem to have better relationships later.»

Last edited 2 years ago by NaughtyFox

This study calls into question the connection between brain scans and behavior. This can destroy the claims that the brain with chronophilia is different from the “ordinary” brain.

Zen Thinker

A couple of things of note.

First, the above BBC article showing that very young children are involved in TikTok and creating social media accounts, confirming my thesis that technology is having a key liberalising effect, both on the young and their young parents, who are broadly permissive.

Second, Tucker Carlson has really sounded off about the “corruption” of children in the public school system, especially K through 3, through mandatory sex ed. My thoughts are that the schools are reacting to the surrounding culture rather than proactive in “trying to corrupt children” as some sort of wild right-wing conspiracy. Of course, our view is that the sexualisation of children is an inevitable consequence of social and technological change, not an “evil plan by elites”, who if anything are quite antagonistic to the concept of minor attraction.

In this vein, Tucker also condemned a decision to allow Cardi B to “entertain toddlers on Nickelodeon”. The assumption was that this is an orchestrated attempt to “corrupt the culture” by nefarious executives, again a rather spurious and vacuous conspiracy. The truth is that Cardi B has a very young daughter and such a position may well ameliorate her overly sexualised image. She is very popular and frequently gets millions of likes on social media.

Love Tucker Carlson, but Tucker dude you’re way out there!


Here’s the thing though. I think there is truth on both sides. The current left/progressive politic side pretty much across the entirety of the Western world has been coopted by powerful financial and also political interests, who managed to usurp everything from feminism(way back even), to blm, to the education system, in an attempt to rapidly upend many social norms and conventions a majority of people do believe in. Discourse isn’t wanted, neither from the progressive left, who uses equality and liberty not as guiding principle but as means to an end of disrupting societal cohesion, nor from right/conservative side that has gotten hypersensitive and reactionary to all of these changes taking place within a very short time frame simultaneously.

We’re in an artificially created culture war. Values that people used to associate with political ideologies have mostly gone out the window, especially on the left. The conservative right gets more support because people get uncomfortable with the amount of progress being pushed. One has to only pay attention how schools are trying to expose children to information behind their parents’ backs, to the point where they tell students to hide and lie about the information. It’s completely understandable IMO that an increasing number of parents are losing trust in the education system, at least in the US, which culturally tends impose its values onto the rest of Europe and to a degree Asia.

To believe that there is no collusion of powerful financial and political forces present, that there is no conspiracy theory to destabilize Western(US American influenced) societies in particular, is, I believe, a sign of ignorance in the light of much of the critical information that is being assembled over the past half decade.

There is no shame in entertaining the possibility and try to understand where people who have done much more research than you come from – after all, it’s exactly what many a pedophile would wish be done to their issues. This isn’t a binary issue. There can be a conspiracy without it having to involve demon controlled elites drinking the blood of tortured infants, you know.


Many conspiracy theories are frankly delusional. IMO, the purpose of such theories is to discredit the assumption of conspiracy among the masses and to ridicule people who allow any slightest conspiracy.

In addition, conspiracy theory is mistakenly considered absolute, that is, all the arguments presented are allegedly true, and not false or thrown in to discredit theory.

warbling j turpitude

Heh….so it falls to me to is this sowing of confusion supposed to ameliorate said hostility?


The more people who believe in the many conspiracy theories that are going around the more likely a conspiracy is potentially going to happen, for example we have been hearing about the rise/claims of Misogynism which the Police are being pressured to investigate and knowing that this behaviour is a thing of the past because we are now socially obligated to push for change one could say now this (Misogyny) is nothing more than a conspiracy theory or it could be real due to the possibility of Misogynists being conspiracy theorist secretly plotting against them, and the truth is we can’t possibly know for sure.

Zen Thinker

If the powers that be wanted to push sexualised children, or even make minor attraction a civil rights issue, why are the legal penalties for typical MAP-related offences so extraordinarily severe, even at the present moment? Why does government, media and academia perpetuate the most horrific and demonic stereotypes of MAPs? Why has the average public been goaded into extreme hostility about minor attraction, ultimately more than any other issue? These facts don’t align with the conservative belief in “scheming elites” trying to subvert civilisation (in their view).


> “If the powers that be wanted to push sexualised children, or even make minor attraction a civil rights issue.”
This happens naturally, due to the growing penetration of information and gadgets into people’s lives. But Gov and BigTech crave censorship under the false pretences of protection from the CSA/CP and fake conspiracies.

> “why are the legal penalties for typical MAP-related offences so extraordinarily severe, even at the present moment?”
The USA and UK are historically very puritanical. They raised the AoC earlier than others. Unfortunately, sexual liberation is complicated by their globalist influence.

Last edited 2 years ago by NaughtyFox

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”
Gustave Le Bon. (1985)
“The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind”

Last edited 2 years ago by NaughtyFox
Stephen James

What Le Bon says here isn’t quite right IMHO. Yes, the masses do turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste. But that doesn’t mean they’re not interested in truth. It means they think truth can be won much more easily than it can.

Fata Morgana

Just to play devil’s advocate, Zen, how much of the ‘sexualised’ self-expression do you think is merely imitative?

Zen Thinker

In my opinion, parents on Instagram are heavily influencing their children into precocious fashion, because in some places in the wealthy middle classes it has become socially acceptable for children to take an interest in fashion and beauty (designer labels, painted nails, etc) at extremely young ages. This is not a sexual expression of the child so much as a cultural expectation to be glamorous and beautiful even at three (I know this sounds incredible, but the evidence is there on social media). At the same time, teachers are foisting sexual ideas, again, on extremely young children, although it is unclear how much this is an original development and how much it is a reaction to the pressures of the broader culture – probably more the latter.

The child is imitative of adult sexualised cultural icons, with the encouragement and approbation of liberal parents and peer groups, but at some point imitation becomes reality. We know at least as far back as Freud that children possess an infantile sexuality, and with all the external pressures this will no doubt be brought to an earlier fruition. I know from my own experience (in a much more innocent Age too) I had sexual fantasies about girls in my class at age seven; it seems obvious to me that there is a strong sexual element in the psyche at least by age seven, and the external pressures are pushing this earlier.

I repeat the point that conservatives like to think this is a concerted conspiracy, but far more likely is that the pressures of a liberal and open society, with advancing technology, are pushing these pressures upon children, and then imitation moulds reality.


I repeat the point that conservatives like to think this is a concerted conspiracy, but far more likely is that the pressures of a liberal and open society, with advancing technology, are pushing these

absolutely agree.

at some point, the imitation becomes a reality.

These processes overlap with each other. The adaptive reproduction of the observed orders intersects with the inner sexual feelings of the child.

From the age of 5, I felt an erotic attraction to boys and had erotic fantasies about nudity. This caused confusion as to why the surrounding adults imposed on me an interest in girls only. I imitated the behaviour, but a conflict was brewing inside.

The problem is not that someone “sexualizes” another, but that adults exaggerate and dramatize the influence of natural erotic manifestations.

teachers impose sexual ideas, again, on very young children

There is nothing wrong with telling children that there are hetero and LGBT people. They don’t show porn there. But there is no need to be ashamed of nudity either.

Zen Thinker

Yes, I agree with this.

When I said that teachers “impose sexual ideas” on “very young children” this is of course a key point of opposition among conservatives, who say teachers have no right or are even engaging in some form of abuse.

