Daily Archives: December 16, 2015

MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry thinks STAR WARS is Racist because of Vader?…


Date: December 16, 2015

01) MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry thinks STAR WARS is Racist because of Vader?


Melissa Harris Perry [of MSNBC] claims Darth Vader is a symbol of racism…

…I’m just astonished, that anyone even thinks this way…It’s weak reasoning, at best.

No matter how popular Star Wars is…the movies don’t deserve that deep of a critique, in the first place…And especially not something so…speculative and nefarious.

I mean…let’s be real here…There are tons of different races represented in Star Wars, and they seem to mostly get along just fine.

The battle is between freedom and domination…choice or control…hope or fear.

All races represented were embroiled in this struggle…It was never about race.

The whole hypothesis about Vader being a racist symbol, is entirely projection.

Where do these news channels even find people, like this Melissa Harris Perry?

From what I’ve been seeing of her…she is a good example, of exactly why I quit watching these mainstream, cable “news” networks. They’re largely just fluff, filled with people who are trying to create conflicts, and impose censorship.

Those types of people, along with their agendas, are toxic.

M.A. Voice: Issue 01…

……
….

Articles and content from Minor Attracted People [MAPs], presented in no particular order and without preference or discrimination. These are diverse viewpoints.


Date: December 16, 2015

01) Alain Manés4: #Pedophilia≠Child Sexual Abuse/Rape. A reflexion.

02) Todd Nickerson: Our haters are moral infants…or at least moral children.

03) pedophilelife: My origin story.

04) Leonard Sisyphus Mann: 18 Common Misconceptions About Paedophiles & Paedophilia: Update & Reblog.

05) Ender Wiggin: Pride? Who Said Pride?


If you’re a Minor Attracted Person [MAP] who would like your content featured in the next issue, please use the form below to pass along the necessary information.

You may also submit content created by other MAPs. Any form of legal content [written, audio, video, artistic, academic, personal expression, etc.] will be considered for inclusion.

All submissions made via this form are private.

….

Other Issues

From the Warehouse: EQ Review 005 [An Unfinished Project Concerning Curley V NAMBLA]…


Date: December 16, 2015

The raw text of this entire post, in zip archive.

If you like…Rocky shall read this mountain of a post to you…Beware, however…There may be some flub ups, since this was created as an afterthought…Not much time was put into it.


In February of 2009, I stumbled across a four part video series, claiming to be about the legalizing of adult child sexual relations…Upon beginning to view these videos, it quickly became apparent that this series leaned heavily on the Curley V NAMBLA lawsuit…and tons of rhetoric, I would ultimately find.

ConcernedChristian58 is not what I would recognize, as a reliable source of information…But, this four part series opened the door to something I was interested in both understanding deeper, and being able to explain.

So, I launched into a response, which was supposed to be released in my own video series…but, the YouTube account got locked before I had finished this…and this project got shelved.

I never completed it…In part, this is because it burned me out…and it really disappointed me, that these were softball assertions I was responding to…Plus, ConcernedChristian58 habitually started to reassert just about everything all over, I believe somewhere in the third part…After painstakingly doing this much work, I wasn’t up to dealing with that and needed a break.

Here are the four videos:

For the record, I don’t recommend watching these. They are here for reference, in the event you want such.

01) Legalizing Adult Child Sexual Relations PART ONE

02) Legalizing Adult Child Sexual Relations PART TWO

03) Legalizing Adult Child Sexual Relations PART THREE

04) Legalizing Adult Child Sexual Relations PART FOUR


What follows is the [mostly] raw content I produced, intended to be used in a video series of my own…Since this never came to fruition, and since I more recently happened across this content…I decided I should do something with it. Since I wont likely repackage this into a new video [which, ideally, I’d prefer to do], I decided to simply publish what I have on hand. It’s not a complete rebuttal…but what is here, is actually quite decent. I thought it would be a shame, to do nothing with it.

If NAMBLA, or anyone sensitive to the social obstacles of MAPs, wishes to take my words here and use them in their own projects [including building upon, or revising them]…I am inviting you to do such.

I’ve always felt that this episode in MAP history, is one which needs to be deeply documented and told.


Other Citations:

01) Curley family drops lawsuit vs. NAMBLA [item gone]

02) Article Gone

03) Curley v NAMBLA

04) Wikipedia article


There was one other link I saved, but don’t think I used anything from it.

05) Stripping pedophiles of their civil liberties North American Man/Boy Love Association promotes questionable sexual abuse

I likely saved this link, because I wanted to come back to it…The spin Thomas Campbell puts on this case, is especially biting…and I thought it demanded a response…He was trying to argue “Anyone advocating sexual contact with children is advocating lawlessness at the expense of children.”…and hence, that NAMBLA deserved what was happening to it…And that “NAMBLA’s right to free speech ends when it advocates the sexual molestation of citizens who cannot defend themselves.”

…In short, it is dreaming up reasons, as to why the ability to exercise ones voice does not belong to certain groups of people.

Just thought I’d throw the link in here, in the event anyone else wants to pick it up and run with it, on their own.


The Original Project Raw Content:

The Curley Vs NAMBLA Case: [A response to the media description.]

===

February 25, 2009

===

ConcernedChristian58

“This is a movie (1 of a 4 part series) that exposes the ultimate depravity of our government, our so-called legal system, and provides an in-depth expose on the little-known case of a 10 year old’s murder.”

Actually, no…

Curley v. NAMBLA was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2000, by Barbara and Robert Curley against the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

This was a major story, on mainstream media…television, internet, radio and newspaper…It was covered by a wide range of media, when it initially broke. This was do, in no small part, to the court case which would follow…a case which our legal system has likely never seen quite the likes of, before.

