HACKED FROM MOST PLACES ON MY HARD DRIVE- almost lost this in its entirety.
Somebody does not want you to read this or know it Ever!

Please advise on suitability of this….or should I return it to draft stage set to private and work on it?
Please leave detailed comments. First time up at this level.

On Pedophilia Up North
Over the long term means that one has a very large observational yardstick by which
to measure things. These can be broad general tendencies in society. It is not
empirical but experiential. One single anecdote does not count. Yet cluster several
together within one lifetime gives anecdotal evidence that at least suggests
evidence. Giving one observational power. The point of view of wisdom. The
recollected wisdom of years.
Where I live I have lived for nearly 30 years. I have seen some things. One of the
things one sees even over a 15 year period is the rapid decay into decrepitude of
people on drugs and booze. They easily become empty vacant zombies. This is
especially apparent in observing the last 15 years in the life of someone who’s been
drinking for 40 or 50 years. At this stage even when apparently sober they appeared
to be incapable of putting together two or three coherent sentences. Anyone who
even drinks half a glass a day but must have that half glass, in a soft definition, could
be counted as an alcoholic. This is one way to define the state. However I am not
talking about the one who must have at least half a glass of booze a day every day
and cannot avoid it. I am talking about the one whether he can afford it or not, or
she, appears to drink rather substantial quantities: such as three cartons every time
they go shopping even if it’s only once a week. If it is drunk all in one sitting and the
person is unable to afford any more booze that week, that to could constitute an
alcoholic. This is the binge drinking style. And they must do it every benefit payday.
This can go on for years; this can go on for decades; this can constitute virtually
one’s entire life. Such is the life of an actual alcoholic. Nobody bothers them too
much they don’t seem to harm anybody most of the time, a little loud on other times
perhaps, but not always. People who are otherwise well-behaved may still drink to
this excess. All of them gradually lose their brainpower. That cannot be denied. They
also have an ‘insinuating ‘ manner, by insisting on being ones friend when any non-alcoholic
person plainly recognises this fake ‘friendship’ died decades ago.
Alcoholics who intrude like this in our lives abound in our society everywhere. Yet it is
not alcohol I am condemning here. Though partly condemned also. For this is a story
of the false power of women empowered by an unchallenged and thus thoughtless
ideology monopoly. I am speaking of the false grounds of feminism which its highly
partial and bigotted bias toward men. Men having little or no contrary or politically
questioning voice here in New Zealand. Whatever women say is correct no matter
how ill founded or badly supported.
Nor is it alcoholics alone who are prone to the situations described below. It can
happen to any man in a feminist driven vigilante society. I notice this mob rule
behaviour in our courts as well as in our streets. Small men operating to assuage
their own poorer record perhaps in dealing with both women and children.
Something that only appears when ‘peoples parties’ like Obama and New Zealands
Jacinda Adhern emerge with apparent kindness on their lips. People are beaten up
who have never been attacked before in false elections stuffed with mail in votes that
are hard to check. Significantly one main New Zealand news website is called stuff
News. Under this eagis of  KiwiLand Aotearoa is fast becoming a rogue country fit only
for criminals, vigilante Lynch mobs and gangs of drug dealers; a trickster culture in
the making. Before Jacindas Election here I was assaulted twice by moronic thugs.
And once or twice afterwards. Though twice the age of my attackers; a very bad
representation of their kind. Merely cloaking the real reason for their assault. I love
haunting second hand shops for books and they thought I took all the best ones.
Which I do since as a writer of novels I do know books. How silly of me to be caught
out in liking books. They were hustlers whose viler accusations aligned with their
business model, for they too selected books; yet not ones generally that I would
choose, for the purpose
These are the ones when observed by others to be less than fully capable are often
set upon by thieves or harassed by thugs. Sometimes, though hopefully rarely, they
are beaten up.
It is another group entirely to which I wish to draw attention. Harmless men generally,
probably harmless men, and all men, or merely possibly harmless men ñ who drink
in the manner described above. Who are victims not of thieves nor of thugs yet are
nevertheless victims. The victims I wish to talk about here are these drinking men
who basically do little harm as social drinkers on the way home with the cartons of
booze. They probably drink in front of the TV while the rest of their family tries its
best to ignore them. All they have in common is the deterioration in their brainpower.
They do become harmless idiots incapable of coherent thought or speech yet
otherwise morosely peaceable. Other people pick on them as they are easy targets.
They are also very unattractive citizens and members of the public. The spouse one
keeps around with embarrassment, the family member who is much ignored, the dull
company shunned by most.
