Not one but two princes now metaphorically await their fate in the Tower of London after the sensational arrests of the Andrew formerly known as Prince, and Peter Mandelson, so recently Ambassador to the United States and famously dubbed the Prince of Darkness long before the current scandals.
They represent the most elite UK casualties so far in a crisis that could yet see off the current prime minister and threaten the monarchy itself. The precipitating factor has been the whiff of financial, rather than sexual, misdeeds – very serious allegations, actually, that could be said, if true, to have treasonably betrayed state secrets, costing us all money that should have gone towards the nation’s health, education, etc. If so, off with their heads!
But important as these investigations may be, they are of course just an incidental consequence of the all-consuming Epstein saga, which, in its sexual dimension, looks so ridiculously overblown and beyond rational debate that we may feel all we can do is dismiss it with a fatalist shrug. That is the temptation given that Jeffrey Epstein himself, the allegedly monstrous “convicted paedophile”, was never known to have had sexual relations with any preteens or even wanted to. Nor is it a criminal offence to be a paedophile.
The seemingly wilful imperviousness of the politico-media classes to such realities is not encouraging. By charging ahead regardless, they change what words mean. They change reality. Let’s not split pubic hairs, they insist. “Grooming”, or “procuring”, or “trafficking” of younger women under about 25 (or is it 35? Or more?) is definitely paedophilia, and it is creepy even to question that. And just being a paedophile is an offence, because it is perceived as offensive.
Our role as MAPs in this vast, hegemonic onslaught of body-negative discourse is marginal to the point of invisibility at the moment. Nevertheless, it makes sense to assess where we stand, in order to adapt and survive. It affects us all, not just the elite figures named in the so-called “Epstein files”, anxiously awaiting further disclosures as these presidents, princes, billionaires and globally famed intellectuals may be.
We need to understand, first of all, that the millions of files in question are just a ragbag that includes all manner of uncorroborated tittle tattle reported to the authorities and kept on file. And all sorts of correspondence that had nothing to do with sexual scandal, including an email from retired classics professor Thomas Hubbard to the Epstein Foundation appealing for funds (which were not forthcoming) for a scholarly institution he heads, the William A Percy Foundation. That email recently appeared in hostile press coverage insinuating an illicit connection with the man himself.
His response is instructive. Instead of joining the unseemly rush to monster Epstein and trot out the nauseating mantra “my thoughts are with the victims”, Tom came out fighting, putting out a feisty press statement saying he knew of no evidence that any of Epstein’s contacts had been non-consensual at the time.
Some, he said, were “self-conscious sex workers who recruited others into his orbit and are now making cynical claims of victimization to cash in on his estate and business partners”. He added: “Like over 1,000,000 Americans, he did have a conviction for a sex-related offense, but from what I could see in 2015, it was for something that would not even have been illegal in most European countries…”
I have known and admired Tom a long time, partly thanks to my own work some years ago as a research assistant with the late historian Bill Percy, after whom the William A Percy Foundation was named. There have been Heretic TOC blogs carrying Bill’s obituary and several pieces on Tom’s doughty challenges to the follies of our age. One of his more notable contributions was his book Censoring Sex Research: The Debate over Male Intergenerational Relations (Routledge, 2013).
To Tom’s defence of Epstein, I would add that even within the so-called victim accounts we see another story struggling to get out. Epstein was quite possibly the nice guy many friends thought he was, and pleasant to his undoubtedly numerous young lady friends, as I wrote in Epstein: am I missing something? It is remarkable that one so-called “survivor”, Juliette Bryant was sending him chatty, affectionate emails years after her alleged “horrific” abuse as can be seen here on Jmail, where Epstein’s emails can be seen as he would have done.
Yet Bryant sensationally told Chris Hansen (of To Catch a Predator notoriety) in a YouTube interview about a month ago that this abuse had included medical experiments performed on her at Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico. Bullshit! Even her performative distress on this video clip looks fake.
But that hasn’t stopped other claims about goings on at the ranch – girls strangled and buried in the grounds, sulphuric acid used to dissolve bodies, babies sacrificed – being taken so seriously by the local authorities that a multi-million dollar enquiry has been launched. Bonkers!
One email from 2019 in the Epstein files offers to supply – for a price – video evidence of Epstein raping children. An obvious scam, it says you will get the evidence once you pay one Bitcoin for it, which on the date in question would have been worth around $7,500. Nice little earner, even then! As for the serial lies told by the most high-profile allegator, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, no need to reprise them here. Just check out Michael Tracey’s excellent take-down journalism.
I’ll just throw in a “fun fact”, as he called it, from one his tweets:
Annie Farmer received $1.5 million for claiming she was a “survivor” of “hand-holding.” Literally. When she testified in the Maxwell trial, the judge was compelled to instruct jurors that she hadn’t been subjected to any “illegal sexual activity”.
Now that’s a not-so-little nice earner! And Giuffre’s equally baseless claims against the then Prince Andrew were a much bigger one. As Ben Gunn points out in Quillette (thank you, Warbling J Turpitude, for alerting me to this article) she had all the time in the world to file a criminal complaint but didn’t. Instead, she accepted a financial settlement, all the while declaring it wasn’t about the money.
I started by saying we could just shrug off this nonsense but that it makes sense to get a handle on it. Among the more insightful commentators who have attempted to capture the zeitgeist in this regard are Richard Hanania, Brendan O’Neill, and, finally, a writer as quirky and intriguing as his name, Thomas Peermohamed Lambert.
Hanania’s work has already been commended by others here in the Comments, so I won’t dwell on it other than to mention this recent piece. Some may find it rather elitist in its dismissal of conspiracy theories coming from less well off, often poorly educated people with what he calls “low human capital”, and why they obsess over paedophilia. But he has a strong point: “losers”, he says, feel the need to look down on someone else.
Like Hanania, O’Neill examines why the Epstein saga has become such a big deal, and how conspiracy theories about it have converged towards agreement between Left and Right, for different reasons. In O’Neill’s case, he homes in on one very specific aspect of the phenomenon: Epstein’s Jewishness , and its importance for conspiracy theorists.