The story resurfaced a few times over, after the initial media circus surrounding it died down.

Even though this heinous crime happened over a decade ago, there is not much justification, in calling this case “little known”. It has made history.

“This child was sexually assaulted by 2 men that are members of a group that promotes same-sex pedophilia practices known as NAMBLA.”

Let’s introduce some established facts here…

The boys name is Jeffrey Curley. The two men charged and convicted, were Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari.

Charles Jaynes was charged with kidnaping, sexual assault and murder.

Salvatore Sicari was charged with kidnaping, and being an accessory.

They may have been charged with obstruction of justice, or some other crime, for trying to dispose of Jeffrey’s body, also…though I don’t recall this specifically.

Allegedly, Jaynes accessed the NAMBLA website at a Boston public library, just prior to taking Jeffrey home with him, to commit the mentioned crimes.

Also, allegedly, Jaynes had previously been subscribed to receive NAMBLA bulletins.

Only Jaynes was ever claimed to be a member of NAMBLA. “Membership in NAMBLA”, for most participants, means little more than paying their $35 per year fee, and receiving a quarterly magazine, containing very legal material. Jaynes, allegedly had eight issues of this publication, in his possession at his home.

In other words, NAMBLA has become primarily a magazine publisher…It’s membership, is made up of a few people who take leadership roles, and then the rest of the group, who are the subscribers to that magazine.

They don’t even have an open, yearly convention anymore, and have not for years (though they have been seen, participating in public protests recently).

Your average NAMBLA member, is guilty of little more than paying for, and receiving four NAMBLA magazines, yearly.

“Neither the child or the parents received ANY resolution or justice.”

Not true…

Both of the men charged and convicted with this crime, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, are presently serving life sentences in prison, at least one without the possibility of parole.

Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, together comprise the entire party, which was knowledgeable and intentional, in the commission of these heinous crimes.

The law, and the Curley’s got their perpetrators…who were charged, tried, found guilty, sentenced and incarcerated.

If anyone does not consider this “resolution” or “justice”, then they have a very strange definition of such terms. The legal system worked, and this was about as much resolution and justice, as anyone could have reasonably hoped for.

“But NAMBLA received what amounted to a “slap on the wrist”. Our “justice system” granted this organization protection from being prosecuted under the guise of “violated first amendment rights.”

NAMBLA was never shown to have committed any crime…not in the course of conducting it’s normal business, and certainly not in connection to “this” court case.

In spite of this, actually, several members of the NAMBLA steering committee, were dragged through legal hell, for almost a decade. They were falsely accused of crimes, for which they held no prior knowledge, had no power to stop and played no factual role in the commission of. They lived under the extended threat, of being financially devastated by this law suit, and having an important part of their lives work (NAMBLA) effectively “destroyed”.

Base NAMBLA members (those who subscribed to the quarterly magazine) lived for years, under the threat of having their confidence with NAMBLA violated, and their privacy invaded…as well as potentially sustaining a financial judgment against themselves.

What the Curley’s, and others, intended on doing with this ill gotten, private information, is not a matter of speculation…as Robert Curley was quoted early on, implying they would use this information with malice, in order to identify all members associated with NAMBLA, and inflict some level of personal damage upon them.

To imply that NAMBLA got away with a “slap on the wrist”, is to ignore the effects of chronic, continued stress, over the extended period of years…and the life damaging stress, of being falsely accused, put on trial and left to question whether or not the court would faithfully abide by the law, or use this as an opportunity to violate the law, in order to deal a “death blow” to NAMBLA.

Many people were seriously worried, that the court would look the other way, and let the opportunists tear NAMBLA to pieces…merely because the door had been opened to this possibility, and they “might” be able to get away with it.

The very fact that this case was allowed to see the inside of a court room, as well as that this was allowed to drag on for so many years, in spite of the charges starkly clear lack of substance, was the true scandal here.

Many believe this was incompetence, or corruption, on the part of the court.

Truth be told, NAMBLA got dragged through an eight year long, legal nightmare, which it’s members should have never had to face in the first place.

Another correction…

NAMBLA was not “granted protection from prosecution”. On the contrary, NAMBLA leaders showed up in a court of law, faced the charges and defended themselves, as well as their unquestionable right to exercise free speech and free association.

Repeatedly, charges were dismissed, because these charges had no legal leg to stand on.

Also, there was no “guise [about] violated first amendment rights”…

This law suit was clearly an attempt to infringe on NAMBLA’S First Amendment right to free speech. It was constructed, specifically and blatantly, in order to stop NAMBLA from being able to exercise it’s voice.

A quick search regarding this court case, and discovery of the stated amount of money sought by the Curley’s, can only leave a rational mind to one conclusion…

…The Curley’s [and their backers] were looking to financially devastate NAMBLA, and by extension, destroy their ability to organize, associate, speak out and protest.

“It is appalling and truly sickening to see how this case was handled. It is heart-wrenching to see that the parents of this child were drawn through the courts for 8 years only to receive no resolution and a joke of vindication.”

Here are some actual facts regarding this…

As to the way NAMBLA was threatened, smeared and tied up in the courts for years, based upon a malicious and entirely unfounded law suit…Yes, it is appalling and truly sickening…

…and before most people get to caught up in your spin on this…let the records show, that it was the Curley’s who decided to start this law suit, and relentlessly pursue it for eight years…

…not NAMBLA…

NAMBLA was nothing more than an innocent third party, entirely unassociated with the abduction, assault and death of Jeffrey Curley.