Meanwhile “LibsofTikTok”, a grouping on TikTok that seems to include teachers, frequently boast they are teaching young children all these things, and it is winding up conservatives even more.

Adults indeed “exaggerate and dramatise”, probably doing repressive harm to the child in the process, but this is probably some manifestation of a widely held cultural neurosis about the sexuality of children, as there was in the Victorian Age about sex in general.


I know from Internet a MAP in Belarus, a supporter of sexual freedom and of “adult industry”. He told me that in its path towards “westernisation”, Ukraine adopted harsh anti-MAP laws, in particular concerning erotic images of minors. He added that in Belarus, even something like liking or sharing on a social media a post showing an artistic child nude, can be interpreted as dissemination of child pornography. He is also completely indifferent to the current war, as both sides are in his view reactionary bigots.
As seen from other comments here, the defence of “democratic Ukraine” does not mobilise MAPs.


If do not promote sex positive, then in this sexual counterrevolution, the leftis will go as far as banning Playboy and Hustler.


Teens are NOT children! and there is nothing wrong with the natural human form God created !! videos of rape are obviously wrong !!


I’ve been following the Ukraine situation fairly closely and, IMHO, it forms a close analogy to how pedophiles are treated by the “liberal” “elite”, for whom the principles of free speech and democracy are null and void, and hence by the instruments under their control, e.g. Big Tech and MSM.

It saddens me the discussion is shut down. Those interested in learning more about the conflict could head over to Steve Diamond’s blog. In particular, see the contributor feinmann’s posts:


Mr scwarzeneger is very, very anti map. and for that reason he is an evil man to me. look at his policies on sex crimes while in office.


Important note on a technical matter: Tom, out of respect for the moratorium you called on the discussion of the war, I attempted to cut my first response made to you in the sub-thread and paste it up on GC (as I did with the second), only to find out that another poster was correct when he said the other day that your blog is now disallowing the editing of posts after several minutes have passed. This didn’t seem to be the case last month, as I recall. Just to let you know that this technical situation is afoot.


This is really not a comment on the current blog, but an idea that would apply to the whole of the TOC blog. An idea that to my knowledge has not yet been discussed here on Heretictoc, but that we rather should, now that there still is time to do so….Sorry, if this all sounds a bit too vague or sensationalist. So, what is “my idea” about?

Well, in my view this blog looks like a small but valuable community for discussing ideas having to do with paedophilia or Kindness (choose your pick). We have Tom’s blogs, guest blogs, comments, etc. Now, what will happen to this “oasis” of harrassment-free speech if Tom (who is in his seventies) is by some accident of nature or life stopped in his tracks. What will happen to this blog, this meeting place?

This blog is your blog, Tom, you are its creator and moderator. I think you should think how you should hand over this legacy to us once you are no longer able to maintain and protect it. Appoint an heir to your work. Have someone assume your role as chief-blogger, moderator. Mabye have a general vote among your current contributors and readers.

I wonder if that chief-to-be could hide his real life identity, as there will also have to be payments to be made for the site itself. And how could people contribute financially without necessarily having to forgo their anonymity. Sending cash money by mail might be a good idea?

Ed Chambers

Hopefully, Tom will carry for many years to come. When the time comes, who knows what will happen, or who will fill the void. They are big shoes to fill, arguably unfillable. As for funding, anonymous Crypto is the way forward if anonymity is to be preserved.


Hi, Tom. First off, my condolences for the loss of your friend, Bill 🙁 Secondly, not to start an off-topic thread on the increasingly hyperbolic matter of the Ukraine situation, but I did want to respond to this:

Putin could be overthrown and face a war crimes tribunal, perhaps sooner than we think. Even if he stays in power, the invasion of Ukraine has given Europe a powerful reminder that freedom is precious and that democracy critically depends on freedom of opinion and its expression.

Alas, if Putin is overthrown, his successor will be much like him, because the world order in which he operates will not have changed, and this will especially be the truth if the situation with Ukraine being a shill state for the USA with a puppet billionaire president put into office by a USA-led coup that is threatening Russia by implying it may bring Ukraine into NATO remains intact. Russia is indeed censoring news within its borders, but that is something we expect from Old Red. Let us also keep in mind, though, that Zelensky has banned eleven different political parts in the Ukraine government at this writing. He cares as much about democracy as a deep see angler cares about the sky.

The USA corporate controlled media is likewise banning all voices from all Russian commentators, which is no surprise considering some of their most lucrative sponsors are war profiteering companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Further, Mastercard and Visa announced they are cutting off all Russian people from using its services to send and receive funds digitally. Most interestingly, those harpies on The View, led by Whoopi Goldberg, have demanded that popular Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson be investigated and/or arrested for speaking out about the USA’s clear monetary interest in provoking Russia and threatening to expand NATO to the former’s borders.

I agree with you that democracy critically depends on freedom of opinion and expression, but it needs to be said that this may be especially true for countries that pay lip service to being based on democratic values while actually heavily supporting censorship and financial penalties to anyone who speaks against USA policies. We have never expected that from Russia. But we should expect it from the USA itself, and from any country it supports as the “good guys” deserving of billions of dollars of military aid that is not going to help the increasing numbers of poor and homeless in the USA. And the latter are going to increase faster than ever thanks to the prices of gas and food skyrocketing due to the situation with Russia being squeezed economically by USA sanctions…and the numerous ordinary people there who are going to be hurt by these sanctions far more than Putin and his cohorts will.


Thank you for the article, Tom. Me being what I am politically, my loyalty is to the average worker wherever they may live in the world–USA, Ukraine, and Russia et al. More specifically, I support peace for Ukraine, but I do not support Zelensky himself, as he is a billionaire autocrat who went along with the USA’s plans that resulted in Russia being provoked into an attack. What Zelensky needs to do to deserve full support IMO is to declare neutrality with NATO and not bring their weapons to Russia’s doorstep, get rid of those Neo-Nazis that make up part of his militia, and stop turning his people into cannon fodder for American business interests. That will be the quickest way to get Putin to calm his stupid ass down and go into diplomat mode. The USA wants a new war to replace the one in Afghanistan so NATO nations have to keep buying more weapons and to get Russian forces stuck in a “quagmire” situation in Ukraine as well as Syria. The only innocents in this war are the average people in each nation involved.


Autocrat? It is only a couple of years since he was elected to office, beating the incumbent, Petro Poroshenko, by a large majority.

He has already banned 11 rival political parties and his “election” was a sham, the result of a USA-backed coup, something the USA is infamous for doing across the globe. He also has a group of actual Neo-Nazis, the Azov Battalion, as a major part of his militia–this despite the fact that he is Jewish. If you trust the classical Left commentator Jimmy Dore, who is quite popular with classical Leftists (but not with the mainstream liberals!) and with good reason IMO, check out this video analysis of Zelensky’s banning of dissent:

As Dore noted: “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is widely depicted in the west as a brave, freedom-loving leader, notably contrasted with the authoritarian, propaganda-spewing lunatic Vladimir Putin. But Zelensky’s democratic bona fides took a hit over the weekend when he announced the banning – temporarily, at least – of 11 rival political parties deemed too closely aligned with Russia. Oh, and he also consolidated all public television networks into one in order to make sure the Ukrainian people are receiving a unified message about the ongoing war.”