The victimhood consists of this; they are easy marks for any kind of feminist
accusation. A school women’s group. A mother who doesn’t like him being around. A
society basically that just wishes he would go away. Any situation will do to get rid of
him. He may not in any proactive way deliberately do harm, have the intention to do
harm, or actually do any harm. Yet he is not wanted around. Nobody wants him
around. Therefore the normal watchfulness for his legal protections are almost
entirely absent. So that when he does get into trouble everyone backs off from
offering him a robust, determined and stout defence. Everyone senses this. No one
wants to be cruel. Yet no one wants to be entangled in a cruel and unjust accusation.
In court he puts up a weak defence and is basically rolled over by the process. No
one defends him, nor can they, for all the participants have the same thought in their
head ñ even the victim. “I might have done it” thinks the man inside himself. He
cannot recollect, his wits are not about him, cleverness abandons him, he’s probably
thinking “I need a drink”. And the thought they all share together? That it is men
alone who abuse little children. New Zealand is the most feminised feminist country
in the world in this consciousness. It cannot think that lesbians, women, children and
other females can abuse little children. Yet if we ask the question who has the
greatest access to children the answer is very clear. Let us briefly examine another
issue, a third issue alongside these other two men as victims and men as drinkers.
This time we will examine the whole issue of who has access to children and the
nature of crime and criminality under a very commonly held and understood
viewpoint. The viewpoint being that the components not only of the murder mystery
type of tale but probably all crime contain common elements.
These common items as everyone immediately recognises when you hear the begin
with motivation. What is the motivation for the crime? The next question is to ask
about the occasion, the access, the availability ñ or basically who has the opportunity
to commit the crime? The third and last thing to ask is who gains, what is the payoff,
is it money, is it pleasure, is power, is it attention, or is it some other psychological,
social or ideological point in consciousness to be made? With these men as
suspects no other questions are as is that not a little suspicious? After all almost
everyone in the courtroom believes he did do it by the sheer force of an all pervasive
feminist ideology which officially endorses that all men oppress all women. What
easier fall guy could there be? Then this mute indefensible inadequate and even
incompetent drinking individual before them? Feminist justice shows no mercy. He is
a target. Go get him. He’ll serve our ideologically purposed nicely. See. What a dirty
lowdown criminal he is.
There are several more questions that ought to be asked in such a courtroom.
Questions that every journalist knows. About all things specific. Such as who? What?
When? Where? How? Why? Questions that supplement the overall motivational and
opportunistic questions above. Then justice might well be served. Accusations alone
are not good enough. A little girl can be browbeaten by her mother into forwarding
and sticking with such cajolings and carrying on and carrying through the accusation
that is so dreadfully suggested to her by that very same mother. Not that we can ever
know. The mother may well be fully emotionally convinced he did do something. Why
are these cases so lacking in physical proof? Accusation and a prevailing feminist
ideology rule the roost here. What harm it does greatly to a 10-year-old girl that she
have such power. Will she spend a lifetime accusing men for that same rush of
power in the future? Who else will be harmed in such an open and shut case? How
many more men will be damaged further down the line and a young woman ruined
for proper relations and even from having a family? And other such virulent vicious
and vindictive women encouraged by such a signal. We forget the harm on the other
side of the equation. So busy are we hurting the easy mark. The drunk who cannot
make sense. The unattractive figure he cuts. So uncool. Who would even bother to
defend him?
We have raised so far two groups of matters, or three. Lastly then is another one.
Those above must rest for now and await a larger essay. The last one is to consider
some factors that emerge from cases of men being picked-on in the context of a
supposed ”outbreak’ of paedophilia up north, in the Northland province of New
Zealand. The clue to one of them has already been given: booze.
There are several vectors arising from the first case of James Parker convicted of
molesting in a fairly deliberate and proactive way a number of boys in his care as a
schoolteacher.
He is the classic paedophile. He was abused himself when young in the same
manner as he then went on to abuse others. It seems he deliberately sought a
position where he could do this. He invited boys to sleepovers in his house where
there were many activities and he could cull or ‘cut-out’ several boys in whom he
could discern some vulnerability including the paedophilia. There was drink available.
He drank himself. James Parker was not old. He had been in trouble with the law
over precisely these types of things before but was neither charged nor convicted.
And from this case we can draw already some of the predominant factors or vectors
in paedophilia. They are now listed below.
1. Drinking low alcohol or soft drugs offered as a opener before committing the
initially slight acts. Creating an atmosphere of forbidden adult delicious
pleasures.And a whispering kind of conspiratorial atmosphere.All easy enough to do.
I know as some of this is required to read engrossing stories to children yet culturally
must not be mistakenly confused with it. It is such a real value in the imaginative
lives of children. One ca only condemn men or women or teachers if ever they
violate that code. Trust is so precious a thing; truly monstrous is any transgression of
its finer workings for good.
2. Sleepovers, camping, trips, gifts combining to create obligation, obligation,
opportunity and an exiting strategy. Crime always has these components:
oppurtunity or access (why do we Docs only men who generally have the least
access to children?), ‘blaming the victim’risk, of being caught; motivation, ;gain or
advantage (power, control or sexual pleasure, release), ; regains lost innocence?
