“Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact.”
– Marlene Dietrich
We looked at the Landslide case and Operation Ore in the last post both of which are classic examples of police entrapment in the UK and the US. The defining attributes of entrapment related to child porn hasn’t changed much as we continue through to 2015. What has become apparent when one reviews hundreds of entrapment cases related to internet paedophilia and child rape networks is the inherent mismanagement and corruption which seems to go with it. The incompetence is often so bad, that the only conclusion is that terror acts and sexual abuse is both prevented, permitted and created as a triangle of industry.
We may be willing to assign the possibility that much of the child porn that is present on the net is controlled by the police and intelligence agency departments in order to act as entrapment operations. So, if you are one of those inclined to view pornography – whatever the moral arguments – and find yourself face to face with an advertisement which appears mysterious or ambiguous, or even explicitly details child porn (including the private peer to peer confines of the so-called “Dark Net”) then the odds are higher that it will be a police entrapment set up.
The labelling of child porn and the moral panic surrounding it, will serve as one of many templates to Machiavellian deception that is so common amongst those who appear to be “protecting” us. The definitions of child pornography set down by America are so broad and vague that it has caused enormous confusion as to what exactly constitutes an obscene image. It is true to say now that the fear and paranoia induced has reached such proportions that mothers and fathers are fearful of taking photos of their naked child or exhibiting nude images where art is the primary driver.
Art, like innocence, has been debased by those who claim to champion its protection. By lumping sexual abuse and child porn into a category that includes artistic renditions of, for example, naked children through photography, is to demean the very nature and appreciation of beauty and the celebration of what it means to live in a free society as oppose to an absolutist one. As one writer on this subject mentioned: “If images of beautiful nude children are as much pornographic as those of children being raped, then while the beautiful are criminalized the pornographic are made less criminal.” [1]
And then on the other side of the coin, we have the sexualisation of children and young adults occurring in the music, fashion and obviously the accessbility of entrepreneurial amateur porn. These create conflicting messages indeed for everyone, let alone children.
Conflicting messages: 10-year-old model Thylane Loubry Blondeau in French Vogue by Katharine K. Zarrella 2012
Irish author and journalist Brian Rothery casts further doubt on the figures bandied about by some police and child abuse advocates. A graph was created from a range of internet research sources which were then used to display the relationships between sites known to contain child porn and all sites on the Internet. Figures revealed make interesting reading:
“… 5 million total sites, 3.5 million public sites and 8,700 CP sites. The 1.5 million difference between public and total is made up of private sites, mainly corporate where one requires a password (not CP sites requiring passwords). The difference in number between the CP and other sites is so great that on a normal graph page, the CP does not register. It is one fifth of one percent – 0.02 percent.
But now let us examine that figure more closely. First the 8,700 contains many duplications, as images are copied. Let us assume that 20 percent of them share images in differing mixes. This reduces the number of CP sites to 7,000. Many of the CP sites move. xyz.com hosted in Brazil one day can appear as abc.kg hosted in, say, Russia the next, and be counted as two within the analysis period. Say 10percent move, reducing the number to 6,300.
There are more sites with child nudity and child erotica, which may be judged by the analysts as CP, than there are real CP sites. A good guess would be most of them. Let’s say 4,000, leaving 2,300. Now for simulated and artificially created images, such as Japanese Hentai, where no real children are photographed, and which many defenders of free expression say should not be criminalized, but, that argument aside, do not involve porn with real children. A conservative guess would be around 6,000, maybe more. This leaves between one or two and 300 CP sites. Let’s take the upper figure. We do not know what jurisdiction in the world would not arrest the hosters and makers of these 300 sites but what we do know is that some of our brave censors have worked hard to find the few that have existed. If there are 300, they make up 0.0007 percent of the total number of web sites on the Internet.[2] [Emphasis mine]
What could be the other motives for capitalising on the promotion of fake child porn websites?