This one discusses his utilization of Neo-Nazis as part of his militia:

And the U.S. government’s utilization of TikTok influences to spread war propaganda:

Finally, in this video Dore traces the “bloody fingerprints” of the USA all over the Ukraine, and the former’s complicity in ousting the previous democratically elected president. Zelensky is about as democratic as Russia or, yes, the USA! All three of them are doing the same thing right now in terms of censorship. If the USA felt that Zelensky was unequivocally a hero and champion of democracy that they are defending for entirely altruistic reasons, why are USA corporations banning all Russian podcasts? And as Dore frequently notes, why didn’t the world react with such ire when the USA did the same thing to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria over the past two decades that Russia just did to Ukraine? And if the USA only backs heroic democrats, why is its government such close friends with Saudi Arabia and giving them military aid to wreak havoc on Yemen? This double-standard of the West needs to be taken into account.

As for billionaire, that sounds like fake news to me. He was a very successful TV comedian, but a source that specialises in assessing the wealth of celebrities puts his net worth at £1.5mn, not £1bn or more. The lower figure seems much more realistic to me:

Zelenzky has likely gotten much more wealthy since then, as no one who is not wealthy ever becomes the “leader” (read: ruler) of any nation. I’m not sure how exaggerated the “billionaire” appellation may be exaggerated or expression of hyperbole, but he is certainly wealthy these days, and becoming more so since throwing in with the USA.

Have a watch of this series, if you can. It’s called Servant of the People and it is excellent. He is certainly a brilliant comic actor, whatever his merits as president!

I shall, and thank you for recommendation! I can definitely find his work as a comic to be brilliant and entertaining. Just like I love the comedic and thespian work of Whoopi Goldberg, but loathe her autocratic politics, including her recent rant on The View that Democratic female military officer Tulsi Gabbard and commentator Tucker Carlson should be investigated and/or arrested for speaking out against the war:

This is a good example of how much actual respect for democracy that popular voices in the USA have.

Stephen James

I won’t return to the Ukraine issue, as you’ve said that you want to close that discussion, but I will make a quick comment about Jimmy Dore. I’ve watched him for some time. I don’t suppose he gets everything right, but I think that he often does. He has a long-standing association with Aaron Maté, an award-winning journalist, who often provides well-evidenced content questioning mainstream views. I guess you have to look carefully at Dore’s sources on any given issue, rather than just listening to what Dore says and accepting it uncritically. I’ve no doubt you would agree with that.

Dore does regularly use the word ‘pedophile’ as a term of abuse, but that is all too common on both Left and Right and does not impugn his general reliability.

Incidentally, I wish Wikipedia would stop using the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’. Frankly, it does not have rigorous criteria for the use of this term and tends to apply it to anything which questions ‘received’ views.


However that may be, a sufficient reason for not being on Zelensky’s side is the fact that the West’s support to him and the glorification of his person (it was even proposed to nominate him – contrary to the rules – for the Nobel Peace Prize) are selective. In fact, when the US illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, nobody spoke about sanctioning the US, hiding American television channels, removing the US from the SWIFT system, banning American athletes from participating in sport events and so on. And nobody spoke about providing Saddam and his country with weapons, let alone nominating him for the Nobel Prize…


I’ll keep this succinct [SNIPPED]

[MODERATOR: No, I will do that job for you, Dissy. Your “succinct” post was nearly 800 words, coming after you had been told the thread had ended, and most of the content had already been expressed in a more genuinely succinct way by Stephen James. Charitably, I will just add that Stephen’s points were good ones, and your amplification of them was also pretty good.]


Fair enough, but please note that, as I said before, I made this response post before I had read your comment down below that requested the closing of this thread. But worry not, it’s up on GC! (I can hear you applauding from across the Atlantic lol!). And thank you for the compliment.


Re: Zelensky’s net worth, to which Griffith quoted the same sources you did over on GC, I think these points mentioned by Hadjuk in response are important to consider:

“Leaving aside monarchies as Britain, Saudi Arabia, and arguably Best Korea, where wealth comes from governing: in any country it is impossible to become a ruler if you are not rich. Maybe not born rich but middle class if you get a good party, which are themselves rich before you, to nominate you (Macron in France, arguably Obama in the USA). But poor people don’t become rulers. Exceptions are rare and generally have mitigating factors: the first Kim in Best Korea (peasant) had foreign support; Morales in Bolivia (peasant) and Lula in Brazil (blue collar factory worker) spent many years organizing widespread social movements; Maduro in Venezuela (public transportation bus driver) free rode from Chavismo’s rule. I don’t know the exact background of Zelensky or how much or how little he is related to Ukrainian corruption, which would increase his access to wealth even if he didn’t have lots of personal wealth, but that he was a TV star before politics already tells me that he, even if he started poor, had already got reasonable access to money and fame.

“Manny Pacquiao faced abject poverty as a kid. Now he is in politics. Some think he has a good shot at eventually being President. All of this happened not directly from his poverty but after becoming very rich and famous through his boxing.”


So noted, and please note that I made my above comment today before reading this. My response is therefore on GC.

Stephen James

I think you make a good case for Zelensky not being a billionaire autocrat and indeed he may be quite a decent man. However, I agree with Dissident that he should end the Ukrainian resistance and agree to Russia’s demands, which don’t seem in themselves unreasonable (however much one might deplore Putin’s invasion). Anything else needlessly prolongs the suffering of the Ukrainian people as well as increasing the risk of nuclear war. Avoiding the latter must be the highest priority of all.


Stephen, this thread is closed at Tom’s request, so you can find my response to this on GC.

Zen Thinker

Carlson is the real deal though it should be noted he has a virulent hatred of the MAP agenda, as does Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire and a host of conservative commentators.

They’re currently busy pushing back against the Trans culture wars with perhaps the logic that MAP issues will be the next plank to fall. In fact there has been widespread coverage that Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court nominee, has been soft on indecent image offenders. Ted Cruz, the noxious senator, laid into her on this point.

But you’re right, Dissident, that we should listen to and be critical of both Right and Left. I’m still willing to be persuaded by any key conservative that the MAP agenda dooms the fabric of society, but none of them have coherently set out a rational platform, beside baiting and feeding their primal, reactionary, ingrained audiences.


Carlson is the real deal though it should be noted he has a virulent hatred of the MAP agenda, as does Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire and a host of conservative commentators.

I know, and that saddens me. But the thing is, it’s very, very difficult to find any commentator, even those outside the direct mainstream, whether conservative or genuinely progressive, who are even moderately objective about the MAP situation, who bothers to read and consider the actual research, or getting to know us as people, or who do not openly call for the most draconian measures against anything to do with us no matter how highly they otherwise tend to regard freedom of speech. It is simply not in their best interests to be anything other than virulently hateful and willfully ignorant about us. Regardless of what they actually may believe, they have to at least pretend that they feel nothing but hatred for us. Hence, we have no choice but to tolerate this facet of pretty much every contemporary voice out there that we respect.

They’re currently busy pushing back against the Trans culture wars with perhaps the logic that MAP issues will be the next plank to fall. In fact there has been widespread coverage that Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court nominee, has been soft on indecent image offenders. Ted Cruz, the noxious senator, laid into her on this point.

To be clear, they are against the idea of trans men to women expecting to ignore the objective reality of biology and literally being treated as women when it comes to participating in sports or other activities in which many of them will have natural physical advantages over most women. And I agree with that. I have no problem with them taking on the identity of a woman and being treated as one in a social context, but that does not overrule biology.

I fully agree with your last paragraph. We have no choice but tolerate hatred of us even on the fringes of the mainstream, because that is just how the political climate is right now.