Talismanic transfer (psychological), ; money income (selling pictures?), a bond with
some weird inner circle? (Pedophile network) or ability or instinct warped in order to
perform otherwise cruel, merciless, abject and otherwise transgressions and
unconscionable acts? Murder, theft, violence, extortion (traffic in guilt-as in blaming
the victim) a sort of super-acing of the dreadful game.
3.Camoflage by taking female lovers, girlfriends and assiduously cultivating people
to be on his side if gossip or suspicions arise. Disguise, playacting, secrecy to the
point of being able to turn the vows or extracted oaths into being occasion of being
blackmail and extortion by outing the victim as ‘perpetrator’– the infamous Stockholm
syndrome.
4. Location away from town. Evincing remarkable deliberation in the wide ranging
planning. creation of events and interests, as excuses for further visits. Electing
favourites. Creating special chosen status for his victims.
5. What did he gain? What advantage was there in it for him? Was it a sense of
power? Or just pure pleasure? Plainly he was fit and healthy and capable of sexual
activity himself ñ he was not impotent.
Contrast this with the case of the Mormon elder who merely tickled a girl. This could
be innocent. It could be harmless. Did any actual medical harm come to the girl from
this tickling? Any psychological harm? Apparently she had to be worked over pretty
thoroughly by the cajoling mum to encourage her to place this possibly trumped up
charge against the man who was after all a very unattractive figure. In fact to anyone
at all he would be seen accurately as an extremely distressing figure. An ugly clumsy
man who does not know that the ‘chucking under the chin’ routine is no longer
acceptable. Mostly we just put up with these socially inept bunglers and keep out of
their way. No one in the right mind would want him around even if he did nothing at
all. Being a total klutz is boring and tiresome for those who have to deal with them.
Just like intrusive ‘vigilante’ guys too today. Both are tiresome, inept and clumsy. But
that is not often a criminal offence. Is he a criminal? Did someone just get fed up with
him and not want him around anymore? False accusation could an indirect way to
have that happen. Then he could get treatment too right and dry out from his blatant
alcoholism. A very unsuitable individual to be hanging around his partners creche/
care-centre too right? So why anyway was the woman given a licence for the minder
service without vetting thoroughly? They must have known something like this would
come up. Or are there other reasons for such laxity. The blame spreads far wider if
you look closer.
Also there is the question of his fittingness to stand trial. I would have thought that
his appallingly inadequate performance in court argued strongly for this mitigation
instead of a cheap statistic for feminism that condemn all men indirectly. Targeted
and exact condemnations on the true nature of his guilt in being a drunkard is far
more nearer the usable outcome of his predicament and also protect little girls from
untoward gaucheries of that unwelcome kind.
Compared to James Parker I mean.
Unless of course it is to crank up the heterosexuals statistics and keep the fantasy
feminists lesbian rainbow somewhat ‘purer’ in statistical possibility so as to make it
even easier in the future to ‘blame-the-patriarchy’ once again. And thus somehow
‘prove’ matriarchy better for ‘all’ than men. Notably Parker was given only five years
since homosexuals are purer today and who cares for little boys anyway. This sort of
distorted gender justice is enough to make any male uprising in the future far more
corrective of these current warped injustices than ever. Not that I plan to do anything.
Except I see it’s inevitability.
James Parker was deliberate as he had his full faculties. The old man was an old
boozer and did not have his full faculties he was virtually unable to defend himself in
the courtroom. James Parker was articulate intelligent devious and had had a fairly
marked previous devious record constituting several occasions where a report had
been made on him. Did the old man at 68 have a record of such things? It appears
not. James Parker plied his victims with alcohol in little amounts ñ did the old man do
so too? James Parker went to an elaborate extent in organising his events trips and
sleepovers where his offending occurred; he is the classic paedophile targeting little
boys or does his homosexuality protect him? Is there any evidence that the old man
created his occasions in any proactive way for any deliberate planned offending? No
there is not. He neither set up the situations nor plied people with drink or drugs and
was probably impotent as many such old drunks are. So what pleasure advantage or
gain did he make for his very high risk that he was too stupid to notice. And thus he
was unguarded. Or is it once again the cruel feminist politics that drives such an
unjust outcome from such an unjust unprovable accusation. What is the crime here?
Is it a feminist crime? Not the mother, not the child, not the man, nor the courts. But a
hate crime with a token man as a stand-in for all the others. Guilt by association.
Guilty by accusation. Guilty without proof. An unjust justice that is no justice at all.
The man probably ashamed already at the accusation saw the comfort of a private
session with a judge alone and no jury. He felt shame. He still had a conscience. Yet
that Judge roundly condemned him. James Parker showed no remorse whatever.
His crime was deliberate. He is a criminal. Right