On the anti-Zionist Left, it has been claimed Epstein was a Mossad agent, plotting against the Palestinians through his friendship with leading Israelis such as former prime minster Ehud Barak. But that is a weird claim. As O’Neill points out, in recent years Barak has sided with the the anti-Zionist radical Left. I might add that Epstein was also a big fan and friend of Noam Chomsky, one of the world’s most prominent and longstanding critics of Israeli governments, notably as regards the “atrocities” (his word, although I concur) committed against the Palestinians long before the also atrocious rampage by Hamas on 7 October 2023.
On the racist Right, Epstein’s alleged misdeeds have been used as an excuse for attacks on “the Jews” as the source of all evil. Go onto X, he says, and you will see, “It’s all there. Jews control world affairs. They are the puppet-masters of the powerful. They use sexual corruption and blackmail to dominate governments.” But the truth is, he adds, that the FBI has found not so much a sliver of evidence that Epstein was blackmailing powerful men with surreptitiously filmed clips of them abusing girls.
An extensive search of his homes, his emails and his bank accounts turned up nothing to suggest he was engaged in sex-linked extortion with the rich and powerful. Yet they’re all over social media claiming the files prove the super-rich kill children and eat their flesh. They have revived the Jew hatred of the 1200s, “giving rise to unhinged cries about how that most warped people have a cannibalistic urge to sacrifice the innocent. The blood libel reborn.”
Which brings me to our third writer, Thomas Peermohamed Lambert, he of the oddly hybrid forenames, one Christian in origin, one Muslim. A young and highly acclaimed debut novelist last year, his contribution is so colourful it might smack of fiction but is actually grounded in serious anthropology – a combination of attributes that is both irresistibly fascinating and devilishly dangerous.
Lambert’s schtick is to draw a comparison between Epstein’s elite circle of friends, with their secretive gatherings in remote locations such as a private island and a desert ranch, and numerous completely separate and independent tribal secret brotherhoods dotted around the globe, first studied by the anthropologist Franz Boas over a hundred years ago, to which only a privileged elite could belong. A distinguishing characteristic was that membership involved bizarre rituals.
Up to this point we might just be talking about the tribal equivalent of the Freemasons, which go back many centuries but which nevertheless belong to modern “civilisation” rather than older, prehistoric cultures. What Boas discovered, in the Pacific Northwest region of America, with Percy Amaury Talbot and other anthropologists later making similar findings in Africa and elsewhere, was alarmingly different. Their rituals were not just bizarre, they were grotesque. These were cannibal cultures. In Liberia and Sierra Leone, notably, “the secretive Poro society wormed its way into just about every important political position with initiates sacrificing their own first-born sons to reach the highest ranks”.
By 1950, similar cults had been found on every continent, albeit their actual rites and secrets had little in common. What all human societies seemed to require, rather, was an excuse for secrecy itself. But why?
The next breakthrough, according to Lambert, came in the 1990s, when archaeologists in France and Italy began to notice indications of cannibalistic human sacrifice in Palaeolithic cave dwellings. These cannibal cults invariably seemed to emerge in “transegalitarian” societies – those who were caught somewhere between flat, egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands and stratified, feudal societies with established hereditary classes.
Could we be in a comparable period of uncertain, volatile, alarming, transition today? In an important sense, says Lambert, the Epstein revelations are simply the latest chapter in the ancient history of secret societies designed to enforce boundaries between a cosy elite and a terrified rank and file. But, he says:
…it is the more feverish rumours, like the cannibalistic orgies in the upstairs rooms of pizza restaurants posited by QAnon, that are most telling of Epstein’s sociological significance. Suddenly, spontaneously, people with no familiarity with the Hamatsa, the Ekkpo or the Poro, are devising imagery straight out of the ethnographies of Boas and Talbot. It is as if ordinary people know, instinctively, that the greater the inequality, the stranger and more occult the rituals that reinforce it need to be.
Is he right? I am confident he is not, for reasons I could go into, but I’d much rather heretics here read his article, come up with their own critiques, and discuss them in the Comments space. Lambert’s theory is mesmerising, and that is why I have dwelt on it at some length. My belief is that if we are to retain our own sanity amidst the crazy junk that is going around – including very sophisticated junk such as Lambert’s – we need to engage our brains and confront all this weirdness unflinchingly.
IT’S THE PLATFORMS, INNIT?
The UK is taking another step towards banning social media for under-16s this week as technology secretary Liz Kendall launches a consultation on the policy. According to the Guardian, insiders are increasingly sure prime minister Keir Starmer will back the idea.
When I last blogged on the subject in “How to rewild Generation Doomscroll” a year ago, I acknowledged that the public and political momentum towards a ban could be a classic case of yet another moral panic, but also admitted there is a real problem that ought not to be ignored, because there is just too much evidence out there of elevated rates of mental illness among teenagers, and of social media sites that “encourage troubled teens to harm themselves in a whole bunch of awful ways, including a morbid focus on weight reduction (anorexia), self-cutting, and even the promotion of suicide.”
I still believe there is a genuine and massive problem to be addressed, but the case presented for an under-16 ban looks weaker now than it did when evidence claiming to show social media as a primary cause of teenage angst was confidently advanced by psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Remarkably, a ban was also backed by Lenore Skenazy, who had made a name for herself as an advocate for liberating children, even preteens, from stifling and unnecessary restrictions. She was dubbed World’s Worst Mum after letting her nine-year-old son ride the New York Subway alone, but managed to turn the tables by hosting a TV series with that title. Her book and website Free-Range Kids were also massive.
More recently, though, there has been a significant challenge to the case put forward by Haidt. Speaking in the House of Lords last month, Claire Fox spoke of new research at Manchester University debunking the claim that social media has increased teenagers’ symptoms of anxiety or depression. Baroness Fox may be known to heretics as the libertarian director and founder of think tank the Academy of Ideas, and is often to be heard on BBC Radio’s flagship ethics programme, Moral Maze.