Returning to the UK/US Landslide case under Operation Ore which spawned many other child pornography “crackdowns” the subscriber database and all of the other main Landslide FBI/prosecution files show an interesting precedent never revealed to the defence. Researchers at inquisition21.com have discovered that “… credit cards, however obtained, whether from attempts to access adult sites over Landslide, generated by a program or simply stolen, were ‘jumped’ to so-called ‘child porn’ sites.” The rogue webmasters in question “… used the transaction to charge (defraud) the owner and, because of the extreme names of the sites charged to, embarrass the owner into not complaining about the $30 or so robbed in each transaction.” They compromised the credit card owners by:“‘… incriminating their computers with illegal images. Whilst people believed they were signing up to legitimate adult sites, in reality they were signing up to illegal sites. Forensically, the user’s computer would appear totally incriminating – the signup and the images. This was almost a perfect crime, and this has happened in at least one high profile case.’ ” [3]
The inevitable conclusion is that the payment system was designed to automatically switch from adult to child pornography sites which meant that people were arrested for nothing more than their site names. The fact that the sites did not exist seemed immaterial. Inquisition 21 Group saw the programming codes on the rogue sites that allowed the victims to be jumped to illegal sites and were in doubt that both the UK and Irish police should have seen them.
There are many seeking an earnest appraisal of the subject of child porn just as they are with the roots causes of terrorism. However, both are areas suffering from information dominance and prone to co-option by Establishment agencies for their own purposes. This is due primarily to the high yields of emotional capital available. When there is a probability for collective reaction to a controversial subject then the opportunities are always there to engineer that reaction. High octane emotions and fear are easily channelled. That being the case, clearly distinguishing what constitutes a crime and what may be erotic exploration and innocent art is presently fraught with difficulty due to new legislation and the ubiquity of entrapment set ups. When civil rights groups and law enforcement agencies become the sole mediators of what constitutes erotic art and child porn, it is a dark day indeed for freedom.
Most people know that there is a huge difference between child pornography that depicts the rape and abuse of a child or infant and the celebration of childhood which may or may not include children … (gasp) without clothes. There will also always be those who position themselves in the grey area that encourages extreme laws such as pre-teen websites that are ostensibly a pictorial diary that neither include nudity or anything remotely close to porn.[4] However, it certainly could be said to be pandering to paedophiles and those with paedophilic tendencies. Yet, knowing that this is unsavoury, it is not illegal or criminal. In a world that is teetering on a soft form of totalitarianism in all domains, it is an important distinction. Labelling ordinary people “sex offenders” or “suspected terrorists” is becoming easier and easier for police and law-makers. As we shall see in later posts this may well be the overarching objective.
What we have now is yet another form of self-righteous, dogma against imagery that does not conform to evangelical principles. The criminalisation of artistic or dramatic representation; objective intellectual examination and speculation – even thoughts, if they are written down or recorded – are now seen as grounds for prosecution with the sex offender register beckoning. Once again, that is not to say that child pornography may not be on the rise. This was true enough during the raids from the UK Operation Cathedral where torture and degradation was visited on many children and infants. But caution and the utmost scepticism must remain regarding the causes for such operations, based on the evidence so far. This is especially true if we are not see such operations being politicised so that they are used to imprison dissidents and those who threaten to expose the deep black nature of the political and intelligence apparatus.
From the cover of Sally Mann’s: ‘Immediate Family’ which included nude photos of her children. It was lauded by critics as “beautiful” but condemned by the American religious right as pornography. http://sallymann.com/
At this stage it should be no surprise that in the Landslide case and others, the data base of credit card subscribers handed over to overseas police by US authorities, notably the FBI, were found to have had the names of prominent members of government and institutional officials removed, leaving only minor local level politicians, media and celebrity names. These were never raided in the US with authorities stating no evidence of fraud was found.
Could it be that factions within US law enforcement agencies are doing what they historically do best and creating crime for the purposes of blackmail and propaganda “success” stories in exactly the same way that police and British intelligence were doing under Thatcher’s government? Are elements within police and judiciary, government and intelligence doing so in order to faciliate the creation of a new industry and convenient smokescreen to protect high level child abusers?
According to inquisition 21 researchers this is not in the realm of conspiracy, simply a case of historical fact. As they mention: “It should not be [a surprise] when we already know that virtually all of the child pornography on the Internet today is published by the US police for entrapment purposes.” [5]
Consider a Southern California Police seminar in 1990 where “… LAPD’s Toby Tyler proudly announced that law enforcement agencies were now the sole reproducers and distributors of child pornography.” Author James Kincaid confirm the statement from his own experiences in 2000:
“Several speakers at an L.A. police seminar I attended a few years back laughingly admitted that the largest collection of child porn in the country is in the hands of cops, who edit and publish it in sting operations. There is at most, they say, a small cottage industry among civilians in which pictures (most of them vintage) are traded.” And internet abuse expert John Carr: “‘I have only seen child pornography twice in my life and then it was at conferences and I was shown it by the police.’” […] There may well be a consensus on the principle of child porn, but there is little consensus on what constitutes child porn.” [6]
The child exploitation industry has now fused with the police directed NGOs. On Monday 24 July 2006, the UK Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, (CEOP) was launched. Director Jim Gamble believes the way forward is to create fake paedophile websites over which ‘undercover’ officers will pose as children on Internet chat rooms. This reflects more of the FBI’s already active in chat-room entrapment operations in both the Americas and Asia. Creating paedophiles where there are none is as effective as searching for and blackmailing those that are, especially when they reside in the lower rungs of the Establishment.
