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.

The Tethered Master

If only the mature people could see how incredibly childish they are. In the back of an adult's mind, they seem to know it implicitly, but always defer to the cultural expectation of the authority placed on them. The expectation they use as a catch-all justification for all age-iniquity is that the adult is limited by their responsibility, tethered by their professionalism, constrained by their worry, and tied down to the standards of conduct and pretense, and that for some reason, are and should continue to be, the masters of this planet solely by virtue of this fact.

They are slavish masters, it would seem, if that makes any sense. The one who is the most tethered, the most constrained, the most limited, is the one who grants him or herself the most unconditional respect. How much ego does it take to crown oneself master of a planet and then call children "egotistical" for claiming ownership of every toy they see? It takes the full maturity of a person's faculties to even know how to stretch logic and justification so far that even carrying a self-applied burden can somehow now become a "virtue," and yet it's what adults do every day. They anoint themselves "masters" to make themselves feel good about being slaves. It's childish human nature through and through.

They envy childhood and demean children. They go from believing fairy stories to looking down on the creatures who do, and instead grow up to indulge themselves in their own fairy stories--fairy stories of the child molester behind the face of every man, fairy stories about the constant hidden menace to their young in the world, fairy stories about the hazards of the air, the sunlight, the water, the ground below their feet, the sky above their heads, and the immanent destruction of what they love in that space. They'd sooner take their child out of that space if they were told by their cable news parents that "air" was deadly.

They're pacified by their parent media, like children, are told when to feel good, when to feel sad, and when to feel outraged at all the right parts in the fairy story, by musical cue, by expert editing--close faces, black and white, blurry images--and it works on them. They gasp, they panic, they clutch their children close and push others away at the behest of an invisible force, and all when they are told to, and all for the sake of saving themselves from the tedium of being "adult," to justify such a malignant position of authority because they know without it they would have no reason to do so.

They dread their quickening decay, their inevitable death, and in so doing decide to deny life to the young to spare them of any and all fate the same. They manufacture inhuman hardship for children in the effort to maximize their little one's comfort, convince themselves they are in the right, and then pat themselves on the back for their so-called selfless ingenuity in fleeing from the fear and guilt that rides their lives for doing it. That is the modern human adult at play--a child having his way when he's wrong.

Adults set the standards by which they judge themselves and others, and by that fact alone, are powerful. It is arrogance, but it is human. Being tethered to responsibility does not equate to virtue, as the Sword of Damocles teaches us, but an arrogant human mind in seeking to justify its doomed and slavish position of personal limitation, will ascribe to it "virtue" to save itself. Likewise, being carefree as children are said to be (which also is not the case, children are far from "care free") does not equate to its own assigned virtue. Once again, an arrogant human mind in seeking to justify the deprivation of rights and dignity to children, will ascribe to childhood the virtue of innocence, and the lack of virtue when comparing it to that of an adult's.

That is to say, an adult looks at a child's reality by way of distance and when in comparison, assigns their own reality to virtue by deeds (for them, a superior method of human appraisal, because children are supposedly deemed incapable of willful deeds), and assigns a child's to virtue by its mere existence--as one subservient, humble, and incapable of willful deeds (ie. innocence). These are not truths about either reality, but arrogant presumptions made by adult psychology. They are human, and therefore childish, things to presume. They are a part of human nature, but they are not justifiable.

Men and Children Can Coexist

I reject traditional masculinity and promote child guidance instead, and does it make me virtuous? Does that make me the ideal man? One brimming with patience, sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and love? Not in the eyes of a society where it would be more acceptable and profitable that I should be the man they can best sell to, and though I've done nothing, be kept from even sitting next to children on airplanes based on my sex alone. The sensitive man is not any more profitable than the man who complains about such sexist discrimination, for both are cast with the same suspicion of deviance just for being what they are--men who question social prejudice in one way or another rather than just accept it as men are expected to, and as many do. Where do we fit in as men when it comes to children?

The sensitive men are feared at best, ridiculed, emasculated, and then outright hated at worst. Those who can't understand our lifestyle look at us with a light-hearted condescension at first, jokingly making us surrender to judgment for the crime of heterosexual, and homosexual, male non-conformity. When I refuse to let it get to me, and carry on anyway because the world needs more compassion in it from our side towards children (which the world itself also says is lacking), the fearful among them unleash their ignorance completely--as if offended by their own inability to get under my skin--and amp up their assault not with more "efem" jokes, but with real threats. I could be kicked off an airplane simply because I'm a male sitting next to an unattended child and I refuse to move. Now I want to know what impression it is having on children where, wherever they go, they are to see men scatter, or be beaten back with sticks. That's child abuse in my book.