Zen Thinker

I think the trans cultural and sociological debate is more important for its symbolic status than the actual issues at hand: trans people are a very small minority after all. Now arguably it can be said to affect all women, especially in competitive sport, changing rooms, etc. But really conservatives are uncomfortable with any concessions to radical social change, because behind one contested issue is the next emerging issue in embryonic form, and for conservatives it is a constant losing battle trying to hold their ground, and maybe occasionally snatching back a bit of territory.

We must suppose that minor attraction is one of these issues lurking in the background or in the queue as it were, to be dealt with eventually in open combat. Right now though the far left does not champion minor attraction, of course, it has a universal deep unpopularity. However we must also suppose that every emergent civil rights issue had a period like this where it endured universal disdain.

It is for MAPs to figure out what is the key trigger to get the ball rolling, and for conservatives to push back and prevent this at all costs. As I said, conservatives throughout history fight a losing battle, but they can put enough of a spanner in the works to delay things for generations.

I think trans is key to the MAP question because trans is the current battlefield and in the pecking order trans is simply a less radical issue than minor attraction. This can be puzzling to appreciate because many MAPs do not hail from a particularly radical or leftist background; they are ideologically committed through the conviction that a better future is possible for themselves and for all humanity.

I have a great respect for conservatives like Tucker Carlson and many MAPs can be conservatively critical of the trans movement. What MAPs have to understand though is that this trans debate has to play out and be won by the left before “more radical” issues can be considered. And conservatives will hypervigilantly man the barricades, as they always do.

And what is the particular fear of a more meaningful societal role for children, outside the nuclear family bubble, that so animates those on the Right? I think the Right is deeply inhibited and neurotic about sexual issues and has a kind of primeval fear of the “sexual child” as a toxic and subversive cipher to their social values. It strikes them so viscerally that we all have this collective social shame, neurosis and taboo surrounding children and their capacity as sexual beings, or even as people in their own right with a degree of independent thinking and autonomy. This shame, neurosis and taboo feeds the hatred and the angry reactions – it is a reaction of fear and subconscious guilt.

But while the trans movement hogs the battlefield, the MAP movement plays this secondary small time role – and many average citizens still cannot bring themselves to take minor attraction at all seriously as a social or political cause.

warbling j turpitude

Regarding these the ranks of our so-called ‘conservatives’, i think an interesting anomaly of sorts may be found in one Steve Sailer, who writes always very entertainingly and often insightfully at Taki’s and at Unz Review. I thought this one was a particularly stimulating/challenging take on transmania
Curiously enough, the link to it on Twitter incurred a spurt of not only de rigueur accusations of “misogyny”, but also the claim that SS is an “open paedophile”, to which no response of any kind came back. I have also often made subtly ‘MAP-oriented’ comments on his Tweets and never run into trouble


I really hope the appeals result in something positive for them all.

Ed Chambers

Marthijn and Nelson knew what they were getting into. They were told by a number of people what would happen. Alternatives were offered as a way to build something for the Child Lover Community, but they chose to die on that hill.

Nelson was given funds to build upon the PNVD, but he used them to travel to Mexico. In the process he gave away any level of security he had in the Netherlands, his home, his belongings, yet has the cheek to blame his losses on the actions of others.

I have sympathy for Norbert, but Marthijn and Nelson seemed to have lost any common sense they may have possessed in the past.

Nevertheless, I hope all of them will be ok.


What alternatives were Marthijn and Nelson offered as a way to build something for the Child Lover Community?

Ed Chambers

There was a mailing list which was taken down at the end of 2019. It was active for several months. It was here where these ideas were hatched, ie to reform Martijn etc.

The main problem with setting up organisations such as PIE and Martijn etc is the potential for charges of sedition, and in the case of PIE, Conspiracy to Corrupt Public Morals, lol.

The idea was to have an international organisation, with a website with a server somewhere in Central America. This avoids such pitfalls, and then appeals to an international audience rather than national. We are few in number anyway.

National Organisations will never get much past the planning stage. It was a dumb idea to retry something that had already failed miserably.

Martijn had specifically said he would do this, regardless of warnings / consequences. It was ignorant, misguided folly.

Last edited 2 years ago by Ed Chambers

Martijn had specifically said he would do this, regardless of warnings / consequences. It was ignorant, misguided folly.

Do you mean Marthijn? As far as I can see, he has always stated that he did what he did as a private person, not as an organization. Even his site says: “Welcome to my personal website”.

Ed Chambers

Sorry, I tried to correct my spelling but I think we only get 5 – 10 mins (?). Yes, Marthijn.

Ed Chambers

Why should it puzzle you Tom? It is as it is. Not everyone has time to pore over their input, spell checking, copying and pasting it. Without wishing to replicate the scenario in order to test the precise time period allowed for editing, it’s approximately 5 – 10 mins.

If you ever do get the chance for your own radio show, go for it, regardless of how unlikely it is. I’d be happy to see you do well, and wouldn’t jump on you for a small error.

Last edited 2 years ago by Ed Chambers
Ed Chambers

I was simply saying how it is Tom. You don’t have to like it. I can’t edit any post after this time period. If you’re not aware of these minor techs on your own site, perhaps you should indeed ask your tech guys. In future, perhaps try that first before throwing your toys out the pram.

Ed Chambers

Hardly screaming blue murder Tom. Simply pointing out my experience with my posting on your site. That is my experience, and certainly not imaginery, or something any reasonable person should discredit mindlessly. Regardless of whether or not others experience the same issue, it is something I’ve experienced.

As for being tone deaf to the sound of my own manner, pots and kettles.

Perhaps if you carefully considered the possibility others my have a genuine issue with your site before ruling it out, it might lead to a more constructive exchange in what is a very trivial issue.

Why make a mountain out of a molehill?


Yes I have as well, but the same happens on many blogs! I don’t know why it is, but it seems to be the case!

Children First/(they are the future of everything)

I was able to edit my very first comment within a limited time frame specifically while using my phone and then all other comments that followed were not possible to edit for some reason.


Hi, Ed. It’s not my intention to defend Nelson’s decision to use those funds to flee to Mexico, but I think he just panicked. And when people panic, they tend to make poor decisions.

As for Marthijn, I can believe that he has let his anger get the better of him. I think he is a grizzled activist who has had enough is now acting out by kicking the oppressor in the leg rather than trying to steer clear and find a way around it.

Ed Chambers

Fair comment. I would also argue that massaging their own egos has been more important to Nelson and Marthijn (note the correct spelling), than carrying out activism which has any real prospects for success.


Nelson has responded to the criticisms of himself and other currently persecuted Dutch activists on the Free Speech Tube:

Stephen James

It would be hard for outsiders to verify the facts of his response, but if things happened as he said they did, then, yes, he has every right to feel aggrieved.

Zen Thinker

Haha, love the anecdote about Monty.

Western democracies place a greet overweening pride in their “foundational” principles of “freedom” and “liberty”. Turns out this liberty is actually very selective, and when it doesn’t suit for whatever reason governments and legislatures (you can hardly blame the judiciary) can behave in extremely illiberal and downright oppressive ways, especially against unfavoured minorities. Of course, the favoured minorities au jour are showered with praise – this is part of the alarming and shameful hypocrisy of our system. People have to adapt themselves to these limits on freedom of expression and have a self-censoring approach to life. It’s unpleasant but it’s part of the nasty side of our cherished democracies.