She also said the chair of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group, Professor Louis Appleby, had pointed out that self-harming in the young began well before social media took hold in that age group. And she added: “An Oxford University study of nearly 12,000 children showed no correlation between screen time, including social media, and mental health. Instead, the way in which children engage with social media is what determines its impact and – shock horror – in many instances, evidence shows the positive impact of social-media use.”
For another thing, the politics of the 12 months since I last visited the subject here have not been encouraging in terms of what Lenore Skenazy, especially, was advocating for the “rewilding” of children. She pointed out that children and younger teenagers have been increasingly trapped at home from early childhood onwards (thanks partly to parental fears over “stranger danger” but also the closure of youth clubs, sports facilities, etc., in times of public spending cuts) with little to do but online activities including “doomscrolling”.
Skenazy felt an under-16 social ban could only work if coupled with giving kids greater real-life freedom, letting them get out and about, spending plenty of face time with their peers and socialising with adults other than their parents – adults who in all likelihood would be either friends of their parents or otherwise trustworthy people (including MAPs) known to them. While it makes sense for parents to warn their kids against “wrong uns” (as my parents did), teaching kids that “stranger” equals “”predator” merely encourages timidity, keeping them ignorant of the world and holding back their social education.
She was right, but the political discourse in recent months has been all about restricting youngsters online, with next to zero emphasis on real-life rewilding. Without such rewilding a social media ban on its own would be disastrous in itself, not least because, as Fox points out, the online world is by no means entirely bad for them. As she said in the Lords:
Despite histrionic headlines, social media can be used for self-educational ends. There is a new generation of autodidacts who are teaching themselves coding, video producing, editing and even musical instruments, languages and chess. I know that sounds rose-tinted and a bit glib, but social media often is a tool for connections – finding your tribe, making new friends – and a place where you can cultivate solidarity and autonomy as a young person. It can be a counter to the social trend towards fragmentation.
How refreshing to hear this! I might also add that we can always find extreme cases in which kids have lost their lives after visiting sites encouraging suicide etc., which is tragic and terrible, but in one recent case blocking kids’ online access has likewise proved disastrous. In India last month it was reported that three sisters, aged 16, 14 and 12 killed themselves together by jumping from a high balcony at home. They were said to have been upset that their father had taken away their mobile phone. While this was clearly a rare, bizarre case, the same could be said of death and other extreme harm with a clear connection to social media use.
All of which leaves with a question. What is to be done?
The big problem with state intervention is that laws restricting personal freedom tend to go badly wrong. Such laws are often passed in haste (yes, in an atmosphere of moral panic), with too little detailed consideration of their practical consequences, which often include the possibility of them being applied too broadly and in a heavy-handed way by often over-zealous police and other enforcement agencies.
It is becoming ever clearer that this is not the way forward. As for what might be, I have “listened to the victims” on this one, or at least to their parents – the ones whose children have died in social media tragedies. Real victims, in other words, not the bogus ones who are so often loud in the media, as in the Epstein case. A piece in The Times a few days ago made for sobering reading, but with positive suggestions. The print-edition headline speaks for itself: “Social media killed our children: the club that no parent wants to join”.
The report by Caroline Scott (The Times Magazine, 26 February) on a group called Bereaved Families for Online Safety includes genuinely harrowing accounts and a range of opinions, as might be expected. A running theme was danger from the algorithms, and the attention economy that is driving the social media platforms.
One parent I found particularly persuasive was Ian Russell, founder of Bereaved Families, whose 14-year-old daughter, Molly, took her own life in 2017 after viewing social media sites that encouraged self-harm and suicide. What he is looking for is more accountability from tech companies, who have been irresponsibly fostering extreme content because it is attention-getting, driving users’ eyes and advertisers’ money in their direction.
The most effective way to reign-in such excesses may well be through civil lawsuits rather than laws like the UK’s Online Safety Act, which has been both ineffectual (a few porn companies have been fined for breaching age restrictions but the fines are being left unpaid) and unnecessarily heavy-handed on those (including teens and preteens) who would not be harmed simply by seeing “what comes naturally”.
The first lawsuits claiming that Instagram and YouTube deliberately harm children are now under way in the US, while TikTok and Snapchat have already settled out of court. The latter two platforms may have escaped relatively lightly, but if the Insta/YT case goes all the way these corporations could face punitive damages on a scale big enough to impact their policies. They wouldn’t be able to avoid paying, either, which would jeopardise their operations in their biggest market.
Significantly, Russell also established the Molly Russell Foundation in 2018, which undertakes research and campaigns for greater social media accountability. He now believes, in the light of his long and research-informed engagement with the problem, that a blanket social media ban distracts from the real issue: pathologically unsafe platforms by design. The focus, he feels, should be on eliminating toxic algorithms and addictive recommendation systems, rather than removing children from online spaces. I agree. How about you?
‘RADICALISATION’: WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Continuing the social media theme, an online-focused article in the Guardian last month gave us the dramatic headline “Police arresting 1,000 paedophile suspects a month across UK”, with a strapline under it telling us “National Crime Agency says rise in child sexual abuse being driven by technology and online forums”.
Crime reporter Vikram Dodd added in his opening paragraph that “the number of children being rescued from harm” has risen by 50% in the last five years. While we are all too familiar with alarmist claims by the police and “child protection” lobbyists, the NCA seems to be stepping up its use of language familiar from counter-terrorist action when talking about MAPs, notably the word “radicalisation”.
Dodd continues: “The National Crime Agency said the growth in offending across the UK was driven by technology and linked to the radicalisation of offenders in online forums, encouraging people to view images of child sexual abuse by reassuring them it was normal.”
Rob Jones, the NCA’s director general of operations, reportedly said that these days “Children are more reliant on the internet, and what we see from offenders is a move to collaborate and coordinate activities on the dark web, but to use the open web as a discovery platform to identify and abuse vulnerable children.”
Dodd continues:
Jones said potential offenders were introduced to material by algorithms, and forums told people interested in the sexual abuse of children that they were not criminals.
“I think, societally, things have changed … If you go into an online forum and you’ve got a sexual interest in children, you’ll be told that you are normal.
