Hating Kids is Child Molestation

Think about it. Sexual molestation is an unspeakable evil, and society agrees. They take the obviously unquestionable moral tautology of detesting child sexual abuse, and then feel it justifiable that anything but outright detestation of kids is "unacceptable" on the grounds that "wanting nothing to do with them" reduces the likelihood of their abuse, or something. This means that it's actually preferable now for a man (in particular) to hate kids than to show them any compassion whatsoever, professional or otherwise, related or not, on the grounds that any compassion coming from a man to a child is a sign of inevitable sexual abuse in the works. Truth be told though, how it protects children to encourage the social disregard of them by half the adult population is beyond my reasoning capacity.

It's a weird situation of society wanting to "have its cake and eat it too." Do they want us men to hate kids or do they want us to agree child sexual abuse is wrong? Is not sex abuse predicated on harm, and harm stemming from lack of concern? If we're not supposed to show any compassion toward kids while they are unharmed, why does the presence of harm have to change those expectations? And if we're really supposed to hate kids, wouldn't it make sense that we shouldn't also care about whether they are being abused or not? See, I just get confused about what the standards are, because if it were up to me, I'd prefer to live in a world where I can wholeheartedly be against child sexual abuse and still not be expected to callously disregard that which I don't want to see come to harm.

I'd prefer to live in a world where a child's right to be nurtured by an individual was not dependent on whether society tolerates the sex of that nurturer, but that isn't the world we've allowed thus far. It happens every time the insinuation is made that the relationship of the man to a child is inevitably coercive and harmful, whether it's a professional relationship, family bond, or even a friendship. Every time that insinuation is made, even if in jest, a loving, committed adult man has convinced himself to turn away from a child in need of a role model. This is unfortunate.

Many men will go so far out of their way to prove to society that they absolutely, fundamentally, have no interest in children, that they actually start to sound more like the stereotypical child molester who only thinks about child abuse when he looks at a child. They've been scared into submission and conditioned from the time they were children themselves to withdraw, to fold at the sight of a child, to shirk them off, and now society wonders why so many do exactly that? Men are condemned for "stooping so low" as to be parents. They are harassed by paranoid bypassers when they take their own children out to the park. They are both lauded and chastised for running from their natural responsibilities so consistently and with such venom (to be undervalued when being a proper father and dismissed completely when complying with expectation not to be), that so many do run.

So many want nothing to do with children as a result, and the expectation that men are to keep a distance from every child maintains itself, spreads to the new generation, and society is content with it. They are content with depriving children their positive male role models. Our society delights in it, even if they don't recognize their own delight. They please themselves on the notion that a man can only bring harm to a child, and they seem to think the next generation ought to feel the same. It is the tyranny of the present once again over the future of mankind, and regardless of our intentions now, won't last. Bigotry never does.

Anyone, be them child molester or not, who looks upon a child and can only see the destruction of that child, is the equal of a child molester in sickness, and so is the society that holds such an expectation to begin with. The men who don't run, who don't submit to that sickness, and still do what is right for kids regardless of what anyone expects of them, are among the most commendable human beings on the planet, and unfortunately, the most under-appreciated.

Unsung Heroes

In my mind, being against child molestation is not enough, nor does it make you a good person by itself. It does a person no good to be against child molestation if they are doing wrong by children in more socially permissible ways, for they would be in good company. Parents who repeatedly assault their young children in the service of discipline are fearful and hateful of child molestation too. Politicians who would (if they could at any instance) send your children out to fight and die to preserve global business interests in unstable regions, also hate and are fearful of child molestation. Even the school officials who would trap up a 9-year-old autistic boy in a duffle bag to discipline him...they too are (most likely) hateful of child molesters. Are you no better than an abusive parent? A corrupt politician? A "well-intentioned" school teacher? One has to wonder if even the child molesters also hate child molestation, for as Christ said, "Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" What good then does it do to hate child molestation?