It seems all those who reject the commercially manufactured beer-swigging, sex-crazed lifestyle of the modern man are subject to termination by not only its benefactors but its hive-minded heterosexual adherents, raised to hate children instead, as if that was preferable to loving them. In the eyes of the world, child guidance is not a suitable interest for the modern man, no matter how necessary it is. Men and children however, can coexist in the same world without someone pressing a panic button, because we have existed in the same world for millions of years, even long before people decided to start putting paranoid sexist discrimination before human dignity. When certain people decided to start separating every man from every child, they separated their humanity from themselves. It's time we separated them from their perches. 

Predator Panic

Our modern culture is fixated on child molestation, predation, kidnapping, and pedophilia. It is obsessed with the concept of children getting picked off and preyed upon, and there is no low the media won't stoop to, no far-fetched connection they won't try to harmonize with, and no half-baked conclusion they won't try to draw, in order to connect child molestation to every depiction or reference to children and childhood in popular culture, whether real or fake. Children in fiction as well as life seem to exist solely to perpetuate the narrative of "predation and rescue," or "child in distress," if only to soothe the guilty adult conscience for the state of society, but the repetition of this narrative has its unforeseen consequences.

Children and youth still have no standing or legitimacy for themselves under the predation narrative, because it exists for the benefit of adults. Such thoughts do not flow from the spring of respect or dignity, and only produce the tainted waters of iniquity and conceit. It may even get to the point where we can't bring children to mind without conjuring the imagery of abduction and molestation, abuse and dismemberment. Such a schema is not child-centric, or even child concerned, since it only exists for the adult's purposes. Predator panic is a function of selfishness. It soothes the adult mind and guilt. It's about justifying the decadence of adult indulgence and maintaining adult control of youth. Why do you think vigilantes latch onto it with such zealotry and demagoguery? Selfishness is their raison d'etre. Why do you think victimology is such a profitable market? It is a sickness, and many have already fallen prey to it. But I suspect its time is slipping away, and soon the tide may turn and we may see a generation more immune to the sickly fascinations that prey upon the mental defects of this current one.

This molestation fixation is neither healthy, nor does it benefit children anything. In fact, it may even be one causal factor influencing our reactions toward minor misconduct, particularly toward minor sexual expression, formed in zealotry and expressed with draconian simplicity. Easing the worried mind, troubled by the constant thought of destruction, becomes the highest priority when all we are lead to believe is that destruction is everywhere. The moment we lose sight of reality, we lose a hold of our future. And if children are our so-called future, inhabiting reality, you'd think it would behoove us to keep our minds firmly rooted, rather than let them drift to fantasize the inevitable destruction of children and childhood at every turn of the page, every flip of the channel, and every thought in the head. Some are rooted well, still others are out to sea.

In any case, fixation on child endangerment by its ceaseless repetition in our thoughts and culture does nothing to stem the tide on actual child abuse, which has no total abatement, nor does it actually inform us of the reality of it. Instead, this fixation only contributes toward the increasing infantilization and marginalization of all young people by the paranoid and restless adult psyche. Teachers may have their own "teacher's pet" without gaining the assumption of pedophilia. Coaches may still pat their players on the back without gaining the same assumption about their motivations for doing such. Boys may still be allowed to perform in Catholic church choirs, and sign up for Boy Scouts without the need for viewer-hungry tabloid journalists to assume potential child abuse connections between everyone involved. Girls may be allowed male tutors or mentors without the need for bureaucratic entanglements -for if we were to suspect all men of being pedophiles when it comes to working with girls, we may as well outlaw every daughter's father, every niece's uncle, or every sister's older brother as well.

When we have broken up enough families though, disallowed enough youth from community outreach organizations, and severed all bonds between adult and child in society, do you think our fearful minds will finally be at ease, even then? Do you think that children will be safe, even then? It takes a perverse mind, a sick mind, to look upon that which has no sexual or abusive context and contrive out of it "sex abuse of children," so even if every draconian reaction were set in stone, that perversity already there would only continue to infect and grow. It takes a healthy mind to look upon things for what they are and see them for what they are--to look upon children and see them as children rather than "potential victims." Children grow into adults, and will serve the future. "Potential victims" only serve the current paranoid adult's darkest fantasies.

Forgiveness in the New Year

With a new year comes a new reason to be forgiving of oneself and others. Wrongful deeds can never be forgiven, but people always can. On that note, while we can forgive the scientists, the military brass, the low-level personnel, who participated in doing this:

Declassified picture of an 8-10-year-old MK-ULTRA subject, 1961.

...we can not and should not forgive the program itself, nor the non-human governments, departments, and agencies that authorized it, funded it, and carried it out, nor the paranoid delusions and ignorance that kept it authorized, funded, and carried out. And that also goes for any other experiment or project undertaken for the purpose of finding new ways to wage war on human dignity. Some information about the picture:

"Project MK-ULTRA ran from the early 1950s to at least the late 1960s, using American and Canadian citizens as its test subjects. The published evidence indicates that Project MK-ULTRA involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs and other chemicals, sensory deprivation, isolation, and verbal and physical abuse.