“Because of the way algorithms drive people with like-minded interests together, because of the way people operate, they will be told that what they are doing is normal, it will be rationalised, it will be normalised, and then you will see almost a radicalisation process where their behaviour will be encouraged, and they will be told that everything they’ve been told, that’s told them it’s wrong throughout their life, it’s the opposite.”
Jones said offenders were “determined” and had adapted to avoid detection, but that technology companies could and should do more.
Unusually, and ironically, I find myself, as per my previous item above, agreeing with the NCA that the tech companies should be doing more to avoid children being harmed on the social media platforms. It’s just that we probably do not entirely agree on the nature of the harms in question!
What should alarm us, though, is talk of forums that contribute to “radicalisation”. Which forums, exactly, do they mean? And how would they define “radicalisation” and guard against that term’s potential chilling effect on the legitimate expression of opinion? How would they ensure the concept would not be used to inhibit scientific research that might contradict the mainstream view of harm?
What about a forum you may have heard of, called Heretic TOC? Do our heresies count as ““radicalisation” to be eliminated? Or my book Paedophilia: The Radical Case, in fully legal circulation for decades but with that dangerous word “radical” right there in its title.
So, we should ask, Where are you going with this, NCA? Quo vadis? What is your end game?
AELLA’S BIG KINK SURVEY
Now something more upbeat: apparently, a wonderful new information resource. I cannot be too sure about that because I have not had the time to explore it properly yet and probably lack the skill to get the best out of it. Those here who are better trained than I am in carefully drawing valid inferences from big data sets are encouraged to check it out for themselves and tell us what they find.
This new resource is Aella’s Big Kink Survey. The name Aella may well be familiar to some heretics here as a camgirl who became one of the highest-earning creators on OnlyFans. Not just a pretty face, she has also written extensively about the psychology and economics of online sex work, conducting extensive surveys and research in the field. Psychologist J. Michael Bailey has called her online surveys “some of the broadest insights that we have into sexuality in the 2020s”.
Aella posted about her Big Kink Survey recently on Mike’s Sexnet forum, which is where I heard about it. She said:
Hey! My big kink survey is now nearing a million cleaned responses, and I’ve made a powerful explorer for you to check evidence for any hypotheses you may have about sex or fetishes.
There’s around 900 variables to explore, most of those fetish related. There’s also a ton of stuff around childhood, personality, porn use, religious upbringing, physical appearance, current menstrual cycle position, etc.!
It’s at BigKinkSurvey.com! It’s got a ton of data on various stuff I’ve seen asked about in this listserv – fisting, trans sexuality and childhood, offender rates, pedophilia, etc. I recommend using the searchbar or radial explorer to more quickly find what you’re looking for.
This is such a labor of love and I’m really excited about it.
Her post included this bar chart as an example of what you can find:
This looks fascinating but I am not at all sure how to interpret the figures given with the chart, apart from their depiction of what appears to be a positive correlation between those who experienced spanking in childhood and those who later find it sexually arousing. I would be very wary indeed about reading too much into this without further information on the work.
Note a further comment by Mike Bailey recorded in Aella’s Wikipedia entry. He has criticized her “casualness” but praised her willingness to brook controversy and said her work was worthwhile.
As I say, it looks worth exploring… with care. So, intrepid explorers, over to you!
I agree with all you say, Tom. If I hear one more time a television news reader say the misnomer “convicted paedophile”, I swear I’ll throw something at the tele, even if it’s only a feather duster to avoid damage to the screen. I have considered emailing them to inform them that there is no such crime in law as paedophilia, so no one can be convicted of it. But they would most likely ignore me. I have never seen any mention of Epstein “molesting” anyone under the age of 12. Yet the media constantly associate him with paedophilia for what they think is shock value. The Americans have reached a point now where anyone of any age who has sexual relations with anyone of any age is described as a paedophile in the hope that everyone hearing that description will have an attack of the screaming heebeejeebees. It’s a throwback to the early days of the American colonies and the Puritans who landed in Cape Cod on the Mayflower. Definition of a Puritan: Someone who day and night lives in fear and dread that someone, somewhere, may be enjoying themselves.
It’s been a while since we heard from you, MFB, and it’s great to have you back.
>I swear I’ll throw something at the tele, even if it’s only a feather duster to avoid damage to the screen
LOL! That’s a very sensible way to get mad! 🙂
As for the American Puritan heritage, I highly recommend Ed Stourton’s new book Made in America: The dark history that led to Donald Trump. He lucidly explores several key strands of this history. Entertaining and concise.
Benign C.P still LEGAL to POSSESS in many NON-Anglo nations.
But NOT banned anywhere, OBSCENE images of child victims bombed, bloodied, burned, buried, dismembered, destroyed in ANGLO-made wars and famines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography
Peter Tatchell, “BEYOND EQUALITY.” Socialist Lawyer, no. 26, 1995, pp. 16–17. JSTOR.
Kier Starmer, who would later become Prime Minister of the UK, appears in the same journal issue. Kier would become notorious for implementing and defending the passage of the “Online Safety Act” (OSA), which effectively ended every adult’s right to view pornography privately, since they must now provide state-approved ID to access sexually explicit content from a UK IP address.
His article here seems so pointless, that I have no idea why he bothered (perhaps it was raining and he was bored?). But wow, what a strange world it is…
AAM on F.B. Freddie Forrest
“My secret first love! Would have run off with her as a 13yo and done whatever she wanted!”
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10164661190396162&set=gm.4252527514996283&idorvanity=2026914534224270
Some american states are having death penalty for activity under 12 for example. (Very Christian) . In comments ive seen people (psychopaths) say it should be up to 18.. even brits.. why would i want to live in a world like this??
No one wants to live in a world where a 20-year-old can face the death penalty for consensual sex with their 17-year-old girlfriend or boyfriend. I’d even wager that the vast majority of people, especially heterosexual men, would privately find it horrifying and ridiculous if such a death penalty came into force. People say these things for attention and social validation, for clicks and likes and perhaps because they are bullies of have violent / psychopathic tendencies and lack empathy…
Broadly, people say these arguably extreme things because they know they won’t face pushback…
Calling for death is quite acceptable on Facebook… Truly monsters. Death penalty for 80 year old sleeping with 17 year old? That acceptable to them ? I cannot believe that such a large part of society is murderous. And a lot of them are christians.. not very good ones..