Surely, the list of who is against child molestation also includes the broad majority of society that also finds these similar acts reprehensible (although not to the mob- mental destructive fervor they reserve for child molestation), but hatred makes strange bedfellows of them nonetheless. Blinding hatred is just that, blinding, because it stops a person from being able to discern what is moral and just, even when guided by one's own intuition. We start to over-sing the psalms of damnation upon one propped-up source of mob-mental aggression, the "child molester," only to ignore other forms of abuse just as objectively destructive. It is as if we've been blinded by the lightning shot which crackles one by the hour, and have forgotten about the billions of raindrops. We'd let our children freeze to death in that rain by the hundreds before we eased our horror that even one may be struck by a random bolt. Truly, there's more to being a good person than simply hating on that which is demonstrably vile (as the vigilantes do).

To be a good person in this sense, you actually have to not cause harm to any child by intention, and if necessary (in some "life or death" situation), only with the pain of regret guiding your hand. This not only includes child molestation, but all those more socially acceptable means adults have invented over the millenia to abuse children into submission. The many who don't routinely abuse children under the guise of discipline, who don't spoil children into dependence, or give the order to put young people into harm's way for someone else's gain--those are the unsung heroes. If society can permit anyone who simply hates on child molestation to claim to title of "hero," and then orchestrate songs of praise for their good intentions, imagine how society ought to treat the broader majority of people who don't just have good intentions but put them into practice for the good of others. If such were the case, these heroes would no longer be unsung. 

However, western culture (Babylon) continues to fetishize the perverse anyways, despite all the good intentions in the world. This is how a man can hold up a convenience store or cause an accident in a high speed chase and gain not only news headlines but even highlights on television clip shows, but the good act of charity that some other man participated in will never be given any spotlight in anyone's mind. If an action is not spotlighted in the mind by culture (whether it's right or wrong), then it is almost always more right, more just, and more decent by its sense of genuine earnestness than any flimsy public moralistic spectacle could ever be. Moral spectacle is merely pretense laying on a bed of perverse fetishism. The more virulently popularized that moralistic spectacle is, the more justified its unsung, unnoticed, cousin act becomes. For example, parents shouldn't consider themselves good people because they hate and fear child molestation, or any other heinous act, as everyone else, but rather, by whether or not they read to their child before telling them to get some sleep. And even if one isn't a parent, one could almost justifiably judge themselves along the same criterion.

Sure, the act of reading to a child is not going to win you an award, nor is it going to bestow on you the mantle of "Protector of Children" (as many of the anti-pedo vigilantes covet), but you will have done right by a child in doing so, in almost all cases. The only song you will ever have played in your life will be sung from the souls of the individuals you nurtured and gave your love and time to. That, to me, is a more justifiable vindication than this more "culturally-accessible fear and hate mongering" will ever be, concerning the worst among us--the very thing that, though so attractive to our sentiments, becomes the most vile thing of all. 

Hating Kids

It is a fact that some people don't deal well with kids, but do those same people genuinely hate the existence of kids? That is what I hear when someone says they "don't like kids"--that they would rather kids not exist. It is plausible someone could be so scared of kids, (viewing them as fragile beings physically and or emotionally) that they fear contact with them, but that isn't "hating" kids. The phenomenon of hating kids probably just comes from thinking they have no tangible value or worth (to them). Its akin to hating the neighbors obnoxious ugly puppy that just yaps all day.

My general thought is that society divorces harm and safety from love and hate. It's almost like, loving a child puts you in the "potential for harm" category, and hating a child puts you in the "no potential for harm" group. The rationale is that loving kids puts you in their path, and hating kids causes you to stay away. Therefore, it becomes more advisable to make like you hate kids than to express any kind of love for them, because then society views you as too distant from them to be a threat.

Hate-Fear-Love

It has been argued that the most primitive emotion is fear. This is because fear is what alerts our senses to danger in the environment and gives us the energy and impulse to react in ways that could potentially assist in our individual survival. In this basic schematic, we could understand love and hate as primal orientations to and away from that which is being feared. What is loved is that which we perceive as ensuring survival, and what is hated is that which we perceive as endangering us, and by framing this simple analogy out, we have a basic mechanism for the motivation behind every human activity. What is pleasing is assumed better for our survival, and what is hated is assumed hazardous to our survival.

It is then no question that these three fundamental starting points play into how society manages to raise its children. What is deemed hazardous is hated, and what is deemed helpful is loved. What is better for the child's survival is loved and what is aversive to it is feared. This would be all well and good if human nature were as binary as a computer, incapable of seeing a hazard where none exist and inflicting harm on the child in the process, or failing to see a hazard where there is one, also allowing harm onto the child. Because we are as children and fail in our reasoning, we cushion our lapses in judgment with punitive laws set to eliminate the need for reason. These are called "line in the sand" laws, because a line can be drawn at any point along a beach and these determinations are arbitrary, yet just as definitive. The age of consent, for instance, is designed to eliminate the need to reason about whether a child is ready for sex, because they are when the law says they are.