The Curley’s have never been the victims, with regards to “Curley v NAMBLA”.

That distinction soundly belongs to NAMBLA.

The Curley lawsuit sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages against NAMBLA because one of the murderers allegedly looked at the organization’s publications and web site prior to committing the crimes.

Now, let’s go back to the beginning again…

Nearly every legal expert questioned about this case, when it was first announced, said the exact same thing…

…”There is no way, this law suit can be won”…

The charges were unfounded…The case did not even have one single legal leg to stand on…and however much some people might not like this…yes, the first amendment positively covers what NAMBLA does, as an organized group. The court could have only come to one, legal decision, the clearing of all charges against NAMBLA…and every competent law expert knew this.

The only chance for an alternative, would have required the court to violate the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights…there in, committing criminal activity, itself.

Many people do not take “freedom of speech” seriously, when it is applied to speech which is, politically, very unpopular, stigmatized, demonized and so forth…primarily because “they” do not understand the true relevance, behind just why this is part of the Bill of Rights, and the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The biggest fallacy, is that these are the types of people who will claim that, “they” can say anything they want, no matter how heinous (issuing false information, even lies, death and torture threats against pedophiles, for example), just so long as it is socially acceptable and politically correct in the current time period…and in the very face of the fact that few people, or nobody at all, is posing a serious threat to stop them from saying these things…”They” will call this their own, “freedom of speech”…yet, they will organize and deny the very people who they target, from the bare bones ability to even so much as answer, let alone refute, the accusations waged against them.

Most speech in the U.S. today, which people proudly proclaim to be said under “freedom of speech” law, is entirely without any need for such protection…because nobody is actively lobbying to take away their ability to speak freely, in the first place.

There in, exists an important distinction, as to where the heart of legal, freedom of speech rights exists.

These laws exist, specifically, for those individuals and groups who, during any time period, are presently being persecuted and having their ability to speak openly compromised, or outright denied.

Even though they likely did not have “pedophiles” specifically in mind, when this law was written [the anti-pedophile hysteria did not exist back then, like it does today]…

…pedophiles, and pederasts, in this day and age, are the perfect modern day model, of just exactly the type of scenario, “freedom of speech” law was written for.

“Freedom of speech” exists, as a matter of checks and balances…It is a political power balancer…and it’s utility exists, in it’s potential ability to thwart the attacks of culture and class warfare.

“Freedom of speech” is at it’s pinnacle, when it is allowed to quell, or even preempt, social witch hunts, and the gross, human rights abuses which they bring with them…

…such as what is happening to pedophiles and pederasts, today…even in the so called, “free world”…

In short, “freedom of speech”, is even the most vulnerable person’s ability, and chance to present their own case, to defend themselves and to clear their name…It is also the primary peaceful rout, to addressing and seeking resolve, for grievances.

“Freedom of speech” is not only a good thing, it is the foundation of every culture, which aspires to be free. It is absolutely critical to human rights, as well as science and integrity.

…and it exists, first and foremost, for those people who are currently oppressed and violated…

…for “they” are the only ones who truthfully “need” it.

For everyone else, evoking freedom of speech is a fallacy…

Speech protection laws are not written, in order to sustain all the speech which needs no protection…

…To imply such, is an absurdity.

…and trying to claim that expressions “you” disagree with, are “not” free speech, only works towards exhibiting my point, here.

You support censorship, forced upon anyone that “you” want to politically cripple, and bar from ever attaining social equality.

Legally, in the U.S., we all have the right to seek out, and fight for, social equality…which is another reason why, unquestionable right to free speech exists, for each and every one of us…

…including, and most specifically, people like myself…as an oppressed, and politically vulnerable, pedosexual.

In addition, it is also vital to take note and understand, that the decision of Brandenburg vs. Ohio holds that, the First Amendment insulates speakers from tort liability. The courts have established that the actual perpetrators of crime are responsible for their own actions. Third parties, who have neither direct knowledge nor decision power, in relations to a criminal act, are not legally liable in any way, over said criminal act.

The blatant truth, is that NAMBLA was railroaded into the court room, and dragged through the mud…all because opportunists could get away with doing this to them, by exploiting the death of a ten year old boy.

The entire spectacle was just shameful…and there is at least one lawyer and a judge, who likely deserves to be disbarred.

The case itself, and what it alleges, is incredulous…

…but, let’s move on with your actual videos…

=====

Part 1:

Quote:

“…the shocking murder of a 10 year old boy that was utterly dismissed…”

Answer:

I believe this was already covered in a previous section of this response…but let it be clarified again…

The two men responsible…the two men who conspired and acted alone in this…the only two men who, apparently, had any working knowledge of this plan, and the ability to bring a stop to it…

…are Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari…

For their actions, they are both currently serving a life sentence in prison, without the possibility of parole.

That in no way points towards this case being, “utterly dismissed”…and it is a gross distortion of truth, to claim such a thing.

Quote:

“So that the “rights” of the organization known as NAMBLA […] are protected”…

Answer:

While enclosing the word “rights” in quotations, in the manner and under the circumstances you have done so here, implies that “you” have no respect for NAMBLA’s various rights, protected under the law…

…we should not make the mistake of believing that, just because “you” do not approve of so called, “under age” people engaging their own sexuality with others, nor the act of campaigning to bring an end to the persecution of those who are harmlessly following their sexual nature…does not equate to your own prejudice, having the legal authority, to trump the rights of others to freely assemble, associate, speak and communicate.

Absolute freedom to these things exists in the USA, in order to combat the effects of culture war.

Groups like NAMBLA have clearly been maligned, having their name smeared and message distorted…repackaged by prejudiced fear mongers, who do not want children and teens to regain their natural right, to their own sexuality.