Death penalty legislation is not about the death penalty.
https://www.narsol.org/2024/02/death-penalty-legislation-is-not-about-the-death-penalty/
The very sad thing is that this hate is not banned on FB (and X, and Reddit,…), while expressions of affection might be.
I agree Matt, I don’t understand how they could be self-proclaiming christians; they seem more like the disgrace of christianity.
Anyways, I also think that these people are probably just “situational” psychopaths/zombies and cannot be considered as representing real persons.
Jmail – the Jeffrey Epstein email archive and much, much more – is wild. I don’t know whether I love or hate that a team of people took the time to make extensive websites that document Epstein’s purchase history on Amazon, uploading every released video in the Epstein papers to a YouTube account, in addition to reconstructing virtually every email Jeffrey exchanged during his lifetime.
It’s kind of incredible. On one level, a feat of human creativity and ingenuity. On another level, kind of insane.
They even have an enormous Jwiki – a copy of Wikipedia entirely devoted to Jeffrey Epstein and anyone who ever emailed him – generated by AI using info from the emails…
Check out, for example, Karyna Shuliak, a young woman who wanted to become a dentist, and whom Epstein supported financially. You can find emails of her professing her love for Epstein, saying what a great man he was…
Just checking Jmail’s homepage, I see one Cecilia Steen – a name I’d not heard before. She wrote to Jeffrey upon hearing that he was found unconscious in his cell, presumably unaware that he was dead. She wrote:
Looking her up, I see that she now works at JP Morgan, and was “allowed” to keep her job despite being such a staunch supporter of the deceased “peeeeedophile” right to the end…
I encourage others to take a look over Jmail and Jwiki sometime. It’s pretty fascinating.
Amos Yee arrested on return to Singapore after deportation from US, charged under Enlistment Act
[TLDR: He’s been arrested because, by fleeing to the United States, he hasn’t served his mandatory military service in his home country.]
https://substack.com/@norman506968/note/c-230186711?r=7y8tfs&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Pre-Anglo negative grooming – forward France Sexy ’70s.
In 1974, a French writer named Gabriel Matzneff published an essay titled Under Sixteen Years Old — a manifesto arguing that sexual relationships between adults and children as young as ten were a form of liberation for young people. He was not anonymous. He was not fringe. He was celebrated. The book established him as a provocateur in the highest circles of Parisian literary life.And in the years that followed, an open letter calling for the legal decriminalization of sexual relationships between adults and children as young as ten were a form of liberation for young people — and was signed by some of the most famous names of the twentieth century: Jean-Paul Sartre. Simone de Beauvoir. Gilles Deleuze. Roland Barthes.…
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122120742993157364&set=a.122097573525157364
Young teen girls immediately hit with ‘explosion’ of sexually explicit messages and photos when they sign up for social media.
CUMments, “Bet you two are really tight.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/young-teen-girls-immediately-hit-202909574.html
I think it will be interesting
The Limits of Sexual Autonomy for Minors: Debating Age of Consent Laws
Yes, this is an excellent paper and it is open access.
The author has an interesting global perspective, drawing on examples from Japan, Indonesia, and the Netherlands.
Heretics here will find this paper says all the right things, at least with regard to “youth” rather than earlier childhood.
Cleves, Rachel Hope. “A Forum: Coming of Age in the Age of Coming Out; The Transformation of Queer Youth Experiences in the United States, 1953–1983.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 35 no. 1, 2026, p. 114-118. Project MUSE, https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sex.00054.
[If you’re looking for an older woman to steal away from her husband, Rachel Hope Cleves has my vote! She’s lovely, she’s smart, and she’s not crazy; what’s not to like? :p ]…
>Cleves, Rachel Hope. “A Forum: Coming of Age in the Age of Coming Out; The Transformation of Queer Youth Experiences in the United States, 1953–1983.”
Nearly 200 years before Biblical backward Anglos, In 1791 forward France normalized Gaysex
as part of their new legal code without the influence of Christianity. French-ruled Holland normalized Gaysex in 1810. While, since 1978 humane France has protected Anglo persecuted MAP Roman Polanski And in 2017 forward France welcomed their benign MAP first lady Brigitte. .
Meanwhile inhuman, backward repressed Anglo Victorian fake Puritans with the modern World’s worst non-sex child welfare and poverty, bomb and destroy children Worldwide, and air obscenely painful images of children in war and famine free for all ages to view. While frenziedly banning Under 16s from viewing benign images of mere natural sex pleasure.
Still perversely posing as World best role-model, Anglo Victorian fake Puritans try to groom and gaslight the World with their fake media ‘CSA’ mass deception deviously masked as so called ‘Child Protection’. A child protection racket, fake virtue waving ‘New Patriotism’, last refuge of scoundrels bought by mugs and morons. Paraphrase 1874 ongoing tax-dodge charity NSPCC, “Donate now. We say you PayPal.” .
While, Worldwide beyond control, body proud, guilt-free Gen Selfie-Sext webwize from Age 5 rightly piss on Anglo Victorian fake Puritan sex laws.
Quote, typical fake media tabloid trashed groomed & gaslit Anglo dim Dad, “Er, you’re nearly 13 now, and we have to talk about,er, Sex!”
Streetwise, webwise young son, “OK Dad. What don’t you understand?”
Since then, “humane” and “forward” France has joined “Anglo Victorian fake Puritans”: sex with 14yo = rape, 5 years in overcrowded jail for PIM, compulsory age verification (by ID or picture) for porn sites (otherwise site blocked), social networks banned for under 15, etc.
