Green Island koolaid antidote header graphic

The indoctrination-propaganda matrix we all exist in is both built on a number of quite ridiculous premises, and is continually undertaking new initiatives for one reason and another to achieve some new goal, or add something to an old one. Like any 'big lie', a good part of the mass belief in such things requires that nobody is allowed to 'speak truth' to these lies. Koolaid antidotes shines a light on some of these idiocies, for those trying to get out of this great indoctrination matrix. After that - well, it's up to you. Red pill or blue -

Creative Commons License Share as you like for non-profit use, but please be sure to identify Dave as the author and include
the website address

Tom Flanagan and 'child porn' - really? - or just another dumbing down tactic (with the inter alia bonus of a chance to look at the already dumbed-down tactic of 'it's ok if we do it, but if THEY do it's terrible!!')?

by Dave Patterson, March 2013

This hit the "news" big time the last day or two - Sic Transit Flanagan (Tyee), Tom Flanagan, neoconservative spiritual leader, consigned to utter darkness (Rabble), Ex-PM adviser Tom Flanagan sorry for child-porn comments, etc etc etc.

- and all of it the proverbial tempest in a teapot, in my opinion. Let's see if we can have a rational look at this. (they certainly haven't managed this anywhere else ... - but we do things different on Green Island)

This seems to be one of those PC issues where somebody pushes a button, and everybody turns off their minds and just goes ballistic, like baboons seeing another tribe of baboons or something - just see who can scream the loudest and jump highest whilst pointing the most accusatory fingers at the offender. Like one commentator said in the Tyee discussion, where you can expect at least a bit of rationality at times, unlike many discussion places, the guy did NOT come out in favor of sexual abuse of children, which might justify a bit of condemnation, although not the full blown hysteria this story seems to have engendered - simply saying he doesn't think people should go to jail for looking at pictures is actually a fairly reasonable thing to say, if reason didn't just up and leave the room when somebody points a finger and shouts "CHILD MOLESTER OMG!!!'; or something.

To be clear, and head of the least rational of these finger pointers at the pass (oh - you support raping babies, do you, you evil scum??) - no, I do not support raping babies, or anyone else - actual crimes of violence I believe should be punished in the harshest way possible - probably more harshly than a lot of people doing the finger pointing here. When men (usually) violently attack children (or women, or anyone else for that matter), and physically rape them and/or do other acts of violence, sexual or otherwise, I figure at the very least they ought to be locked away for a long, long time, until they prove they are not going to do that again (and that proof will not be an easy thing to come by), or 'let the punishment fit the crime' - I'm a firm 'eye for an eye' sort of person, I think it's a great deterrent. Not sure how you would violently rape an adult male in public, and ensure he felt all the helplessness and humiliation and pain and fear of the child he has done that to, but creative minds could probably come up with something. Just as a deterrent - I think it would be effective if somebody thinking to do this to a child had to put this kind of punishment into their calculations - maybe we'll just lube up 5-finger Sal in the washroom today, instead.

Just to clear that up.

On the other hand - Flanagan has not been accused of anything remotely like that - just of saying that he didn't think it was really appropriate for someone to be harshly punished for having some pictures on their computer, and I can't say I really disagree with that idea. It is very much, as he said, a victimless crime.

No, don't go leaping off the deep end - there are many places to go here that baboons probably can't see very well, but a thinking, rational 'progressive' adult ought to be able to see.

First, the pictures may have simply been staged in one way or another, with some young person being paid, as they pay adults for the same thing - no victims at all, just people getting paid for selling something - capitalism in action. We could say the same about any of the very popular movies depicting terrible violence - why isn't it illegal to have pictures of, say, some of the more graphic scenes in Zero Dark Thirty, rather than nominating it for major awards? Adults you say? I can't be bothered looking them up right now, but there are any number of films made the last few years where children are portrayed in scenes of torture or other great pain - yet nobody seems to mind that - so why all the excitement about 'kiddie porn'?? - the point, of course, is that when people get paid for something and thus do it willingly, it's a bit hard to call them 'victims' of anything (without getting into the deeper discussion of the things people do for money in capitalistland in general) - and I have never explored this subject, but I strongly expect this would cover at least a lot of such pictures, if not the majority. Maybe people would like to have this information before jumping into hysterialand? (or not, of course, evidently ..)