Anyone still retaining the clarity of mind and thought, along with a strong sense of integrity, will almost certainly come to this conclusion, if they actually take the time to do their own research into this conflict.

Organizations who attack NAMBLA, have generally been anything but honest or fair…and they have preyed on the ignorance and fear of the population.

Quote:

“And [NAMBLA’s rights] not violated…What about the ‘rights’ of the brutally murdered 10 year old boy who was VIOLATED…by SODOMY and sexual assault???”

Answer:

These are two very separate, very distinct issues.

They are not connected directly, or indirectly.

NAMBLA is in no way responsible, for the brutal murder and violation of Jeffrey Curley.

The only two men who are responsible for this heinous string of events, were arrested, charged, put on trial, convicted and sent to prison…where they will remain…

It should be noted, that advocacy of peaceful activities which are presently targeted by prohibition laws, in no way should be conceived as advocacy of all illegal activity.

Hence, just because NAMBLA might advocate for the sexual freedom of children, in no way implies that NAMBLA supports or promotes violent acts against children. In fact, to my knowledge, NAMBLA condemns all forms of true violence and cruelty.

It should also be noted, that just because a psychologically unstable person might read or hear “your” words, and decide for themselves that “you” have justified their own violent tendencies, in no way acts as a legal liability to “yourself”.

It should also be noted, that we are all vulnerable to any such person, be they psychologically deranged, deceptive, or just cruel and mean, applying their own warped interpretations to our own words, and the things we stand for.

In what way, does this successfully argue that open communication, and the right to say things should be curtailed?

It is madness to even imply, that anyone could put forward a soundly supported set of ideas, while peacefully campaigning for social and legal change…just to be sabotaged, and thrown into prison, because of something done by people who they don’t even honestly know.

Further…it is corruption to suggest, that such a set of circumstances could be “justice”.

…and the argument of “incitement” does not apply here…

You cannot be charged with incitement to commit violence, when you never even advocated the commitment of said act(s) of violence.

Quote:

“WHOSE rights were VIOLATED??”

Answer:

Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari violated the rights of Jeffrey Curley, and his family.

The Curley family, their attorneys and supporters, acted to violate the rights of NAMBLA…and by extension, all United States citizens.

Quote:

“Those of the SICKO who raped his freshly murdered corpse…Repeatedly??…Or the poor child who was murdered???”

Answer:

Again, you are confusing issues, whether intentionally or as a matter of honest misunderstanding.

NAMBLA was in no way involved in the kidnapping, assault and murder of Jeffrey Curley…This is a well established fact of the case.

The two men responsible did not act on behalf of NAMBLA, in the commission of their cruel, murderous act…They had no authority to do so, and further…their only connection with NAMBLA, is that one of them subscribed to the NAMBLA bulletin, for a year or two…and kept some of these publications in his possession.

There is no case to be made against NAMBLA here.

Those responsible were sent to prison…Justice was served, as best as it could have been.

Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari have not been spared.

Quote:

“…how do we as a nation support the ACLU, who says that the sodomizer has more rights than the poor CHILD who was brutally sodomized??”

Answer:

No such contention was ever made, at any time during this, or any other case.

The rights of those who deem “sodomy” to be pleasurable and life enhancing, have peacefully coexisted with children’s rights, all along.

You are taking two things which can both exist equally, at the same time…and trying to pit them off against each other…as though one suffers, if the other is allowed to thrive.

…and the ACLU was created explicitly to address the kinds of conflict which arise, in cases like Curley Vs NAMBLA.

NAMBLA was being falsely charged, and free speech was under attack [it does not take a U.S. Constitution scholar, in order to understand this].

The ACLU did it’s job…Had they failed to act in this case, they would have been delinquent towards their own constitution, and their own self professed responsibilities.

Quote:

“Even worse, is that the pedophilia agenda is being introduced into on a world-wide level into the UN (United Nations)..”

Answer:

How did you make this leap?

…because, obviously, it did not come from any sound understanding, regarding the history of the U.N. and it’s various members who are extremely hostile towards pedophiles.

Before the queer movement was fractured, and boylovers were forcefully ostracized from it’s ranks, members of this movement were seeking an advisory position with the U.N.

Of course, if you know the history of this, then I wont have to explain to you, that various middle east countries are violently opposed to the inclusion of homosexuals and “deviants”, in all U.N. activities…and the fact that “pedophile organizations” were amongst the ranks of the queer movement, is what was given as “justification” for denying queers a place at the U.N. table.

Now, let’s be realistic…

The U.N. is not going to look at one, obviously frivolous law suit, which ended because the plaintiffs could never win it in the first place, and they ran out of options to keep it limping forward…and consider such a case to be “landmark”.

The U.N. is likely to keep ignoring the plight of the children and the pedophile, in a world hostile towards them…because the U.N. has not stomach to challenge the powerful influences of it’s own members, who are prejudiced against sexual minorities.

Quote:

“The fact that so many are willing to accept this ‘alternative lifestyle’ is shocking to say the least…”

Answer:

On what do you base this comment?

There is nothing to show, that cultural prejudice against pedophiles has changed at all, in any recent time.

A bad law suit came to an end…

…Almost every legal expert was saying, “this law suit cannot succeed”, from the very beginning.

Legally, there was no other alternative, outside of the charges just being dropped, or NAMBLA being exonerated…

…As it turns out, the charges were dropped, and everyone went home…

…and as a side note…

…being a pedosexual, of the NAMBLA persuasion myself…I was sorely disappointed at the way this case ended, as NAMBLA (and by extension, the rest of us pedosexuals and ephebophiles) deserved to receive a clear exoneration…and a legal precedent specifying, that their (our) legal right to say and express things, is just as solid as that of everyone else.