The most publicized experiments conducted by MK-ULTRA involved the administration of LSD on unwitting human subjects, including CIA employees, military personnel, doctors, other government agents, prostitutes, mentally ill patients, and members of the general public, in order to study their reactions.

However, the scope of MK-ULTRA does not however stop. Experiments involving violent electroshocks, physical and mental torture and abuse were used in a systematic matter on many subjects, including children." [As pictured above.]    -Secret Arcana

The next time you hear a government express a devotional sympathy to protect children, just think about what it is capable of doing to them to "provide for your common defense." Individuals within government have children, the structure itself does not, and therefore has no such sympathy. It has allowed for children's corruption and destruction before, and it will again. The same government that would presume a child's interests are not being met within their home can and does look the other way on its own abuses. It does so because it can without remorse. Minors are second-class citizens to the government--second-class human beings. People though, see them differently.

The Natural Mystic

There's a natural mystic blowing through the air. It's telling me that there's going to be more oppression, more restriction, more isolation. It's informing me of a law in Maine where it is illegal for adults to "look at children" in public places, and saying that there is no way one could misinterpret language that precise. For sure, adults will just have to avert their eyes, including parents, when children are out in public, or risk a felony charge. Don't ask me how I can discern the sign of the times--the natural mystic is floating somewhere in the reddening sky.

Enforcement of such a law is questionable, but its existence paves a way for a society that is founded on distrust, for there is no practical application of this law (no rational person would seek charges against someone simply "looking" at children). It exists so that it may feed into irrational people's anxieties, so only irrational and anxious people will make use of it, and otherwise good people will suffer because of it.

It may be intended to save children from "visual aggression," but it will be cited only by those who are blinded by fear. They'll see a strange man "leering" where a father is merely supervising his kids. They'll fear for the kids and want to call down justice on the man even just for putting such disturbing thoughts in their heads. The real crime is simply infringing on the comfortable sanctity of a weak mind when you commit the act of normal behavior. When we empower the irrational, we should expect them to utilize their newfound power to condemn all that is good and neighborly in the world.

Unfortunately, nothing could be more harmful to our children than inheriting a paranoid world where nobody so much as talks, or in this case "looks," at one another for fear of a weak mind's accusations. Naturally, that is the last thing the paranoid are concerned with. Where there is a wedge drawn between children and adults and all people are isolated, the paranoid are satisfied. Where there is unity, and kindness, and understanding, they are terrified. Where people gather and enjoy themselves in the park with their children, the paranoid are terrified. Where people are locked away and held up in their private homes for fear of shadows, the paranoid are comforted.

So the natural mystic is telling me we will see a day when the punishments we reserve for sex offenders are given out to all members of society equally, the young and old alike. It's telling me that we will do nothing to stop its approach, for we will be demanding it with the continuous outcry of "protect the children." With that demand, we'll see atrocity, we'll see the erosion of human rights. We'll mistake the demon of fear spreading its wings for an angel of mercy.

The mark of an antichrist is emblazoned with the words "visual aggression of children." Don't ask me how I know, a little bird told me not to worry because everything is going to be alright (in the end).

Restricted Access

We may one day get our wish, and see a society where our public spaces are divided up between the adults and the children. If it comes to that, it will be done to shield kids against all those society believes capable of potentially harming them. We already see prohibited access to adults without children at certain public exhibitions (such as children's museums), and even prohibited access to all adults (parents included) at certain school functions (such as sporting events). Anyone who may say that increasing paranoia only affects children neglects to see the bi-directionality of the freedoms it places limits on--in this case, the freedom to move across generations.

To meet this paranoia over pedophiles being in arm's reach of children with further paranoia about the social wedge being formed between adults and children is like fighting fire with fire, but one can't help but feel this "cure" is worse or just as bad as the disease. If we were to come at this issue from a reasonable perspective, we'd see that for every child harmed by a co-existence with adults in the world as we know it, potentially millions of children would be deprived of adult interaction if we were to become a society that parsed out its adults from its children. If this can be determined wrong at this extreme, why can it be permitted in the routine of reality?

In our effort to create for children some kind of wholesome, fuzzy, cushioned existence, are we seeing the beginnings of a society where we have sealed them off from reality and the adults that inhabit it for some ill-conceived desire to protect children and preserve their ignorance? In denying an adult from participating in certain public events out of the fear that all those who are not parents are pedophiles, we have to be mindful of what message is really being imparted in that "wholesome, fuzzy, cushioned existence." How "wholesome" can it be when we've let the few perverts in our imaginations turn all ordinary people into pedophiles?