This protects the adult from having to worry about a child having sex when they are not ready--a potential hazard. It justifies the hatred of those who would cross the boundary even on the youth's request, and the love of those who would enforce this law. The one thing it doesn't do is protect the child. Because such line in the sand judgments are built on assumptions, it is the assumption itself that inflicts the most harm on the child--the assumption that they are all equally incapable until the law deems them ready. Instead of seeing this as an opportunity to educate the child to reach "readiness" by the time the law would determine them to be legally ready, they see this line in the sand as the essence of "readiness" in and of itself.

The youth's questions go unanswered because they have not reached the line yet, they "aren't old enough." Everything is done to make sure the youth is not ready by the time they are supposed to be ready. Readiness is essential for survival though. Would the parent of any mammal species that nurtures its young to adulthood as humans do be wise to withhold information from its young about how to find food, or how to avoid detection? What if such a law were established, on the basis of misguided fear, that established no bird could fly until a certain number of weeks had passed, irregardless of capability, and upon which date would be then expected to fly with ease? How long would they survive in the wild?

The bottom line is, there is the world governed by fear and hate, and then there is the world governed by common sense, which is ultimately a world governed by love. By showing respect for the growing capacities of youth and just a mindful observance toward potential hazards, we are showing them the greatest love because we are not being governed by fear.

Child Molestation

Let's not mince words or wax poetic on this. Child molestation, including all sexual exploitation and kidnapping, is evil. While vigilantes are consumed by hate to the point where they would not bat an eyelash at the mutilation of those who stand in the path of their lust, child molesters are just as sick. Both come in the guise of some savior and leave society scratching its scalp, disgusted and unable to come to terms with what would drive an individual to such depths. While vigilantes are gratifying themselves over the severed tongues of their adversaries and treading blood in the storm drains, child molesters are making them feel vindicated for doing it.

The doctor may be able to get away with the excuse that causing a child harm by the prick of a needle will create great benefit because of the injection, but the same logic will never justify any other harm done to a child, or to society because of a child. Unless you create a fanciful story whereby a child must be harmed in order to save their life, intentionally harming a child out of a need to protect them should go against your deepest principles. The first rule, the cardinal rule, of CL is "do no harm," and this is true no matter what form of it is manifested. As we shall see, this doesn't just mean "don't subject the child to harm" but also, do not seek any kind of benefit from children being harmed, because to do so is to be an accessory to their suffering.

Having said that, it should be surprising that when society says it wants to protect children from molestation, they do the opposite. Most child molestation, by wide margin, takes place between family members, not strangers. Most child molestation takes place within the home between people the family trusts, not strangers on the playground. Most child molestation occurs between parent and child. Very little child molestation occurs due to rogue slugs on the internet, but so much emphasis is placed on this tiny percent, and it happens at the ignorance of the more prevalent forms of child molestation. Society easily fails to accomplish what its best sentiments had directed it to do when its distraction by the tiny minority of cases overwhelms its attention toward the wide margin. Child molestation is child molestation, whether society has clearly painted a target on the perpetrator's back or not. Imagine that!

And with all the tear-jerking on the issue of a child being victimized, we can only conclude that selling child molestation as an entertainment format in the media is tough when the perpetrator is "one of the audience"--namely, all the parents lapping this stuff up. Nobody wants to insult their paying parental viewers or readers, so the perpetrator always must be some rogue slug instead. Parents just don't make very convincing villains to a parental public, no matter how much the child had to suffer at that particular perpetrator's hands. Rogues always make better villains, no matter how inoffensive the crime. Their priorities are backwards (the majority of child abuse is ignored, the minority is blown up to ridiculous super-villainy status), and because of this, child molestation continues to be a sensationalist epidemic, children suffer at the hands of this "child abuse entertainment industry", John Walsh gets rich on their unfortunate demise, and vigilantes have a never-ending vat of human beings to terrorize for their own pleasure.