After everything NAMBLA was put through here, they should have been awarded at least “that much”…

…but the victory seems more hollow, because NAMBLA was denied this.

It is disgusting to see that so much can be poured into a case, which challenges such a vital and basic constitutional issue, and could radically change the U.S. constitution itself…just to turn around in the end, and leave it all languishing forever in unresolved.

The legally correct decision, and the legally correct outcome…these were painfully clear, all along…

…Yet a court in the U.S. did not have the integrity to clearly make such a decision…

All pedosexuals and ephebophiles were robed of having their rights to free speech, openly validated by a legal institution, with legal authority.

The court saved face, by not having to openly admit…

…”Yes, the law clearly states, that these people are protected also”…

Quote:

“Do they think that God will turn a blind eye to the pain that this child endured? and not avenge him?”

Answer:

The god philosophy has nothing to do with this…

…and I am starting to realize, early on, what a mistake it was for me, to come into this thinking that I would be able to treat you, as though you might know something of what you are attempting to talk about…or that you might offer up something of substance…

…not just all these appeals to emotion, judgmental comments, clearly ignorant statements, appeals to mystical creatures, and the rare, selective piece of truth salted in, every here and there…

Your “expose” is already a clear mess…

However, I do not have a total lack of trust in mystics, and can say that many such people would believe that their “god” will find no reason to retaliate against them, or others…

…because the best possible resolution in this case, already occurred…

Didn’t you hear?…

…Justice was served…arrests, prosecutions, life sentences, off to prison…

Quote:

[At this point ConcernedChristian58 goes through the process, of laying out the facts of this case, which I already put forward, earlier in this rebuttal series. It does not differ substantially, from what I have already offered (or, if so, I’ve pointed out such in a response below)…I believe, one of the sources I used, was the same source that ConcernedChristian58 used, also.]

Answer:

As to…

“Attorney Larry Frisoli claims that “Jaynes kept a diary, in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA’s website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do.”

And…

Allegations that Jaynes had been stalking Jeffrey Curley prior to his murder…

Let’s use some common sense here, and understand that we are talking about a psychologically deranged person, who thought it was “okay” to rape and murder children…

…and, somehow, his poor intellect, along with these warped and cruel fantasies which existed in “his” mind, manage to testify to the culpability of NAMBLA in all of this?…

Please…connect the dots here, in a coherent manner…

…or leave the grossly liberal implications out of this.

As to…

“Jaynes then sexually assaulted **his corpse.**”

Now we have to establish just how “that” has anything at all to do with NAMBLA, as NAMBLA has nothing to do with necrophilia.

Inclusion of this fact, is nothing more than an attempt to shock and horrify the naïve masses.

…and people like “you” would not be caught under any circumstances, admitting that sexual assault on dead bodies, has absolutely nothing to do with the activities of NAMBLA.

It’s much to handy to keep these kinds of “chips” in your pocket, to disrupt the potentially thinking public, wherever facts start to lead them away from “your” bias.

As to…

“Both men were convicted of murder charges and are serving life sentences.”

Great!

So, now…by your own admission, you have no grounds on which to claim ignorance of the fact, that the perpetrators were caught and justice was served…

…though nothing about what you have previously said, would imply that you had any clue of such…

As to…

“In August 2000, a Middlesex County jury awarded Curley’s family $328 million in a wrongful death lawsuit against the boys killers. But it was strictly a symbolic victory, because neither of the men had any significant assets.”

Yes, this is true…neither one of these men will ever have the ability to escape what they have done…not even if they outlive their prison sentences.

I, for one, applauded the Curley’s in pressing “that” wrongful death law suit, as it was clearly justified, even if they never got a dime out of it.

However…this victory led to faulty judgment, and a self righteous sense in the Curley family, that they had the “right” to keep digging for gold.

They might not have been able to get $328 million, out of two people who owned next to nothing…but a group of which allegedly includes thousands, and supposedly some who are wealthy?…The Curley’s might be able to milk that possibility.

Did they think they were going to “win the lottery”, in all of this?…Many would suggest, yes, that was in their mind…

…but, I think they were every bit as much, trying to financially devastate everyone associated with NAMBLA (which has more recently been admitted to have a membership, numbering in the hundreds).

They were trying to sabotage the ability of these people, to express themselves…and make an example out of them, in order to intimidate others, who might chose to follow the lead of NAMBLA.

As to…

“NAMBLA teaches pedophiles how to profile kids.”

Attorney Frisoli, is known for being an alarmist, and going on these sorts of deceptive tirades against groups like NAMBLA. He is known for employing loose “facts”, and spinning truth to fit his own agendas.

Why it is, that so few people have taken a closer look at attorney Frisoli, and asked the hard questions, like “Just why is this guy the odd duck out, who cannot understand why this suit is unconstitutional, when all other legal experts are pointing out that it obviously is?”

The man is corrupt, and an opportunist, who saw a chance to exploit a tragic situation, for his own gain…

…In fact, “he” is largely believed to be the mastermind behind the entire, Curley Vs NAMBLA lawsuit.

The man is scum.

…and until he is willing to put up the proof of such accusations, then he needs to stop making such accusations.

Where is this “teaching” of pedophiles, on “profiling kids”?

There have been so many baseless accusations thrown about in this law suit…and, nothing has been substantiated.

What Frisoli is claiming, happens to be his own opinion and a spinning of facts.