Hi Zen. I think you come on too strong. You use the terms and phrases “very selective”, “for whatever reason”, “extremely illiberal…oppressive”. Like we (as the people living in these democracies) are at the random hands of state authorities. I think freedom and liberty are never absolute. As we are bound to live together – and we are having different interests – what we can do, and are allowed to want and express, will necessarily be a negotiation of the participants.
From my long ago studies on philosophy I can remember an ethical definition of freedom like “the most freedom for every individual as long as it doesn’t interfere with the well-being and/or freedom of others”. I could not find the original idea again on internet, but it was something like this, and it is a fine rule of practice to work with.
This is why like in the Netherlands they try to curtail the freedom of expression of (past) organisations like Martijn who advocated for the right on adult/child relationships. When the state tried to curtail Martijn they did so in the believe that these relationships are harmful, or at least have the potential for being harmful. See, so the extent of freedom is regulated in accordance to perceived damage to the well-being of others (the children and their parents).
Now the state, or most of the experts they work with, may be plain wrong in their thinking about the harmfulness of adult-child relationships (personally I do think the taboo governing the topic makes clear rational debate impossible) but it is this presumed harmfulness that sets the boundary to the freedom of acting and expression. It is not so much randomness as in “for whatever reason”.
As for the claim that Martijn is solely being prosecuted for their expressed opinions, I doubt that too. It seems to be the last stance of defense of paedophiles: talks, speech, ideas, dreams, fantasies don’t hurt, they are just “words”, that is: they are really nothing. But that is not true really. Of course there is a path going from the realm of the mind to the realm of reality. I delved in what I could gather about Martijn and its fate from the newspaper articles I found. It seems that what caused the secondary prosecution of individual former members of Martijn was what transpired in the mailing list set up after the ban of Martijn by the Supreme Court. RTL (a news medium) having infiltrated the mailing list broke the news that the members exchanged one of the “paedo”-guides that go around on the internet. A guide how and where to get access to children, have sex with them, and how to evade detection. Yeah, well, I have no idea what the purpose of the exchange might have been. It might have been that the members had a theoretical discussion on the topic of these kind of guides, but I am led to doubt.
And for non-citizens of the Netherlands (although it did receive international attention and have international ramifications) don’t forget we had a horrific example of pedosexuality with Robert M in Amsterdam.

Zen Thinker

Francis, to be clear, I don’t condone anything in breach of the law as stated. A “paedophile manual” is clearly an egregious breach of the law as much as the “Anarchist’s Cookbook” would be in a different context.

It’s interesting when you say: “there is a path going from the realm of the mind to the realm of reality”. This is really a philosophical assertion, and maybe a moral assertion too. You seem to imply we should all weigh our words carefully and consider their consequences, and this is true, but there is no basis in law for curtailing philosophical, abstract or highly conceptual discussion. Obviously “bomb!” in a theatre is illegal, but there are serious dangers in outlawing the free exchange of ideas, and no democracy should succumb to this.

You say “talks, speech, ideas, dreams, fantasies” are considered “just words” and that this is a false assertion. But the legal protections of language and argument are very important, even fundamental, and how for example do you think anti-slavers succeeded in overturning the institution of slavery? Through the pen, which is mightier than the sword.

It is entirely plausible to consider that MAPs and their beliefs will ultimately be accepted under the broad umbrella of society, and only through the free and frank exchange of ideas is progress possible. Obviously a “paedophile manual” is an absurd caricature of this – an obviously illegal and egregious breach of current societal standards, and de facto criminal. The exchange of ideas however is crucial for advancing society and ultimately improving the lives of everyone.


hi Zen, thanks for your answer. I think we are really very much in accordance with one another on this. I too believe in free exchange of ideas while you also would set limits to free expression (like the paedo-guides and the ‘bomb’-in-the-theatre yell). What matters here is probably the context of the speech and the intentions of the speakers.

warbling j turpitude

It’s interesting if not unprecedented that the Wikipedia account of the Amsterdam case you cite manages to avoid all mention of the term “paedophile”. It is headed “sex crimes case” and throughout the text depends only on the terms “abuse” and “molestation” etc. I’m wondering if this was the special effort of whoever wrote it, or is a response to some guideline, even? Of course, there are no details given of what actually did or did not take place with the chidren, The world as per usual gets to IMAGINE.

Oh, consulting that Wiki just now again, i see but one use of “paedophile” To wit:
“According to evaluations of the Pieter Baan Centre, a forensic psychiatric observation clinic, Miķelsons is a hypersexual pedophile with a personality disorder.” So, more typical obfuscations fron the psychiatry industry. It seems to me that a so-called “hypersexual” (read raving horndog) who managed to get regular work in *daycare* for so very long must in fact have been a pretty ‘well-ordered/organized’ sort of chap! WTF is a “personality disorder” anyway ? Why does the psych industry use the same language as the Catholic church?

Last edited 2 years ago by warbling j turpitude

[MODERATOR: POST DELETED. At 1,150 words, deletion of this post would have been justified on length grounds alone but my main reason is that most of it was simply a repetition of what the writer said in a previous post, plus some lengthy clarifications that were not needed as earlier contributions had already been clear enough. One earlier post (published here, not deleted) included what I consider to be baseless smears against named individuals. I see no reason to repeat those smears, especially as they were extended to name the late Peter Righton as a bad character whom I ought not to have defended publicly. This is utter nonsense. Peter had been a friend of mine. I knew him well. We worked together for years. He was a good man whose reputation was viciously shredded in the media following allegations that were later revealed as the work of an outright fantasist. See my blog, here: ]

warbling j turpitude

This is an excellent reply to Francis, Tom. and i fervently hope he replies …just needed to say as much! I read also that ‘Robert M’ was consistently defiant/unrepentant throughout the whole business, even throwing his glass of water at the judge at one point! One can only *pray* that he will not be subjected to hideous savagery wherever they end up caging him… I guess the suppression of all detail regarding what is supposed to have occurred is in quite remarkable contrast to America, where everything would have been fed daily to the insatiably prurient mill that is America’s undiminished Culture of Child Molestation…


I replied Turpitude, but as you can see my comment did not get published due to length and repeated smears. I think there was more to it, but alas I will have to let it go. While we can all whine about suppression of freedom of speech, a moderated blog can be that much worse. Just a couple of notes: @Turpitude (again) you take Robert M to be some kind of a hero? “Consistently defiant”, “even throwing water at the judge”. Wow! Assaulting infants younger than 2 years of age??? @Tom, yeah your friend Peter Righton, I wish I had a friend like you, Tom, really true, you are extremely loyal. But you mean to say that the BBC documentaries about him on Youtube are also nothing but smear?


We were talking about the State cracking down on free expression of ideas, right? But even then the State or the laws allow you a rebuttal via the judicial appeal system. In the case of moderated blogs like this one, that do function as kind of a meeting space of like-minded people or at least people with the same kind of interests, my input was simply discarded, at the sole discretion of the moderator. Yes, it is your blog, and you have the right to moderate its entries. But that still doesn’t mean freedom of ideas. Yes, I can move on to somewhere else, quite right. So I was instructed by my father when confronted with my leftist ideas, why I would not move to Russia? And why might I add shouldn’t we dislodge from the places where we are being prosecuted and go and live in the Kingdom of Kinds.