No one who is benefiting from child molestation is in any position to preach morality on the topic, it doesn't matter if you're a child molester, a vigilante, or a media reporter earning a buck off the sale of your latest story. On the contrary, the groups who have any position to say anything on the issue are those who don't stand to benefit from child molestation in any way--the hapless public lead to believe anything, and those who love children--known as CLs.

To Love Children

It has become more profitable to hate children than it is to love them, at least in the immediate material sense. How often are those who hate children given a carte blanche to spread vitriol by society as those who love children are lumped in with criminals, creeps, and people who want to harm them?

Those who practice love arouse everyone's suspicions as those who practice hate are given the shoulder. Those who practice harm are simply carrying out the deepest fantasies of those who harbor hate without resolve to act on it (which society tolerates), but hate when put into action is criminal. By contrast, those who practice harm are carrying out the antithesis of those who harbor love, whether the lovers are acting on their resolve or not (which society can not tolerate), but love when put into action is called charity.

In short, everyone is suspicious of love by itself--in this case, the love of a child, but when acted upon, only then it becomes divine. By contrast, no one is suspicious of hate by itself--the hate of children, but when acted upon, only then does it become harmful. People who hate children almost seem to have a protective barrier built around themselves that shields them from the suspicion of society. For surely, someone who hates children can not harm children, right?

Someone who loves children can not be given the same vote of confidence, as his mere interest in the benefit of children places him somewhere in the vicinity of the adult's piece of property (the child). And so long as the child remains property, all those who value it's worth can not be trusted even so much as a breathing on it, lest they snatch it up for themselves. Those who hate it, it's obvious, would never want to have it in the first place.

Comparing children to valued goods or pieces of property seems appropriate when attempting to comprehend the reasoning of why our society tolerates the hate of children before the love of children. Those who are not the owners of the property or granted temporary responsibility of it by it's owners--who find themselves simply sharing a view about the property's value with it's owners--simply can never be trustworthy. Those who own gold in their homes would be wise (at least according to popular thinking) to not keep company with strangers who also place a high value on that same gold. Those who detest gold (let's say it is possible) would be expected to be more trustworthy. Of course neither of these perspectives are true, deception is a powerful tool people will not think twice about to get what they want.

It is a function of a child's value as a living commodity for society that trust be assigned on those who should cross paths with it based entirely on how much they value the object. And in the minds of a possessive society, someone's evaluation (love or hate) of the object is inversely proportional to their degree of trustworthiness. In the minds of a paranoid society, those who profess love are only doing so because they are covering up for harmful desire. It doesn't cross anyone's mind that those who profess disinterest or hate could be on to their prejudices, playing their trust, in order to accomplish the same devious ends.

The result is the denial of non-parental love to children.

A Slow Disintegration

They're not entirely the slowly disintegrating corpuscles that they often believe themselves to be, but adults are grotesque, and they know it. The adult is motivated in part by their own slow deterioration, while being uplifted into the social realms of their own creation--having attained human rights and responsibilities--by the maturity they've earned through experience, they inevitably find themselves at a point where they see the transaction for what it really was. For rights and prestige, they've sold their passions. For maturity and responsibility, they've sold their enjoyments. Once this realization has been made, and it can be made at any age past the one drawn in the sand, the boundary between the noble savage and the burdened conqueror, they begin to envy the young, and in envy, there is aggression, and the result of aggression is control.

In the typical portrayal, the child envies the adult's rights without regard for the responsibilities that come with those rights, and the adult envies the child's sweet naivete and youthful ambition, and sexual virility, without regard to the restriction it is under. The child is not envious of the adult's actual state of disintegration any more than the adult is envious of the child's actual state of being inhuman property, but this typical portrayal is not necessarily an accurate depiction of the two psyches at work. Obviously children are at least aware of the adult's responsibilities, and being able to obtain the sacred rights of being human seems to them, from their state of reference, to be worth the price of responsibility. In the same way, to obtain youth or at least the closest proximity to it, the adult is also willing to pay a hefty price.