Is the US/UK Establishment creating a virtual CoIntelpro operation using the child exploitation industry as yet another tool for control while increasing a climate of paranoia and fear?
In March 2011, possibly the biggest online global paedophile ring was smashed by Euro-authorities after extensive operation to ensnare members within a global forum – boylover.net – who had up to 70,000 members. Some 670 suspects were identified worldwide, nearly 200 of whom have been arrested. It seems such operations will be continuing well into the future for a variety of complex reasons, where one would hope the protection of the child is the overriding priority. [7] “Child porn” may be another label for which the old boys’ network can justify more jobs while actually creating predators and encouraging them to commit certain crimes, thus serving to bury the real child pornography which does exist though possibly in fewer quantities than we were led to believe and hidden more deeply in the encrypted software “vaults” of high society.
America is leading the way in cases of child porn prosecution. The legitimacy of certain sting operations are certainly open to question but the key issue is the the use of entrapment and the rise of pre-crime. Fused together this is another symptom of society under attack from psychopathological thinking which in turn it leading us down the road to Pathocracy.
“Inquisition” by Goya
That child pornography exists is beyond question. The extent to which it can be used as a tool for social control is less understood.
The notorious Attorney General Ed Meese back in the late 70s early 80s ironically, may have been the first to be given the mission to heighten the existence of child porn in society. One scenario for this was to create a climate of law breakers, to foster fear and retribution and to further lead America into a state of decline. Commensurate with Kinseyian and Freudian programming, this ensured that society became more decadent than it really was.
In effect, the US government itself may have become one of the mainstays of child pornography. In much the same way as narcotics and arms, it filled a role of both purveyor and habitual user which continues to this day. Sting operations are initiated to turn around the possible fall in child pornography crime, where the would-be purchasers are actively solicited and eventually prosecuted under new laws.
Writer Jim Peron, a writer and bookseller based in Auckland, New Zealand states:
First, the age limit was raised from 16 to 18 placing the United States outside the Western mainstream. An entire class of publications, which previously had been legal, were now illegal. Publications which were purchased legally in the United States became illegal overnight without the bulk of owners being aware of the change.
Second, Congress dropped the requirement that something be “obscene” before being classified as child pornography. Now the law was so broadly written that family snapshots of a nude child playing in the bath, could be prosecuted—and were!
Third, it was no longer necessary to produce or distribute the newly banned material. Mere possession was now illegal. [8]
Peron goes on to describe how the government created dozens of phony companies and began soliciting people to purchase the material. Government agencies would send brochures under a fake company name to the individual they targeted and in most cases, proceed to relentlessly pester the individual until a sale was made. The police would place adverts in adult publications pretending, for example, to be a woman with a young daughter. This “woman” would then solicit correspondence from men until the men finally decided to buy the material. Prosecutions soared and the moral majority were exulted. However, the problem was, as Attorney Lawrence Stanley pointed out: “…the line between law enforcement and inducing law-breaking has become highly blurred, as undercover “friends” encourage the forbidden fantasies of their targets and sell or send them child pornography after a great deal of prodding. In some cases, the forbidden fantasies are those of the investigating agent.” [9]
Government sting operations included setting up shop as bonafide pornography outlets which were actively peddling child porn and other hardcore images sourced from the belief that the US was under attack from a veritable legion of pimps and paedophiles. According to Peron, John O’Mally a customs agent created a company called “Produit Outaouais” which offered photos and videos: “The government officials would reproduce photos of young children and mail them to individuals they targeted. Newsweek reported: ‘Together with similar stings run by the US Postal Service over the past few years, federal agents have become major traffickers in kiddie porn.’ In this sting operation alone two individuals who were entrapped by O’Malley committed suicide; one a 25-year-old student and the other an attorney.” [10]