Yeah, that is funny, no problem. I feel the stress too of discussions especially when they seem to get stuck on a particular issue. And for me that issue is that you always seem to defend the paedophiles got in the spotlight of the media. No matter it seems what their story is.


Ok, I hear you. But then you also forget something: what you don’t report about, what doesn’t make it into your blog, I don’t hear about. I don’t hear about cases you deem horrible. The only cases you reported about in your blog (that I know of thus far, and I have regressed now to the beginning of 2015) are cases you have defended. So, I got the impression (but you say I am wrong now) that you would take on every case to defend what you have called “the brotherhood”. Yes, the idea of a “brotherhood (of paedophiles)” plus your initial defense of Robert M gave me the idea you would defend every paedophile. But you will not. Ok, that is fine, that is what I wanted to hear, I guess. To see that your blogging (about individual cases) is in accordance with your (high) moral standard as I perceived it to be in your work Paedophilia: The Radical Case.

warbling j turpitude

I have no way of satisfactorily verifying for myself from the extemely sketchy reports what this person might really have done or not done. You on the other hand would seem content to monsterize him at the slightest whiff of tabloid fervour? My words there are simply those of one who is moved by almost any indication of prevailing *spirit* in the face of what are, let’s not pretend, dehumanizing procedures. If i’m mistaken and you have access to incontrovertible evidence that this man was in the business of straight out *assaulting* small beings in his care, and not shall we say, ‘experimenting’ with them – kids love to experiment, right? – then please submit the material you have?


hi Turpitude
“extremely sketchy reports”, h’m, yes maybe you are right, most newspapers didn’t give too much detail on the Robert M case. We did hear about infants, and rape, and lube, but much more than that we didn’t get. But that I am moved by the “slightest whiff of tabloid fervour”? Hardly. I got my information from the NRC mostly, one of the most “serious-minded” newspapers in the Netherlands.
But I did the digging and here are my results:
The NRC in its March 12, 2012 issue: There were police reports on 141 children, Robert M confessed to 87 cases, and was indicted for 67 (as some parents didn’t want their kid’s case handled).

The Court sentenced him in May 2012 to 18 years prison and commitment (to forced psychiatric treatment) thereafter
The Court of appeal sentenced him in April 2013 to 19 years and commitment
A sentence which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014

Now as we still don’t know what he really did, I downloaded the statement of the Court of appeal, which is about 66 pages of details. I give you some of the high-level overview translated from Dutch:
Robert M “abused” over a period of 4 years many, very young children varying in age between 3 weeks and 4 years. He chose explicitly children who could not talk. When kids started to be able to talk he ended his relations with them to evade risk of detection.
He touched and stimulated the childrens’ genitals, smeared his sperm on bodies and faces and penetrated anus, vagina and mouth. Sometimes he used a child several times a day. Pain or fear of the child didn’t not deter him. Nor crying or screaming.

How the judges knew? Robert M photographed and video’d his doings (and shared with like-minded people).

The Court’s statement is filed under the name: ECLI_NL_GHAMS_2013_BZ8885

warbling j turpitude

Cannot let this pass without comment, Tom. This “statement of the court” – on whose testimony is it based? The kids he looked after? It has to be based on someone’s, right? Or is it all the guy’s confession? Regarding the former possibility, haven’t years of hideously protracted Satanic Panic type inquisitions in the US then the UK ensured our profound skepticism here? Regards the latter one, if the fellow is a true psychopath, are his confessions to be taken as gospel?

I am surprised that you accept this without question even when the actual source of the court’s “information” remains obscure. Are we just wildly *assuming* that the Netherlands police and court could never do the sort of thing that their American counterparts do?


thanks Tom, and great you let your other side (the non-paranoid one) for now at least win the balance of how to judge me. But if you can believe me, no, I am not put here to disrupt your blog, your life and your customer-base. On the contrary like I told you before I really appreciate what you have accomplished here.


I don’t think the idea that freedom cannot be absolute was disputed by FT, Francis. I think what FT and others here are denouncing is the extent to which these abridgements of freedom, including freedom of speech, are taken. Along with the democratic idea that what we are not allowed to do should be reasonably minimal and that we should err on the side of freedom if demonstrable harm cannot be proven.

I think state authorities should have an obligation to prove the above before making it the law of the land, and to read and objectively consider peer-reviewed scientific research in assessing this. The Dutch government did nothing of the such, and just as it’s not reasonable to expect freedom to be absolute, no truly just and reasonable law should be absolute either. I further think that willful suppression of such legit research material strongly suggests that the government is less concerned about protecting kids from harm than it is with simply preserving the status quo, including the sacrosanct conception of “innocence” that children have been conscripted into personifying.

Last edited 2 years ago by Dissident

I sympathize a long way with how you put your ideas here, Dissident. That is how things should be done in an ideal world. Yes, let laws be based on proven facts, and let rationality guide our institutions. And while we have not yet arrived at such an ideal world, we should strive towards that. But …. now comes the but (you must have been waiting for it, weren’t you) when even ‘modern’ paedophiles (or Kinds or whatever, like Tom as I have understood, but correct me if I am wrong) say it is better to abstain from real, physical contact as we cannot ignore the secondary harm inflicted on minors caused by society’s reaction to pedosexual relations, then why would you think the State can act much differently ignoring the public emotion at large? The idea of a State authority placed way above its subjects whom we can hold responsible for the way our country functions is too simple. I think you are right that given the strong anti-paedophilic trend the government is bound to follow suit and preserves the status quo.

Stephen James

>” …given the strong anti-paedophilic trend the government is bound to follow suit and preserves the status quo.”

That is true, in a sense. If the current Tory government were suddenly to undergo an extraordinary epiphany and introduce a bill to make consensual adult-child sex legal, while the attitudes of everyone else in society stayed the same, they would be acting irrationally, as the country would not tolerate such a move. It is also generally inadvisable for people to defy the existing laws. On the other hand, I do not feel inclined to condemn those who do so if their behaviour is otherwise decent and caring, given how unfair the laws (and the associated taboos) are.

Zen Thinker

True, things will not begin to change until society reaches the magic 10% threshold (studies have shown that when 10%+ of a population believe in something, change is effected). But no-one here “believes” in contact offences unless they happen to love being incarcerated for long periods of time. However creating the conditions that may bring about legal sexual contact between an adult and a minor is a different matter. Not for me personally, but it’s what many MAPs ultimately desire through recourse to legal change. And the funny thing is, that no matter how many further decades it takes, it is very likely to be the future direction of society.

warbling j turpitude

Hey Francis – shouldn’t you amend your ‘secondary harm’ there to primary harm? For how can there possibly be a ‘secondary harm’ without a primary one? So much would seem quite plain, n’est-ce pas?

The reaction of abhorrence that suddenly envelops and suffuses what, for the small person involved was a perfectly ‘innocent’ new experience – which is to say, one from which that child should have no anticipation of horrid consequences – is the *only* harm. To truly PLAY is to have no fear of consequences. To PLAY is to celebrate and totally inhabit the inconsequential..

Stephen James

Last night I watched one of the most enjoyable nature documentaries I’ve ever seen, about the Zambesi River. Its relevance to this site? Well, Tom seems happy to allow any type of interesting content involving kids and in this case there was footage of a young boy’s daily commute to school by canoe through crocodile-infested waters! But the whole documentary is very interesting:


“Introducing myself as someone with a criminal record for child sex offences probably wouldn’t go down too well.”