Which leads to point 2, a necessary tangent, here - can we define 'child'?? - legally, it goes up to somewhere between 15 and 18, depending on where you live or who is talking, and I well recall getting interested in sex by the time I was 12 or shortly thereafter, and most of the males, and probably half the females, in my small Ontario conservative rural community - and everywhere the same as far as I was ranging in those days around central Ontario - had lost their virginity by the time they were 16-17, and everybody else was either close to it or trying or lying about it, with very, very few exceptions - children by the definition of many today, engaging in sex, but not being 'molested' by any adult, just experimenting, doing what comes naturally - a lot of hormones in those young teen bodies looking for release - and it wasn't then and is not now 'evil', it's one of the most natural things in the world - sure, we want to educate young people about this, and try to keep them from getting into trouble in various ways (although we're still doing a really lousy job of it in most places) - but it's not 'evil' by nature for teenagers to be having sex - and a lot of those teens are technically 'children' by many definitions - so who is wrong here? (And just en passant while I am writing/ranting here, something related that has become politically incorrect the last few years - it is not evil for older males and younger females to have sex together (no that doesn't mean 90 year old males and 5-year old girls, young women I am talking about - at least 18-20 let us say, adults (or older women and younger men)) - it happens throughout nature, it has happened throughout human history, the basis of it is strong genes from successful males higher in the pack heirarchy getting together with healthy genes from sexually strong, young females looking to rise in the pack heirarchy, both parties of whom see some advantage in the transaction - again, we might want to educate everyone so things don't get crazy, but it is not in essence some 'evil' thing, for people with their brains turned on who think about things clearly and rationally.)

But back to the Flanagan 'child porn pics' craziness: And we didn't have cell phones or even digital cameras back in those days, but would a picture or two - or 20 or 200 - of these encounters between willing and even anxious teens been 'child porn' and subject the kid, or adult, with them on the computer to complete dehumanization and derision as a 'child molester' by everyone? Possibly so, more possibly so in today's 'don't think scream when Big PC Momma tells you to' climate - but it would not have been right, then or now. Maybe a bit embarassing for those involved - but 'you evil people OMG??!!' ?? - I don't think so.

And point 3: There is, of course, the chance that pictures on a computer may have been 'real' pictures, of some child being brutally and painfully raped, or otherwise traumatically subjected to some kind of sexual stuff for the gratification of some older person - but the person doing the brutal raping is the criminal here, who needs to be caught and seriously punished - anyone with a picture later of that horror on the computer that the criminal might have taken and later made available might be having some psychological problems of some sort (we live in a very repressive society sexually, many people have sexually-related problems, another thing we need to put in the equation somewhere, they are certainly victims of our society..), but has not committed any crime, any more than having pictures of some of the victims of the American bombing of children in Vietnam or Iraq or anywhere else is 'guilty' of anything other than having 'tastes' in pictures most of us do not share, tastes again very much related to the terrible way we bring up our children, and the things we subject them to that result in these kind of psychological problems. But it is completely, completely out of line to start saying 'He had pictures of child porn therefore he is a child molestor at heart who must be punished?' - this is, indeed, a victimless "crime", and completely, completely out of line, and indicative of very shallow 'thinking' - the kind of shallow, emotional (lack of) thinking that dictators throughout history have used to turn crowds into weapons, and get themselves into power, where they do far far worse things.

(It is somewhat interesting that no-one has ever tried any breakdown of this in a rational way - when 'child porn' pics are found on a computer, how many involve 'real' brutality, and how many are actually actors paid to do them for a certain demographic? Is it really alright for us, as a society, to deem a 16-year-old young man or woman 'children', and say they are not allowed to engage in sex, either personally or for money? I don't think so, really. You can protect a 'child' for a certain time, have an obligation to, of course, as a parent, to watch them in their younger years (again, something we as a society obviously do a very poor job of, but stuff for other writings) - but there comes a time when this young human being is going to start thinking for themselves, and although there is no firm line about this, they are certainly starting to look for that independence starting when they get through puberty - whether sexually repressed modern parents like it or not - and they are going to start experimenting with many things, including sex, and there is really nothing you can do about it other than speak to them openly and honestly and try to keep them out of serious trouble.