The plan is simple from there on out. One, control those who have what you want. Adults have granted themselves the power and authority to rule over every aspect of the lives of youth, to restrict their freedoms of expression, love, sentiment, and ability, guide them along preselected pathways to attainment that inevitably suit adult purposes, prosecute and otherwise stigmatize those who don't follow those routes, and all under the half-fast and yet bold-faced ideology of "protecting them." Two, transplant the activities and interests of those you envy into your own life once you've made it impossible for them to have them. It goes without saying, that so many advertisements geared for adults will focus on reattaining youth. Even the word "rejuvenation" which is so often touted in these ads is taken straight from the root word that forms "juvenile." Adults want to live the lifestyle they have assigned in their own imaginations as being that of a juvenile, and have all the rights and responsibilities that go along with adulthood. Essentially, once the actual juveniles are subjected, turn their subjection into adult "rejuvenation."

This is not to say that this is the result of some grand conspiracy, although most adults are in fact aware that this is part of their fundamental makeup. Regardless of whether or not the typical portrayal as described above really exists, many adults believe in it to such extents that they use it to justify the social set up they have constructed and are no doubt ashamed to keep. Like any gratifying thing though, they're helpless to its subtle lure like an addiction, even as they realize that their so-called protections for children are just a neatly packaged front for their ulterior motives. The more they push the button of subjecting youth, the more they get fed their rejuvenation, even when they know it doesn't, and will never work. They know they'll never be young again like the child knows one day she'll be human.

The overfed fear of child predators takes its cues from this dilemma. Adults fear the child predators because they fear that part of themselves that wants to re-assume the qualities of youth for their own pleasure. They hate child predators because they hate the audacity of the child predators for dragging their own psyches out into the open. When child molestation occurs, they not only hate and fear the captured slug, they take personal pleasure in watching it get squished, and they don't mind if their children are watching. The uncorrupted stasis of their children's eyes only needs to be preserved in times when "protecting the children" serves to position the adult as right and pure, but when it only shows them for what they are--gratifying succubi of youth--suddenly the slug must be squished and it's entrails rubbed all over the kids' faces, if only to distract them from the ugliness, the grotesque disintegration, that is them.

Vigilantism (The Scourge)

When hate and fear possess the soul of a human being already driven to the depths of madness over satisfying a power lust, the result is what we call a vigilante. His behaviors are a curse on humanity, because his hate and fear have eroded every last nerve of dignity and humility left, leaving nothing but an empty automaton, a slave to desire. Despite this, the modern vigilante has been given a great deal of law enforcement leeway, financial endorsement, and judicial control, for his craftiness has provided him a perfect victim for which to exploit--one without the resources or willingness to fight back--the "pedophile."

Anyone who preaches a love doctrine shouldn't expect to be the victor when preyed upon by the hateful, and no one should expect the weak to be protected when the hateful have them under their wing. The good (Childlovers) are mistaken for evil (child molesters) while the real evil (the vigilante) is handsomely rewarded for masquerading as the good. The victim (whether pedophile or not) is ridiculed--their life and property in ashes regardless of their guilt or innocence, and the so-called weaklings--the children--are no more safer than they were before, except in the imaginations of those entertained by this vicious struggle. And the end result? Children are less safe, some innocent people's lives are ruined, and the smug satisfaction of the vigilante's lust is fulfilled.

But the damage doesn't end there. The malignancy of vigilantism gains more power and political control until people begin trusting in it over the failings and inadequacies of legitimate justice systems. Evidence obtained through illegal means (as procured by vigilantes) suddenly starts popping up in courts and precedents are set in the proceedings of those brought to justice under some rogue's discretion. We increasingly live in a world ruled by the hateful and the fearful, those who wouldn't think twice about finding some way to pin you to the ground if they knew that their actions would throw such a weight on your life that you could never lift yourself back up.

Freedoms mean nothing to a vigilante, only his lust. Each one is an antichrist, a wolf in the guise of a sheep, a so-called "protector of children" who's real mission is to destroy the objectively innocent to satisfy his lust. Anyone who stands in his way is guilty, even the children themselves. He'd leave a child to die on the side of the road if it meant he could blame it on his personal enemy--that's anti-pedophile activists for you.

If we knew children could inspire such evil, we'd be hard pressed at calling them pure. Fortunately, the vigilante is not worth fighting because he'll sooner take himself and his confederates to the grave. As he is the servant to fear in his own world where justice is not given but taken, he begin to fear other vigilantes. Once they've all let that demon amok amongst themselves, that which has consumed their souls will begin taking their lives. He who lives for a child's love, lives. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.