> That’s not really accurate though, or at least it’s misleading if we assume “child sex offences” means a “contact” offence [which I think a lot of people do], of which, to my knowledge, you’ve never been convicted of. Even in your case involving those two brothers, at least from what you wrote it wasn’t about “contact” as such.

I still resent that misleading Wikipedia line about you: “multiple convictions for sexual crimes against children.” It’s so misleading… I remember there’s very early blog posts where you talked about wanting to get something removed from the Wiki about you: was it that?

It is so incredible that this other guy brought you up by name. I have no clue why he’d think you were dead: you have an active website using your real name! XD

Did he say much about you before you said who you were? It’s always interesting to me, the idea of hearing what people would say about you. Glad you got to debate someone who’s not a pretentious journalist trying to catch you out in a “gotcha” moment. Did he make any particularly good point, or use any particularly effective rhetoric, that struck you?

I wonder if he’ll go read your submission to the independent inquiry… It would be nice if he ends up looking through your blog.

Sayaka Fermi

At least some modest edits are possible. The article on Mary Kay Letourneau referred to Vili Fualaau as the “victim” in the part about her conviction up to a couple months ago. I changed that to “child” and that stands.

George Geri

This is just a bad idea. Norbert apparently forgot he’s from a country which thought it acceptable to ban an association for their controversial opinions, not because they advocated illegal activities.

What honestly makes him think they won’t simply extend the ban to his party based on his controversial views? Obviously, they haven’t advocated breaking the law, but if it’s enough to ban an association for their positions, it’ll certainly be enough to ban a party.

And wasn’t Norbert charged with attempting to legalize adult-child sex? If he can be charged and convicted for advocating changing opinions in this case, why couldn’t the prosecution just extend the ban on the same premise?

None of this bodes well for Norbert. None whatsoever. At this point, the Netherlands has become outright dystopian: literal thought policing is the order of the day. My God, this is scary.

Last edited 2 years ago by George Geri

In Russia: Navalny did not get a fine, but an additional prison sentence: 2 + 9 years.


Freedom of speech and tolerance are not improving in the UK either, according to this:


this is the result of an excessive accumulation of political correctness, which manifested itself in the form of the emergence of social justice warriors and cancel culture. In combination with the influence of BigTech, this led to moral hysteria and, as a result, to the thirst for collective censorship


about Ovsyannikova’s demonstration. This may be part of hybrid russian propaganda.

There are a few questions.
1) The newsreader did not react to ovsyanikova’s appearance in any way.
2) The live broadcast on russian TV has a delay of several minutes. According to this, the broadcast operator would have time to switch the picture. Instead, we watch Ovsyannikova stand behind the newsreader and then step aside so that the poster is readable and only after that the picture is switched. Probably someone was pointing with a gesture that ovsyanikova was necessary to step aside to get the right frame, which is replicated in the media


I suppose it’s the rudiments of a future retreat and a change of course.


I can suggest a simpler explanation. Maybe she benefited from the support of her hierarchy in the TV, some TV news executives who are fed up of acting as mouthpieces for the Kremlin, and want to do their jobs as journalists.

Adrian van Mechelen

To the case of Marhijn Uittenbogaard: With “Children” the Dutch state is meaning every person under the age of 12. everyone under the age of 12. Persons from 12 and older are called “Youth”. This is since years the practice in the Netherlands.
On the official website from the Dutch State you can see that completely illegal is sexual contact with a person under the age of 12 and that from the age 12 and older sexual contact is illegal when the older partner has used force, violence or when there is the case from a dependency relation (for example a father or a teacher.
Source (in Dutch):

Fata Morgana

Trying to get my head round this (as a native Dutch-speaker). The Wetboek van Strafrecht (Criminal Code) is unequivocal. The other page is legit in that it’s on the government’s own website. My first thought was that there was perhaps some official distinction between ‘ontuchtige handelingen’ (lewd or indecent acts) and ‘seksueel contact’ (sexual contact, as you doubtless guessed). But I can’t see how lewd or indecent acts would not be construed as including sexual contact. If anything, the former is broader than the latter rather than vice versa. I get the impression that whoever wrote Adrian’s page didn’t really know the law.

Adrian van Mechelen

Hello Tom,
Unfortunately I don´t have the Dutch Criminal Code Book with comments, only the German because I live there. That is Thomas Fischer, Strafgesetzbuch mit Nebengesetzen mit Kommentar (67 Edition 2020, 2726 pages), AKA the very well known “Fischer comments”). I will look what the book from the Netherlands cost (200– Euro I believe). Also I will ask some Dutch colleagues who have studied law and are specialized in this theme.
Regarding the dutch website, I find it strange, because the one I have given is the official website of the Dutch government which is special for the normal dutch citizen and should be also a trusted source. This website is also much quoted in many dutch forums because people trust the information. When you have right, then is that meaning! that the dutch citizens are wrong informed!?


About the Dutch AOC (Age of Consent): it is not true that the AOC is simply 16 years of age and that all sexual behaviour towards youth between 12 and 16 is punishable by law per se. Sexual acts involving these youths are criminal (according to the law) when the courts deem them to be lewd or indecent (“ontuchtig” is the word in Art 245). When they transgress a socio-ethical norm, which is explained to be the ethical standpoint of the majority of the population. That is all a bit vague and open for discussion and interpretation but what the jurisprudence considers factors deciding if sexual acts transgress the norm are: 1) did the ‘victim’ consent or not to the sex, 2) is there a relatively small or a big age-gap between perpetrator and victim, 3) did the sexual act arise from a (proven) emotional/love relationship. These are just three factors, in reality there are more, but that goes with the territory of ethics…
This is just to say that not all sexual acts involving youths between 12 and 16 is forbidden by law. But it will depend how the case gets judged by the courts, and these courts tend to be conservative to say the least. Still, the sentences that are being handed out, tend to be often quite lenient, is my impression (for first offenders any way).
I am not a solicitor but I got my information from the webpages of a Dutch law firm (, and the sentence by the Dutch Supreme Court (de Hoge Raad) LJN BK4794.

As to what Tom considers to be the more fundamental topic of the blog, i.e. that “the trial was extremely unfair and demonstrated that the state has chosen to crack down on freedom of expression”, well, I don’t know Tom. Maybe you are right, and the trial was unfair. But all we hear is what the defendants (Marthijn, Norbert and Nelson) had to say about the prosecution (so the account itself of the trial is a bit lopsided) and quite frankly they don’t inspire much confidence anymore. It is ‘fascist this’ and ‘fascist that’, and who can watch Nelson on and feel that the defense of paedophilia is in good hands with him? That is not a fair and objective criticism of this trio either but my personal idea, that I cannot get rid off.

Ed Chambers

> who can watch Nelson on and feel that the defense of paedophilia is in good hands with him?

I can’t imagine there are many. I feel sorry for him, and had wanted to help him. Unfortunately he dug himself into quite a mess, and I wish him well at digging himself out of it.

Ed Chambers

I can’t argue with that. With that said, it ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it.

Last edited 2 years ago by Ed Chambers
Zen Thinker

In what sense is curtailment of free speech needed to preserve free speech? As in, if a Twitter mob batter and trample on an unpopular tweeter, this could cause the tweeter emotional distress from the abusive behaviour. Mobs often turn violent, and verbal violence can be difficult to deal with too. This is where “clever or wise” comes in. A person who is clever or wise is far less likely to form part of a backlash mob. He will use reason and argument, stand alone, and (hopefully) have a polite attitude. Therefore maybe some rules against abusive speech, for example, are needed, to further a congenial environment of debate and enlightened reason.