>Since then, “humane” and “forward” France has joined “Anglo Victorian fake Puritans”
Re-phrased, Anglo groomed and gaslit France and the wider World have been ‘psychoerced’ and ‘psycholonialized’ into joining the Anglo fake Puritan populist MAP witchunt racket. For ratings, profit, power and control, fake media deviously masked as so called ‘Child Protection’, fake tag, “Saving kids from SEX.”.
Post-Anglo Reformation (of convenience masked as conviction) self-justifying English Puritans falsely believed (then as now) they were conducting a holy war to purify the world of sin. They saw Catholics and Muslims as idolaters who deviated from the King James Bible falsely equating Popery and Islam with heresy or witchcraft. King James V1 of Scotland/1st of England MAP (attended by Courtiers all young boys with slim legs and pert butts) authorized seven cringing scribes over five years to create the official Protestant King James Bible/KJB. Then totalitarian misused Worldwide to persecute and control millions of victims in supposedly ‘Democratic’ Anglo lands of lies. About as ‘Democratic’ as the totalitarian Soviet/KGB.
E.G. the 2016 Anglo UK undemocratic vote to leave the democratic EU, was a
mere 72% turnout meaning that 13 million morons ignorantly thinking that no-vote meant ‘Remain’ did not vote at all. Meaning that the truer vote was (as in high turnout more educated Scotland and Ulster) a 62% majority ‘Remain’. And, the 2024 latest UK vote for Labour’s so called ‘Landslide’ was the lowest on-record since 1928, a shameful 52% turnout. While their Anglo U.S. land of lies fake system gerrymanders it’s rigged College system, and buys big corporate votes, while suppressing non-White votes. Anglo deMockracy they can’t even spell it.
Post-Reformation Anglos, History’s worst genocidal racists, thieves, liars, and hypocrites still perversely posing as World best role-model – WTF?!
Quote, Sexy ’70s ‘Love Generation’ CSNY, “Teach Your Children Well”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQOaUnSmJr8
>Since then, “humane” and “forward” France has joined “Anglo Victorian fake Puritans”: sex with 14yo = rape, 5 years in overcrowded jail for PIM,
So, French MAP First Lady Brigitte to be retro-jailed for raping 14yo victim-survivor AAM Emmanuel in 1991?
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1830366237729276
consistently seema to me the “happy humping pup” is not much of a happy humping pup at all. He’s much more akin to a blindly battering ram! Up against the wall(of this monstrous edifice he calls (things like) “Anglo Victorian fake Puritans”, and he’s now gussied thiat wall up for us w/ his tale of a “Catholic/Muslim” world, supplanted by the Protestant World! .Sheeee! What delirious daily orgies of little kids did we Prods doiubtless lay to waste! I can see, Why, I can still feel the squirl and whirm of eVery little bottom present there from here !
Mister M Tracey, Protest-ant of this Æmerican parish, has enjoined us “to make insufferable people’s heads explode” Give us ONE reason Mr Ram that it’s more important to keep banging your drum.here than simply reporting in on what ‘explosive charges’ we’ve laid where and what the reaction to them has been thus far?
>Give us ONE reason Mr Ram that it’s more important to keep banging your drum.here than simply reporting in on what ‘explosive charges’ we’ve laid where and what the reaction to them has been thus far?
Quote fairplay TOC, “Play nicely now.” HappyBumpingRam gives regular reasons to be leerful to BlindWarble blissfully happy with post-Reformation Anglos. History’s proven worst genocidal racists sexist thieves liars and hypocrites, still perversely posing as World Best role-model – what the Warble?!
BlindWarble asks, “What explosive charges and the reaction to them thus far?”
Er, on-topic for child lovers then and now and so much in between on-record, it ain’t Rocket-Science. 1640s Anglos terrorized and slaughtered 1/2 million Irish Catholics including children in the own land, and since then falsely labelled Irish Catholics as ‘terrorists’? 1946 Anglos were terrorized and slaughtered by Anglo-enabled European Zionist terrorists in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, Palestine. Launching an eight decades ongoing Nakba of Palestinians including children terrorized and slaughtered in their own land, while falsely labelled ‘terrorists’ by lying Anglos and Zionists. Paraphrase a 1950s bright young Palestinian boy forced to exist in a concentrated refugee camp in his own land, “Papa, why are we forced to,live in crowded camps by Foreigners living our old homes?”
It ain’t Rocket-Science, bright young Palestinian boys no doubt brighter than BlindWarble?
Not really related to the post, but im dying to now, pup, why do you type like that? No offense, but ive never seen anyone type this way before?
>Not really related to the post, but im dying to now, pup, why do you type like that?
Not related to the post but, why does Daitboi mis-type “I’m and know”?
And, no others seem to notice Pup typing like what?’
Ephebo MAP Mein Trumpf?
Key details from the 13-year-old Trump accuser’s FBI interviews have now been independently verified, and what she described is beyond sickening. This is our president folks.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1489019179936743&set=a.219620833543257
In December 2025, Russia banned the online gaming platform Roblox, accused of harming children. Since then, the authorities received more than sixty thousand protest letters from Russian children aged 8 to 16; half of them stated that they wanted to leave Russia because of the ban.
https://tvpworld.com/90474126/roskomnadzors-roblox-ban-triggers-youth-backlash-kremlin-response-
From Brian Ribbon’s latest…
So no more porn with school uniforms?? But .. they are just clothes??
Evil clothes that evilly promote evil pedophillia in evil porn. Lol
They will go on and on, until the repression system will collapse at some point. If they think that this will reduce criminality in physical contacts, welll… I think they are wrong.
I would argue that they DONT want to reduce criminality. They keep creating new sex laws so that there are more sex crimes and more sex criminals to arrest. It makes them more money and since our society has a stupid hatred of sex no one will fight against it. They pass new sex laws, and make the existing ones harsher, so when pedos inevitably break the stupid laws they can point at us and go “hah! See! The witches cant even be trusted to follow our perfectly moral and protective laws, these monsters are dangerous just like we say!”