We have seen the harassment of artists, parents and ordinary family members taking nude pictures of their children under entirely natural and loving circumstances. This was turned into something sordid and degrading in the minds of the prosecutors resulting in untold trauma for all those targeted. Under the guise of “protection” these laws are further eroding civil liberties both in the United States and the UK. In spite of this, the same Lawrence Stanley was arrested for paedophilia, whilst Jim Peron was also caught out in March 2005 when The Society For the Promotion of Community Standards Inc. triumphantly outed Peron’s agenda in publishing the article. According to the society which upholds censorship issues, Peron, sold a journal called Unbound (Vol. 1 No. 4) at his Free Forum Books in San Francisco in 1985. The Society, seeking a classification, further stated that the journal was: “readily available to the public in Mr Peron’s bookshop along with the ‘pro-paedophile journal’ NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).” [11]
The previous owner of the bookshop, Eric Garris, apparently confronted Peron about his “pro-paedophilia” material recounting that “Mr Peron confirmed that Free Forum Books published it.” Detailed within the journal were the objections against a police raid subsequently carried out on Peron’s bookshop where copies of Unbound and other pro-paedophilia publications were seized “in the course of an on-going investigation into David Simons (a part-time employee of Mr Peron’s, who was later arrested, convicted and jailed for 16 years for committing sex-offences against children).” [12]
Peron rather unconvincingly denies anything untoward though admitted he wrote an article “Abused: One Boy’s Story” which he said was used without his permission, defending his piece in lieu of the fact that there was no explicit sexual content while denying that he was referring to paedophiles when using the term “boy lover”. He also further denied involvement with the journal claiming that: “Unbound was published by another person who rented a back office from his former bookstore.” [13] In the Society’s view and many others, Peron was in fact the editor-in-Chief of Unbound and was trying to wriggle out of the spotlight.
It becomes a little more disturbing when we know that Peron’s source was the aforementioned attorney Lawrence Stanley, who specialised in defending those accused of child pornography and who was arrested in Brazil, charged with child exploitation. Infiltrating the law was not his only speciality. Stanley had “built an international business photographing Brazilian girls and selling their photos through the Internet.” One of these sites: “…featured photos of girls ages 8 to 14 in what police Officer Rui Gomes described to the Associated Press as ‘sensual poses.’ Police said Stanley paid the girls $20 to $40 for each photo session. An official of the Brazilian Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for information on Stanley’s case.” [14]
Though typical of the smoke and mirror operations perpetrated against the public, it is the greatest irony to allow those questioning tactics and statistics regarding child porn to be those that benefit from a greater relaxation of the laws. It amounts to the same ruse when white supremacists cry foul against the discrepancies of Zionist deceptions thereby cancelling out any veracity of the original authorship and research. In other words, these become straw man arguments designed to deflect heat away from the subjects in question.
Once again, the public is none the wiser and the abuse continues.
[1] ‘The Crimen Exceptum of our era….’ Stop the insanity | http://www.rogerisright.blogspot.co.uk
[2] Inquistion 21st Century – ‘Child Pornography’ | www. inquisition.com/
[3] ‘New evidence will also undermine Operation Amethyst’ http://www.inquisition21.com.
[4] ‘Legal child porn’ under fire MSNBC By Mike Brunker March 28 2002 — “The photos of 12-year-old “Amber” cavorting in a swimsuit and various skimpy outfits wouldn’t have raised so much as an eyebrow if they had been posted on a family home page. But on lilamber.com — one of a growing number of “preteen model” sites operating in the legal gray area between innocent imagery and child pornography — they have drawn the attention of the Justice Department and prompted a congressman to declare war on the “reckless endangerment” of such kids by their parents and Web site operators.”
[5] ‘The crime exceptum’ inquisition21.com.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘Global paedophile ring smashed, say police’ Euro News, http://www.euronews.com March 16, 2011.
[8] “The Claptrap Over Child Porn” by Jim Peron, The Laissez Faire Electronic Times: Part 2: The US Government Enters the Child Porn Business’,vol. 2, no. 19, May 12, 1987/2003.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Classify “Pro-Paedophilia Journal” Unbound Thursday, 31 March 2005, Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc. New Zealand.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] ‘Lawyer arrested in Brazil charged with child exploitation’ By Robert Stacy McCain The Washington Times, July 24, 2002.
INFRAKSHUN 
One comment