Stephen James

But while I trust you, Tom, to do this job fairly, so that you are not excluding ideas just because they are ‘dangerous’, I don’t trust Parag Agrawal of Twitter or Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook to do it with the same commitment to free inquiry on their sites.

Stephen James

I’m sorry, I’m not going to tolerate the use of ‘methinks’ under any circumstances. 🙂


I love the term “methinks” and use it often. I think “hither and thither” far cooler than “here and there” and much prefer “whither do thou wander?” to “where do you go?”.

Stephen James

I find ‘methinks’ a bit pretentious, but really that’s just my hang-up. Hence my ironically fascist tone!

Fata Morgana

Did Monty consider that the anti argument too is bound to be hijacked by people with an agenda, but that such hijacking (or the possibility thereof) neither corroborates nor refutes the anti position, just as the hijacking of the pro position (or the possibility thereof) neither corroborates nor refutes it?

Fata Morgana

Fair enough. Can’t argue against that! 😉

Children First/(they are the future of everything)

Hello there Tom! I found all three parts of this new article useful and I agree with the information, as usual. I stopped drinking, but cheers to you anyway! However… That gentle bird is a Pigeon – not a Seagull – taking advantage of a friendly photo opportunity in Bill’s consenting lap! I’m sure Bill is an attractive creature to seagulls as well, but would love to see a photo of that as proof!

Anyway, since I’m here (blame the pigeon), please reconsider answering the questions I sent to you (or helping me in other ways). Please Tom. Sure, the questions may need a little editing, I do understand that, but what I do not gather from you thus far is exactly how Not ethically putting children first in a deeper way than ever before, with new meaning and more gusto, as I 100% believe they need to be, since children are in my opinion the answer after years of conclusive rumination, therefore being the most important aspect to focus on within humanity, to stabilize the health of the planet and all it’s creatures -then what is, specifically? Yes, putting children first doesn’t only sound nice, it is so much more than that. Children are the future of everything. If Children are not the ‘answer’ (the single, most important focus of humanity in combination with ethical teachings and given far more rights, etc.), then, again, what is? I am begging to know what could actually be better than that. Something that is possible… something that I can focus on, beyond just ethics (realize in a continuous human cycle that ethics are more important to be taught to children than adults – adults taught later, etc.) I need to know so I can write a better book than planned. I’ll probably write it the way I have in mind in great detail anyway, but I am so willing to listen to you about what I should do, wise Owl. Please help me somehow. There is so much more I could write here to explain further, etc., of which may help to convince you, but I know when to stop (which is after the important p.s. note).

P.s. Paedophilia is just another preference! Nothing more!!

Last edited 2 years ago by Children First/(they are the future of everything)
Children First/(they are the future of everything)

Maybe after I say this statement that I originally wrote on paper just a few minutes ago I may receive some actual feedback… I won’t post more commentary for my own needs unless someone would like to talk with (not to) me. I hope you don’t mind me posting the following Tom, and thank you in advance if you do. I will seek out others to get feedback from elsewhere after this.

Something important: Considering that I would prefer the mere existence of children than no children at all (of humans at all) the idea of making sure humanity is sustainable and so are the environments they occupy, is far more important than simply advocating for the acceptability of lowering the age of consent and/or giving children more rights, Etc. The basis of nearly all cultures and societies need to change before laws and/or rights about children can change, so if you want such things to change we need to start looking at the importance of children more, and get that notion to flourish within human consciousness first (this is me being realistic, dealing with what’s happening now). Changing the laws or even abolishing the laws will come later once we realize what we are actually doing now that is so wrong. We as humans keep turning our heads further and further away from nature and the natural ways of being on the planet which are sustainable. We are becoming unnatural and unsustainable and we are not focusing on the roots of the problems, only parts/limbs of the problems. The children of today will be the adults of the future, and being adults of the future means more than ever that they will dictate how the world will operate on every level, resources and all. What I really want to know at this time is exactly how we should have been with children since long ago, and what we can actually do now to prevent civilization from total collapse, or even extinction. I currently have little faith we can do anything now as we’ve gone too far off course, but I believe if we had raised our children better since long ago, in a much deeper way than ever, we wouldn’t be destroying ourselves now as I see happening. I am not asking to do something that would be unrealistic now, but what would have been possible in the past if humans had simply focused on the children more, therefore making a permanent change in culture and society to help all of us head in a better direction that we should have went it, but for some reason, did not. This is why we should have, and still need to, put children first. There are many details that go into the who, what, where, when, how and why of children that is not presently written here, but to write a book or lengthy document would include such details, and that is my plan as I want to help the world in any way possible, and doing so might help to start something new, as I haven’t seen done before. This type of work is very challenging, but my thoughts about children have consumed me the last few years, and I can’t find anything more important than children and/or in combination with children. This is my conclusion, and what I believe to be the answer culture and society has been looking for for a long time. Is putting children first (in a very deep way) the answer? What was and what is the most important singular thing to focus on? Have I discovered the one thing we as humans simply need to focus on more than anything else on the planet, to save the planet?

This idea has blown my own mind for awhile. I know it seems unbelievable, but I’m pretty sure this is true.

Children First/(they are the future of everything)

Thank you very much for that! Finally getting the feedback that I’ve needed since I first emailed you!

I do not find myself disappointed or in disagreement with your words – words coming from a much more experienced person than I – far more experienced than anyone I know who is actually willing to think and talk about the importance of children on every level, not just about lowering the AOC and giving children more rights (because of how much joyful fun both you and I know could exist for everyone if children were given such freedom to consent as they do deserve, and therefore of great interest to focus on from an adult perspective). Now do you see why me asking you helps me so? You’ve seen all sorts of things over decades… seen things change, and even disappear from culture and/or society. I’m only 35, and I want to stay on the right side of things. I rely on those much older than me when everyone who is younger fails to help. Though I must say Tom, you are special to me, I want you to know that, and I don’t take you for granted. As a child I’ve always looked up to adults more than people my own age for all the right reasons. Thanks for being around. I appreciate it.

I think ‘putting children first’ does sound cliche in a way, but I don’t know a better way to say it. Oh well, I can’t get hung up on this issue, either people listen or they don’t. I can’t please everyone. All I see is that children are humans who will control everything in the future. The idea is almost paradoxical in terms of who comes first. It’s actually the adults as of right now who need to learn what is right, then the children, but once the adults learn and a cycle begins where adults grow up knowing how to raise children and taking care of the planet to a level of sustainability, then putting children first makes sense. That’s the way it needed to be, that is my hypothesis – my best theory. Raising creatures with a different kind of consciousness than other animals is important… Since humans are creatures who can build bombs and drop them by pressing buttons all too easily. If you raise people right, especially enough of them, you get a kinder, more empathic culture and society. Cultures and societies are what they were raised to be, and some are better than others. In begins with the children, it ends with them becoming adults and either loving each other or wanting to destroy each other. Putting children first is still a good idea, but lowering the AOC isn’t as important yet.. but if we do things right, maybe we’ll get there… And we as humans are running out of time and space to do this too quickly.

Thanks for all you do Tom… Keep up the good work wherever it needs to be done, and hopefully in the right order.

Children First/(they are the future of everything)

empathic* (not emphatic).

[Moderator: now corrected]

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
Scroll to Top