Now, if you, or anyone else can produce something tangible, like videos of actual NAMBLA seminars on “profiling kids”, then by all means…bring this evidence forward.

Otherwise…stop muddying the waters, with unsubstantiated accusations…

…That only prevents others from clearly understanding the facts of the case, and being able to make any rational sense out of it.

As to…

Jaynes and Sicari stalking Jeffrey…

…and what if they factually did?

What does this have to do with NAMBLA?

A lot of people stalk others, in this great big world…and some of them read “People” magazine…

Shall we drag those publishers in front of the court, and start the inquisition?

Some murderers have been found to be fans of Stephen King novels…

…are we to hold Stephen King responsible, for every murder they committed?

If “yes”, then why?…

If “no”, then why not?…

…because the Curley Vs NAMBLA case has every bit as much validity, as doing either one of the previously mentioned things.

As to…

Charles Jaynes accessing NAMBLA’s website, immediately prior to his acts of inhumanity…

…So what?

They are talking about somebody, who already had it in his mind, that he was going to commit this horrendous act. He would have gone out of his way to find some other source of “comfort”, if NAMBLA did not have a website, or publication for him to point at and blame, for his own ethical failures.

The gears had already been set into motion…they already kidnapped Jeffrey, and took him to the library…They were committed to what they were doing, prior to “seeking comfort, from he NAMBLA website”, as Jaynes likes to spin it.

Truth be told, Charles Jaynes is sick in the head, and yet, so many of you want to treat him like a trophy in your pocket, holding him up as an example, and astonishingly treating his words as though they are rational and sound…

…but, only because they happen to be useful to “your” agenda here…

Somehow, I doubt you’d accept Jaynes words, if he were trying to give you advice on any other topic.

Regardless…

…even in a hypothetical situation, where NAMBLA might have openly said “it’s okay to rape, kidnap and murder children”, right on their main website page…[for the record, they have not]

That would still be an opinion, the expression of which is protected under the law…

There is no “cause and effect” relationship here…NAMBLA was not holding a gun to Charles’ head, forcing him to do what he did…

…NAMBLA did not even have a clue, that Charles was up to this.

…or, if NAMBLA, collectively had knowledge of it, then somebody had better finally step up, and present this damming evidence…

Otherwise, it is nothing more than a bunch of blathering.

As to…

Yes, Charles had eight issues of the NAMBLA magazine in his home…

So what?

There is nothing within that fact, which points towards NAMBLA’s involvement in the atrocities which happened to Jeffrey Curley.

…not one single thing…

As to…

NAMBLA serving as a conduit for underground networks of pedophiles in the United States, who use their NAMBLA association, contacts, etc., to obtain child pornography and promote pedophile activity.

Even if there were some level of truth in any of that, this still does not make NAMBLA culpable in what happened to Jeffrey Curley.

Is it shocking that some members of NAMBLA might break the law?…

…Given how draconian and burdensome U.S. law currently is…no, it is not even the least bit surprising, that many people find themselves at odds with it.

…and, some laws deserve to be violated at every opportunity, because they are horrible laws…and this is one manner, in which people organize and force a change in law…defiantly disobey rotten laws…

It should be noted, however, that NAMBLA has been the target of FBI infiltration, and other investigations over the years…

As an organization, it has actually been cleared and acknowledged as being a legal association.

Even though spokespersons for NAMBLA have talked about their discouragement of members, in behaving illegally, and the actions they have taken…the naïve public persists to think that NAMBLA’s goals are to “rape and molest children, while covering your tracks”.

NAMBLA’s “infamous” yearly conventions were brought to a stop, because to many naïve people were getting hurt by their own recklessness (yes, trading child porn), and NAMBLA leadership decided that this needed to end…So, now NAMBLA conventions are closed…

If that does not say anything to you, about NAMBLA’s commitment to keeping itself legal, and staying focused on the goal of changing public opinion and law…then, likely, nothing which NAMBLA does will be “good enough” to convince you of anything at all.

Your prejudice is to vast.

As to…

The Boston Globe editorial…

To my knowledge, NAMBLA has never advocated true violence, against anyone…and I know that they have organized over the years, and protested in demonstrations various forms of violation.

Am “I” an expert on NAMBLA?…

No.

Do “I” know more than the average person about NAMBLA, and the manner in which such groups and persons are mistreated by this culture?…

Yes.

You cannot openly admit to being a pedosexual, without people smearing your good name and reputation, with a grocery list of accusations and speculation…and outright lies…

…Many of these “good people”, fancy it their “social duty” to “get you off the streets”, in whatever manner “they” deem adequate.

The irony, is that these “good people” commonly tend to be the most criminal element, in the entire scenario…

…but that is overlooked, over some sense of “righteous justice”…

But, anyway…

Yes, NAMBLA does not advocate violence.

As to…

The American Civil Liberties Union stepping and winning a dismissal…

Yes…This was entirely predictable, as the case had no legal leg to stand on.

People often talk about the first dismissal, as though it were “cheap”, or an undeserved “getting let off the hook”.

But being a simple association, as opposed to a corporation, leaves a group without certain vulnerabilities.

If NAMBLA had been a corporation, then it probably could have been held libel, provided that membership constituted holding stock in the corporation…In which case it might be argued, that “a” owner [one of many], engaged in such an act…

…but, again, there would have to be clear collusion within the organization, before the entire group could be held criminally culpable.

I’m no expert on law, though…and I open the floor to anyone who can coherently add to this.

Let’s just say, whenever you are in a politically persecuted minority, it is smart business to structure yourselves in ways, which insulate you from political dangers.

You can thank the government, and the many hate groups out there, for this.

