The case focuses on an article written by the New York Times Magazines a few days ago. It made the rounds of a lot of media and many people around the world, rightly, rose up against its content. The article is clear, an unambiguous : pro-pedophile position, holding to defend, through the cloth written by, the indefensible. Before going into details, note that the NYT has not had its first try. In 2014, law professor Margo Kaplan tried to justify and defend pedophiles, with this article “Pedophilia : a disorder, not a crime”. Today, it’s Michael Winerip who wrote this piece, in August 26th 2020. The title is more than clear “Convicted for sexual crimes but with no victims”. He is referring here to the arrests that took place all over the world following the traps set by the police or citizens involved to fight pedophiles on the internet, especially with the “Net Nanny OP”. The law is clear, whether for the US or elsewhere. Sexual comments to children, or people pretending to be such, is a crime. Not in the eyes of this libtard. For him, a pedophile should be condemned only and only if the latter had raped / assaulted a child. Without the rape itself, he considers that it cannot be considered a crime. Let us therefore note a few passages from the article in question.
“Again she claimed to be 13. The photo seemed to tell a different story, and the gaming chair she was seated in looked too expensive for a kid”
He describes a virtual encounter that a pedophile named “Jace Hambrick“ did on “Craigs List”. He comes across a 13-year-old girl, gamer, who repeats to him that she is 13 years old with the pseudonym “Gamer Gurl”. Michael immediately suggests that the pedophile may have legitimate doubts as the photo of the girl does not appear to be of a 13 year old child. Here he is trying to legitimize what will happen later. Let’s not even argue about the excuse of the price of the chair … The only importance here is the fact that the girl repeatedly said that she was only 13 years old, nothing else can be legitimately taken into account. Period. The girl was actually an undercover police officer for Operation Net Nanny to catch child abuse online. The man arranged to meet the fake teen and the police welcomed him and sent him to his rightful place, that is to say, to prison.
“An analysis of court records in Washington State stings, as well as interviews with police and prosecutors, reveals that most of the men arrested have no felony record.”
Here, trying to make believe that they are not therefore criminals since they have never been caught before. No, it just means they weren’t toasted sooner! See the vice of this junk, clearly taking people for idiots with this little sentence that you might think is innocent. He is implying outright that they probably would never have had any problems with the law if they had not been cornered by the police via “Net Nanny” style operations and de facto, questions the very existence of these operations, so useful to protect children. Catch a pedophile before he makes a victim. Here is the magnificent result of these arrests. Except for Michael Winerip. Following the article, he will mention that pedophiles who get caught are “tricked” by the police into doing things they wouldn’t normally do. He suggests thus and very stupidly that it is the police, roughly, who gives birth to a pedophile in the head of the pedophile. Further he adds that the police bragging about their arrests through traps like these are not, contrary to what the police say, arrests of men who intends to rape kids but arrests of men who intended to rape fake childs within a fictional scenario made up by the police. I can’t say where the madness of this junk stops since this article is written as I read the New York Times to write you my own article in the process of reading it.
“Currently, about 150 men convicted in Washington State stings are still incarcerated. If the psychologists’ estimates are correct, as many as 125 of them may not be sexual deviants and pose a low risk to the community.”
Grandiose. He is about to write an huge shitty thing and, to get over it, hides behind the little sentence “if the psychologists’ estimations are correct”. Magistral. People, and he knows this very well because that is the point of his article, in a totally automatic and unconscious way, will evade the “if the estimates are correct”. The gullible or stupid reader will read only one thing. 125 pedophiles do not represent risks for society and are not sexual deviants but are nevertheless in prison. This is, of course, a low-level psychological manipulation but remains, however, in the face of the growing cerebral lethargy of the great majority of the population, a serious act of manipulation.
“In Washington State, new inmates carry processing papers identifying them by their crimes. Sex offenders have what are known as “dirty papers.” They are shunned, threatened, beaten, sexually assaulted. Gang leaders make no distinction between “attempted rape” and “rape.”
And there lies the only consolation, the only justice when prison is nothing in the face of the most serious crimes of rape (or attempted rape) of children! Knowing that in some prisons, most delinquents despise pedos and act accordingly. Okay, we’re not all OK with that, but personally, I tend to smile more than cry when I hear that an inmate bust a pedophile’s skull. Everyone has their own position. Anyway, once again, this journabitch throws us in the face the distinction, the difference between attempt and rape itself in absolutely distressing proportions. Between the two, there is only one step. Or, in this case, an undercover cop / citizen, disguised behind a child’s profile. For the umpteenth time, he tries in vain to suggest that planning a rape of children is considerably less serious than rape in itself.
MICHAEL WINERIP goes a long way when you digest his article. All along, he seems to suggest, when one takes into account the entire cloth that his article represents, that an attempted rape is nothing, it is not much. That it shouldn’t even be a crime. Because I remind you of the title “convicted but with no victims“… Of course, there is a difference between the attempt and the rape itself. I do not question that. However, we are talking about a pedophile here. Child rapists who have, who are going or who hope to harm children. A virtuous pedophile, despite the ridiculous stories that the press tries to make you swallow, that does not exist. So, in my eyes and in my heart, planning or doing something to a child, must be judged in the exact same way because in both cases, the crime was foreseen and we are talking about CHILDREN! This kind of shit has become common. Between TEDX which puts pedophilia in the same box as heterosexuality and homosexuality. The series and movies highlighting sex in a context where there is however not adults but teenagers, even worse sometimes, kids. They accelerated the attempt to force the acceptance of this degeneration by all the means at hand. Press articles including. So, “convicted but with no victims”, for the title of this shit, I would dress it with my own conclusion in these terms “Convicted with no victims, because it is a crime to fantazise over our kids !”