To tell you the truth, I'm all for promoting child safety under those terms. If schools (for instance) have a right to ban all adults (including parents) from certain events, then parents have a right to not let their children go to the event. They can all sit home and watch the vacant stadium on TV where the event would have been taking place, and know that "safety" has been maintained for the school's sake. One could even argue that it could promote safety by not even having the events at all. I declare that mission accomplished.

There's this fetishism over the harm that can potentially come upon our children, and an expectation that children are not going to be witness to, much less be harmed by our paranoia. Can one imagine a narrative where the child and adult are bravely holding hands against an onslaught of rigid security trying to pry them apart? Can one imagine a world where adults have their own approved walkways and stairwells and bathrooms, and children have their own respective rooms, walkways, tables in restaurants...etc.--where parents and children are tagged and separated as they are shoved along to their secluded spaces only to be reunited at the close of services? Can one imagine a future where children's only interaction with adults is via screen? If it is unthinkable in the extreme, then why is it permitted in the routine of reality?

How free can a society be where everywhere children are expected to gather, adults are to keep a five-hundred foot distance? How safe can children be in that society? When does trying to protect children from potential harm become mixed up with such ill-gotten ways of attaining personal alleviation for the anxiety of potential harm? Adults and children are residents of the same society, the same Earth, and we are not doing them or us any justice by dividing the "fuzzy reality" from the "grim reality." If adults weren't so obsessed with creating a dreamworld for children, they could spend some time fixing the grim reality, and if they allowed children to exist in that reality with them, they'd see the reason for fixing it.

The Spectre Haunting Kids

The spectre haunting childhood these days is not pedophilia, it is the mechanism of alienation on the part of a society paranoid about them. A slug child molester harms individual children at particular instances, but paranoia harms all at every time. Yet it is surprising that, given that intuition, paranoia is allowed to run rampant, raping, robbing, and killing off people's better judgment and attention to their children. Parents become like frightened children themselves, hellbent at protecting their toybox from the demons lurking in the shadows at the end of the bed, their children reduced to toys and their sanity reduced to well-intentioned but dangerous psychosis.

Paranoia affects its children with improper socialization, a distanced interaction, a alienation between self and society; it builds a barrier between parents and society, a brick wall between children and parents, and pits society against itself. When benevolent actions become the subject of everyone's suspicions, evil is overlooked.

Already the call has gone out for more male involvement for children's organizations at community levels, and evidence has shown that both girls and boys benefit from male involvement in their lives. However, the old cultural dispersions have once again claimed more well-intentioned lives for the sake of psychosis, and men are just as dissuaded from these positions and turned away from childcare arenas as they would have been back in the days before so-called gender equality. This is a time of paranoia and suspicion indeed, and it's effects are no more beneficial than you would expect.

A Parent's Fickle Trust

Parents can't be blamed. If children can get away with dragging others down by their ignorance, then parents should be afforded the same for doing the same. They're just as destructive a force in society as their kids and twice as easy to manipulate. If it is reasonable that children be taught not to talk to strangers, than it should also be reasonable that parents be taught not to listen to them.

As easy as it is for a parent to see their children manipulated by some predator, it is nearly impossible for them to see themselves manipulated by five o' clock predator scare on the news. And just as blind as they accuse children of being to the consequences of letting that stranger lead them into the backseat, parents are completely blind to the consequences of letting that stranger on TV take them by the hand through the land of paranoia. The consequences of which are the poison that never fails to trickle down to the child's level.

Of course parents don't have as much influence as they think, having surrendered a lot of that direct influence over to other entities--to strangers no less. Trust is a funny thing, because sometimes the only thing that separates a potential predator from a trusted caretaker is a piece of paper--most of the time it's nothing but the judgments in a parent's head. When the protections for children are not strong enough, parents will cut in line to defend a law that makes it illegal for any adult to be within 50 feet of a child, and they will cheer its success, but will they too take that 50 foot step back from their own? If not, then they have to decide, who should be taking that step and who should not?

Just as parents can be manipulated into trusting no one, they can also be manipulated into trusting people who may actually pose a threat. This is because every parent mind comes with a schema of trustworthiness they use to judge an individual. If the individual comes with paperwork, they are trustworthy. If the individual is clean, they are trustworthy. If the individual is friendly, they are trustworthy. However, if an individual breaks any of these criteria, and others like them, then there's no way the kids are safe around them. It's important to note that these judgments are often irrespective of harm. A person who meets the criteria and yet still manages to harm a child is always held in higher esteem than a person who doesn't meet the criteria and yet causes the child no harm.

This is not to say a parent will allow the molestation of their child if the perpetrator is, for instance, young and good looking--just that they'll never see it coming. Sad, but that's the folly of human nature.