As to…

Jaynes and Sicari being members of NAMBLA…

So what?

Membership is open to anyone, incase you were unaware…

There is no psychological screening process, required before acceptance.

[And mercifully, the first section of these videos has come to an end.]

===

Part 2:

Quote:

“Who is NAMBLA?”

Answer:

The contention has been made, that NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and “under-aged” boys.

…whatever “under-aged” is supposed to mean…

While it is not my intention to stray far from being a straight forward response to allegations made against NAMBLA, I do think it is warranted to say this…

“Under aged” is a socio psychological construction, intended to categorize and herd people into predetermined (usually by other people) activities and destinations.

While one may successfully argue that a six year old is “under aged”, for the purpose of driving an automobile on the roads…

…it cannot be realistically, objectively, soundly or rationally argued, that a human being is ever too “under aged”, to be integrally connected with their own, biological sexuality…

…which has been scientifically established, as an integral part of our actual, personal being…and which is there in our lives, all along, even if we are not adequately taught to understand it.

Prenatal care has many times revealed, an unborn male in the womb, sporting an erection…and one of the operating room regularities, which gets rarely talked about, is the utter frequency in which makes are born with a clearly pronounced erection (they are sexually stimulated, during the birthing process).

Also, it is common amongst those who have to confront their own sexual differences (ie: sexual minorities), to initially start realizing that there is something fundamentally different about “them”, which makes them different form most of their friends…and that this discovery often takes place at a very early phase, within the first few years of attaining cognitive and complex, personal awareness.

In other words, most of us who are male and homosexual, knew on some level that we liked other boys, in ways that boys were “supposed to” like girls…and this personal epiphany may have happened by seven, eight years of age…or earlier…

…Typically, we just always knew by instinct, that this was the way “we” naturally responded to the world around us…”That” is our normal.

Those of you in the majority, who can take your own sexual rights for granted, and don’t even have to think about defending any of it…you live in an entirely different, political world, from that of sexual minorities.

…”You” have likely never had to be self reflective, introspective and critically analyze your own sexuality…to weigh and contemplate, whether or not “you” are “right and ethical”, for having such an orientation.

…Which leads to my personal theory, as to why so few of you “normal” people, seem to believe that “you” ever had a sexuality, or an orientation, until you were into your teenage years…

You had it, just like the rest of us…

…but you were kept ignorant about it, and it was not talked about…so, “you” never came to know and understand it, as an integral part of who you was, as a child.

There is this horrible social myth, that we are all asexual, until some legally dictated age benchmark…which varies from place to place, but coincides with legal liabilities.

While it should be acknowledged, that some people do have low sex drives during childhood…the fact remains…they still “do” have sex drives, as a rule.

Many of the problems of society, and personal maladjustment, I believe, can be traced back to our cultures stubborn persistence in raising children to deny and reject something so basic and integral within themselves, as their own sexuality…(and I’m including suppression of heterosexual inclinations here, also).

Raising children to see sex as filthy, dirty and shameful…is a horribly, psychologically scarring act of abuse…because it is something “they” will never be able to disassociate themselves from, and you have crippled their ability to accept and be at peace with themselves.

We need to stop thinking about sex, sexuality and sexual orientation, in short sighted ways, with dogmatic and rationally limited terms like, “under aged”.

There is no “under aged”, when it comes to our own, inborn craving for sexual intimacy…It is just there, as a product of our being alive and healthy.

It would be far better for us to think of sex and sexuality, in terms of ranges in practical activity, when taking age and intellect into account. At least then, we would be engaging this issue productively, rationally and honestly.

The sexuality still happens…we just couch it in terms like, “playing doctor”, for young children…

The fact that “we”, collectively, do not want to acknowledge it for what it is, in no way signifies that “it does not exist”.

It is high time for us to get honest about childhood sexuality…bring it out into the open, accept it as a positive and necessary development in a child’s life, and address it in a mature, positive way.

Let it be a positive, growing experience for the child…as nature has intended it to be.

But, anyway…

“Under-aged”, is a very deceptive, divisive and un-natural way to approach this, which causes many social and personal conflicts.

It is not even a real basis for argument, in “this” subject…It is just a trite, parroted talking point, put out there for the masses to repeat…

It’s real purpose, is to mentally control people, especially children…because our culture deems childhood sexuality to be to much of a nuisance, to bother with respecting, or even tolerating.

…so, “we” are just hostile towards it…to the detriment of untold numbers.

Let’s get back to the video quotes…

Quote:

“What ‘age’ is considered ‘under-aged’?”

Answer:

The queer movement originally started out as a straight forward vehicle, for all sexual minorities who were being persecuted, to come forward, put forward the virtues of their own case, and seek legal emancipation…rights which everyone else had.

In the early days, this was a core, fundamental principle of the movements values…Nobody deserved to be lied about, exploited, stereotyped and persecuted for their sexual orientation…Everybody deserved, to have the real life activities and experiences, involving their own sexuality, represented in a fair and accurate manner, which reflected upon it’s true nature…as it was experienced by the people embracing and benefiting from it.

The queer movement, was a response to dogmatic, often religious, zealotry…where in, we found groups of people, producing hate propaganda, and outright lying about sexual minorities, often in dramatic and indefensible ways, which did not reflect upon truth.

…and in fact not until the mid 1990’s, did the queer (by then called “gay”) movement, take a staunch and critical step away, from being what it was born to be…

…a political stage for the persecuted sexual minorities, who had no other way to speak back and defend themselves.

If you understand the genesis and purpose behind the queer movement, then you understand that “pedophiles” could not be excluded, anymore than any other sexual minority…and for decades, the “under-aged” were embraced…both as “under-aged” relationships, and as intergenerational relationships…even that of pedophilia.