So why all the hysteria? - Well, a thought from outside the propaganda matrix box most people seem to be living in - this kind of quite mindless 'demonising' of sex involving young people, and encouraging anyone to react like a victim anytime some older person mentions sex or cops a feel of some kind (note England, where such things are just part of life, roaming hands slapped away with a laugh and joke, no harm intended, no harm done), are all just a big part of the dumbing down movement that has been underway for the last 30 years, keeping young people in a state of extended childhood and dependency so that by the time they are physically at least adults, they are unable to bring their minds to the same state of maturity, and live their lives in a zombie-like state of permantly delayed maturity, a state also including a general dependency on 'authority' which those who would be kings find a great deal easier to control and/or manipulate. (also thinking of recent 'stories' on the CBC about a young woman trying to join the Cdn military and 'the doctor pushed his groin against me I was just so devastated', or some other young woman taking a zen class and the master touched her breast OMG!!!! - now their lives are wrecked (so Big Momma society and the CBC want us all to believe), they have societal permission (encouragement even) to be neurotic forever, etc etc - for what should be seen as nothing more 'traumatic' than a bee sting, really, minor nuisances in a life an adult will deal with quickly, as in England noted above, and forget about - in our society, where child-adults are the new dumbed-down pseudo-citizen, such things can be used to keep people in states where they just look in a mirror all day feeling sorry for themselves about nothing, as the masters carry on doing what they want to do - ruling. (And noting again what I said above about the difference between minor things like harmless groping and major, actual violence, which is a serious crime and should be dealt with seriously - but is much less prevalent than they want us to believe, or is actually happening, so they sensationalize things like this, all in the interest of dumbing down and control)

Just for some common sense comparative purposes - what about a far, far FAR more outrageous and pervasive obscenity that almost nobody seems unduly upset about - the killing and terrible maiming of tens, hundreds even, of thousands of children by US bombs the last 20-30-50-150 years, ongoing as we talk today in the US-induced Syrian insurrection, peaking perhaps a few years back when Ms Albright said the death of half a million children (without even mentioning the horrible mutilation of god only knows how many others) as they turned Iraq in chaos was 'acceptable'? Touching a child of any age sexually may be somewhere between innocuous and criminal and reprehensible, but most of the time it just pales to insignificance when compared to ripping their arms or legs or faces off with terrifying bombardments from the sky - a brutality no-one should ever have to endure, and that we basically sit passively by while the US-NWO war machine does this more or less daily to countless numbers of children all around the world is reprehensible beyond words, and I find it just unbelievable that almost nobody seems to get concerned about this monstrous brutality that has become just an accepted part of our world, but we go right apeshit when some guy we don't like dares question one of our sacred PC 'forbidden to talk about' things and Big Momma says 'jump around screaming like baboons!' (actually, my apologies to any real baboons reading - humans are far, far worse ..).

Which gets to the last point - there's a lot of one-way street stuff being revealed here, as with a lot of the propaganda the CBC and Rabble and other mainstream media get up to, which says much more about those doing the name-calling than those they are pointing their ugly little fingers at. Somebody was talking about this "issue" on As It Happens yesterday, and they jokingly said somebody said they thought Flanagan looked a bit like a monkey - you know, the little Ikea monkey - and there was a little chuckle all around before they got back to the serious dehumanization talk - can you just imagine the outrage if Flanagan - or anybody the PCers do not like - jokingly said some Indians or anyone else looked a bit like a monkey and had a little chuckle with their compatriots whoever they might be? The reaction by the PC crowd would be pretty hysterical, I expect, as with the Flanagan situation - maybe even more outrage than the comment about pictures not being really good enough grounds to jail somebody - but if 'we' in the 'in crowd' call somebody we don't like a derogatory name - well, no problem, no big deal, eh, haha, let's carry on.

In Summary: Not, in my estimation, a good day for 'my' side, insofar as I consider myself a 'progressive', wanting to help create a good country for 'my' peers, rather than sit idly by as the NWOers carry on building their new feudal society, keeping the soon-to-be peasants well divided and conquered, getting all hysterical about trivial pursuits whilst remaining completely ignorant of the serious things going on around them (as I summarize in What Happened). One can but hope sanity will prevail someday, but with everyone under the sway of the propagandists of the new feudalists, it seems a bit less likely every day that goes by, with evidence like this Flanagan story of how thoroughly controlled most people are. JUMP!! YES SIR HOW HIGH SIR??

Well, enough of that koolaid antidote for today, I'm sure a lot of people are just frothing with eagerness to start screaming at me for daring not to unquestioningly jump on their bandwagon - if you really want to get to Green Island, though, you're going to have to get past this - is Dave just another evil old man because he thinks sex is not evil - or is this actually the way of adults and maturity? One of those bridges you need to cross someday, if you want to grow up.

Back to

The View from Green Island