And the normies wont question the sex offender/pedo dogma because deviant sex and the laws and attitudes surrounding them is just too sacrosanct. I swear this whole “trauma” bs that popped put in the 80s has done the most damage for our kind compared to any other idea surrounding amsc. There doesn’t even have to be any proof or evidence of the “trauma” and the slim cases where it does exist only exist in specific circumstances like force or or coercion, and even then, don’t lead to “life long irreversible suffering, worse than death itself” like the antis proclaim it does, at least not any more than from other forms of harm like physical assualt. But this mystical “trauma” is just so magically and spiritually evil and omnipresent that all means justify the end(and there is no end because “csa” and pedophillia is a normal part of being human)
At what point do you draw a line?
THE MAP MOVEMENT IS OUT OF TIME
>Interesting think piece.
Think piece, Prue? Seriously? It looks like one desperate recycling of one moribund trope after another to me
Sophie Turner says Game of Thrones was like a “S*x education” to her when she was only 13.
“The first time I ever found out about 0ral sex was from reading the script. I was 13. I was like … Wow! People do that? That’s fascinating!”
A 5 million + views Tweet, found via a link on this thoughtful forum thread, Is “Grooming” Just The Regular Courtship Process?
Hey guys still alive. But in psyc ward. Was in with a big anti who nearly killed someone for chatting up his 16 yo nephew.. i had to keep quiet. He gone now. He wished me well. I dont wish him well… I can.understand trying to protect your family but why are antis so violent??? Oh yeh and its torture in hete the staff are just as understanding as antis!
> But in psyc ward.
Doesn’t sound too good, Matt, especially as you call it “torture” to be there. How long for? It doesn’t seem you are there on a voluntary basis.
But he does not call it “torture” Where in the above does he do that? This is getting splendidly wEiRd, wElL i hope w/ all my intelligence that was plainly “artifcial” from the beginning that it is. Heretics here are holding out with all their might, i’m.ashamed to say, apparently relishing in your “invisibility” as Tom.calls it. NOT ME I’m wearing my STRANGERS HAVE THE BEST CAN-D tee at the most popular beach café in this Zullular town, at least once a week
>But he does not call it “torture” Where in the above does he do that?
Quote: “Oh yeh and its torture in hete [sic]”.
If I misinterpreted Matt, I’m afraid you, or better still he, will have to explain.
I was quaffing a couple (no excuse meant just the facts officer) as I read through The Return Of Matt at least four times looking for the word torture . Find heem i could not. This morning i see.it right away. “Go figure” as Murrrkins always liked to say but not so much of late, it seems. I do hope you dug the meme I made, which features in fact the “pillars of creation” no less. I am working my tail off every day here trying to get’through to‘ impenetrable people – no not you chaps! It looks to me like Hanania and Tracey et al have set a stage for us that would be madness to pass up the chance of acting upon, in ever more novel and delightfully deviant ways…
* Note Tom how, even as I tippled, I refrained from any mention of own smuggling-in (of the Jewsraelian factor) via the new post. But we could.see your budgie-smugglers from Mars
>we could.see your budgie-smugglers from Mars
LOL! I imagine macho types like Andrew Tate would think that was something well worth bragging about!
Oh yes it is torture. But.then so is being a map! Kind of voluntarily. Was in a better place before they moved me here.. moving house and stopping meds not worked well. For me. Ill be out within a month i think… Then i can get back to work maybe… Not actual work,but trying to educate people.. i didn’t attempt with the guy they put me in with… I tend to keep my views to myself on the outside of the internet…
>Kind of voluntarily.
Well, at least that’s not as bad as the other way.
Wow. Well, for one, everything i’ve heard and read on the subject of going off of ones meds says NOT to just stop abruptly! One is supposed to go GRADUALLY off of such!! See Dr.Peter Breggin, MD for a pretty good example.
i wonder at your choice of words: “kind of voluntarily”; i think of that as only qualified with the CONTEXT of not having knowledge, yet, of OTHER “Frames of Reference”. And thus you acquiesced ?
Not sure groups i know of in u.s.a. may be able to help you, but at least KNOW there are such groups out there!! I.e.:
http://www.mindfreedom.org (and its “shield” program)
Derek Logue’s very informative website (er, link?)(sorry, i’m very lazy tonite/thismorning(?)!)(www.oncefallen .org? .com?)
And then there’s the madnessradionetwork or something like that. And, well, some possibly meaningful alt “Frames of References” to start liberating yourself!!!!
Now, that very idea you are tending into where you are assuming that “educating people” is “not work”. Wow. But don’t you see? It is perhaps your work! (Tho not perhaps on The List of ‘Reputables’ and thus not in your curriculum (?)).
Sorry, felt moved to add my input to this. And what an entrance, eh? Uh, anyway, thought i might assist! (Tho the difficulties “coming with” indythinking can be challenging, so also is life, no matter which metaphorical “pill” one takes. Tho i think of the “Blue” or the “Red” pill of The Matrix movie. (i suppose an “old” movie today, eh?!)
Hope it goes better ❤️
Thanks dude
Protecting his family from what? Being flirted with?!? And he nearly murdered someone over that?! Flirtation?? And they let him go?! Yet theres Maps locked indefinently in “hopsitals” for looking at nude selfies and handjobs. This world I tell you. It will never make sense to me. I hope you feel better, just be on your best behavior and attend all their little groups and they will let you go
I want to reiterate my comment from my previous blog. This isn’t children protection, it’s suppression and intimidation: “predators” outside the home, “groomers” in online games, “violence and sexualization” on porn sites, and toxicity and bullying on social media. So what’s left ?
Age restrictions on social networks will lead to an increase in suicides, anxiety, and neuroses. Unfortunately, governments around the world have begun copying this initiative, one after another, without understanding the consequences. Why do society continually endure restrictions on the rights and freedoms of certain groups, only to later admit their mistake and seek liberation ?
But Harlan can you assimilate as simply as that the creation that is the modern child? Assimilate this supremely valued child born of worldwide bourgeois loins to yet another “group”? Does not what is believed to be preserved in/by “childhood innocence” put this the small being in rather a class of its own? One whose “premature” sexual flowering is held to be destructive of its very soul? And is there not evidence all around us now that this thing that must be preserved at all cost is being ever extended up the age-ladder all the time, nor down it?