Many in the present day “gay” movement, will deny this history…but, it is soundly recorded in the history books…and there are some, even in the gay community, who will still reflect upon it, and elaborate about it.

There used to be a day, when the gay community would close ranks, and come in defense of even “NAMBLA like” relationships…because the gay community used to see past the stigma, and they used to know that it was most ethical and fair, to judge a relationship by it’s true nature, and how it honestly manifests in the real world.

They used to understand the concept of being honest, and how this worked “hand in hand” with social and personal well being…how being faithful to this ideal would be most profitable and beneficial, to both individuals and society as a whole.

Today, those in charge of the “gay” movement, are more committed to attaining personal, political power…and don’t care who “they” have to marginalize and walk all over to get it. They’ve sold out on the very foundation of the queer movement, and embraced dogmatic talking points, just as staunchly as any religious zealots.

It is one of the most ghastly examples of hypocrisy and selfishness (and back stabbing, to be honest), which we can cite in a modern day, political association or movement.

“Under-aged” was not the concern, back in the early days…and not until more recently, did it become a wedge…causing splintering, and a lot of bitterness.

What is my point in this?…

“Under-aged” is an artificial, political barrier, erected with the intention of derailing level headed, honest evaluation, on issues relating to childhood and teenage sexuality.

It has no barring, on the ethical and “right” nature, of a relationship or activity…which can be judged in their own right, by their own merits, or lack there of.

Quote:

“In short the NAMBLA aggressively seeks to legalize sexual relations between adults and children that fall below the age of consent.”

Answer:

I don’t know how “aggressively” it can be seen, given that NAMBLA has essentially been reduced to being the publisher of a quarterly magazine…and making rare appearances at public protests.

…but, clearly, the organizers of NAMBLA recognized, that a vital need was not being filled amongst certain sexual minorities…and hence, they chose to take up this necessary cause.

There is nothing unethical, or wrong, about that.

Quote:

“NAMBLA provides resources to pedophiles seeking information about sexual relationships between men and boys.”

Answer:

Do they?

Would you like to elaborate?

Perhaps you are referring to historical accounts, personal stories, or even empirical research?

Yes…a lot of this legitimately exists…

There is a wide range of solid evidence, which validates the legitimacy of pedosexuality and pederasty.

Most people just don’t want to take it seriously, or incur public wrath for doing so.

However…

…as a practical matter, most social movement groups do bring to the attention of others, materials which back up their own stance.

This is both a matter of integrity, and common sense.

Quote:

“Its mission statement says the group ‘supports the rights of all people to engage in consensual relations, and we oppose laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the basis of the age of the participants’.”

Answer:

…and the rational, educated mind would likely be willing to acknowledge that, as being the most honest and ethical stance to hold, on this issue.

Trying to force certain types of relationships into a political box, saying they are “all this”, or “all that”, is nothing more than a manipulative lie.

Loving relationships should be allowed to be what they are…loving relationships…They don’t need more justification than that, to earn a rightful acknowledgement to validity.

They should not be torn apart, dragged through the mud and lied about, just because onlookers are too squeamish, or too prejudice, to understand their inherent beauty.

I salute NAMBLA for it’s stance…

…it is one of the few rational stances I know of, when this issue comes up.

[I LEFT OFF AT PART 2 T: 159.007]

Quote:

“”

Answer:

===

Part 3:

Quote:

“How and why did the ACLU support sodomists over a murdered child??”

Answer:

This is not a case concerning an “either / or” , forced choice between NAMBLA and murdered children.

NAMBLA’s right to free association and free, open expression, do not imping upon the rights of children; nor do they cause violence and murder.

NAMBLA’s has rights to free speech, free association and the right to pursue social goals, which they believe will be of benefit. They have every bit as much right, as any other U.S. citizen or organization.

Paranoia, over unsubstantiated association with violence towards children, does nothing to abridge NAMBLA’s rights, here.

In short…

NAMBLA had no real world association with the kidnap, assault, murder and desecration of Jeffrey Curley.

The contention that “NAMBLA was responsible”, was (and remains) a made up fantasy, invented in the minds of the Curley’s, their legal counsel and their broader base of supporters.

This point was clear, from the very beginning…which is why the ACLU took the case…

The charges levied against NAMBLA were bogus…

…and after dragging this out for eight years in the courts, the Curley’s still could not successfully establish a connection, or prove their allegations.

The ACLU stepped in, not because they have any stomach for tolerating, let alone defending, child murder…

The ACLU stepped in, because they saw an organization (NAMBLA) which was clearly being railroaded through the court, for doing nothing more than exercising the same, legal rights which everyone else in this country has.

They saw a group of people (the Curley’s, their lawyers, etc.), who were attempting to use the court system in a malicious way, as a weapon against people (NAMBLA) who’s speech they (Curley’s, etc.) do not like.

This case was made for the ACLU, as it is a perfect example of just exactly why the ACLU was established.

It would have been an extremely dangerous, legal precedent established, had the Curley’s succeeded in winning their case. It could have opened the floodgates, for frivolous law suits, based upon anything anyone has ever said, which someone else did not approve of…and nothing more.

The catastrophic effects on speech, communication and engagement in social change, would have become painfully clear.

===

Part 4:

===

Orphaned Comment:

Nobody, in their right mind, would have wanted the legal precedent, which Curley V NAMBLA would have set, were it to have succeeded.

Legally, the world post Curley V NAMBLA, would have opened the door to a Pandora’s box, where in everyone can be sued, fined and punished, for merely saying things.

===