When did anything comparable ever apply to a now “liberated group”?
I think I get what you mean, that the modern concept of “child” and “childhood” are just that, concepts. People preach on and on about how seperate and unique children are from adults, meanwhile the only thing separating the two categories, hell, the only thing that creates the categories in the first place is an abritrary legal line. At least with the difference between women and men, males and females are biologically different. Blacks and whites, biologically different. But children and adults? Whats biologically significant about the number 18? Whats biologically different from a 17 yr old child and an 18 yr old adult? The seperation between children and adults makes even less sense than other seperations, because unlike other groups, the distinction is purely legal(and the social constructs assigned to said law). Sex is biological. A child is legal, an adult is legal.
Exactly! Cant go outside and play because what if a pedo sucks your dick? Cant go online and play because what if you see a picture of some pedos dick? Cant play with half your family because all men are rapists or something??(that sounds ridiculous, but ive seen men get called pedos or have the cops called on them for holding hands with their daughters or showing literally any form of affection whatsoever). Cant play with other children because of cocsa and children can be groomers too, god forbid another child touches your dick! So what is there to do? Nothing but sit alone in a dark basement until your 18th birthday, to “protect” you from the dangers of human sexuality and genitalia. I fear for the future we will be living in a mere decade or two from now. Antis are genuinely trying to drive children to suicide(but a dead child is better than a sexually active one)
I used to be called a radical homosexual for defending gay marriage…
And now us pro C Maps get called radical for saying that blowjobs ARENT inherently abusive and dont cause life long brain injuries and damage, even if its given to you by someone over a random arbritrary number. If knowing that blowjobs dont give people under the governments current legal age brain damage is radical then I love being radical
People tend to mix concepts with confusing narratives. They say that increasing the age of consent is for protection when in reality it’s because they have many prejudices about sexuality in general (and child sexuality in particular). Leftists oppose Epstein because “we hate the rich and the powerful” but in reality it’s mixed with anti-sex views. They say that social networks is bad for teens (and yes the influencers and the algorithms can cause harm) but I think that in reality their motivation is that they don’t want them to contact people and have sex. Call me suspicious but I think that the narratives do not really fit their thoughts. There’s narrative dishonesty.
In this complex world there is massive simplification. It would make much more sense that from x to y years old teenagers can use social networks only under certain conditions, such as limits on use time and parental supervision features, with the restrictions being gradually lifted. It seems that the debate is only about “what’s the next thing we should ban?” instead of discussing how can we teach them skills that they will need in the future (or does anyone think that they will not eventually have a phone?). Seriously, do we expect them to acquire all such skills in just 2 years (from 16 to 18)? That’s hilarious. One can’t learn about technology without technology!
It’s very difficult to have a conversation when everything is so over-simplified.
I agree that the tech companies are not precisely NGOs but, hey, in all that I miss some self-criticism from all those parents who now complain so much. How many of them have bothered looking into the parental supervision features and learning tech stuff? How many of them have had genuine non-judgmental conversations with their children? How many of them lead by example? How many of them follow the accounts that their children follow? Sure, this requires to be interested in your child. That’s quite an effort. Much easier to ban…
I dont think teenagers need any restrictions on social media at all, at least not any that adults arent subject to. It makes no sense that the same age group that had their own families and full time jobs and fought in wars have suddenly evolutionary regressed so much that they need any age specific restrictions online. What they need is education, just like any other age group, on how to stay safe online.
And about magically learning skills from 16-18, I dont believe these people actually expect them to magically learn the skill. What they actually want is for 18-25 year olds to be stunted in their growth so they can justify increasing the age that your information is restricted even higher. A self fufilling prophecy.
Excellent article by Michael Tracey on the WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-epstein-transparency-travesty-754800af?st=MGDyPX&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Should we all vote libertarian to end age verification? In the Australia, opposition comes from their libertarian party. In Brazil, the opposition to the Felca Law came from the New Party, which is libertarian (kinda). As for the radicalization, it seems like they want to go after those who encourage illegal activity. They seem to be conflating those who promote illegal behavior and those who say that being a MAP is normal, since, for most people, all MAPs offend. Could they make the distinction, maybe the article would be written differently…
To deny “blood libels” and to believe in the October 7th 2023 Hamas attacks—how can scepticism be selective?
Paraphrased from ‘The Canary’, chirp-chirp not Tweet.
The Anglo Fake Victims Industrial Complex, extends well beyond the conveniently dead defendants Epstein, Savile, Al Fayed, and living-dead Andrew.
We have also learned in the most disgusting way that the saying ‘LIES, DAMN LIES and STATISTICS ‘ applies all the more in times of conflict. Especially when we consider Israeli and western tactics to manufacture consent for what has been one of the most brutal bombing campaigns the world has ever seen, and in real time. Not least, deliberately bombing schools killing children in a U.N. certified modern Genocide. For which truthful reporter U.N. Special Rapporteur on Palestine Francesca Albanese has been de-banked and ‘cancelled’!
While, the Western fake media-trashed masses are soon groomed to forget WW1 fake propaganda, ‘babies on bayonets’, and Kuwait war fake propaganda, ‘babies thrown from incubators’, now it’s fake propaganda ‘Hamas sex war crimes’. While ignoring proven true images of IDF sex-offenders brazenly leering while assaulting Gazan women.
On the backs of the lack of condemnation from the UK government for crimes against Palestinians including children, US-UK complicity in Israel’s War Crimes cannot be ignored. It is for this reason that it is essential we as ordinary people work only from verified, factual information.
Meanwhile Anglo U.S. Imperial Fascist coward WAR Secretary Hegseth, lies, “We do not target civilians”… in bare-faced bullshit denial of the proven fact that his close ally Israel surely does, with US/UK backing and bombs!! All unchallenged by the attendant biased fake media mafia, “You in the red-tie next…” (Anglo perverse US politics has ‘Blue’ on the left and ‘Red’ on the right – wrong uns!!)
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/03/04/dinah-project-uk-funded/?__s=bzp3gooqxj3u5ujqhv9b