I made a post earlier saying that those of you who have been fighting with the antis on Blogspot have made a mess out of things and that the window for making any progress there was now closed. I said in that post that my observations were from the perspective of someone new to the scene, who hadn't been keeping current with what was going on, and had just poked his head in for a look around. I never claimed to know the situation inside and out. I was relaying my observations as someone from the general public might see it, someone who just happened to poke his head into Blogspot and skim through what was going on.

Several of you leapt down my throat, as I knew you would, telling me that I believed the anti's lies and basically accusing me of stabbing you in the back. Look. I never claimed to be following what's going on. I never claimed to know the whole background story. I was reporting on what I saw from my brief foray into the battle zone. My intention was not to stab anybody in the back, but surely my observations can be useful, because they represent what John Q. Public is going to perceive when he takes a similar look around. I doubt that John Q. Public is going to bother to come here, or read the pro-ped blogs, and inform himself of the whole background of this fiasco. He's not going to critically question whether there were really death threats made or not. He's going to skim through the relevant blogs like I did, and the conclusion he comes to will probably be even less charitable towards our side than mine is.

So before you dismiss everything I've said, think about what it means, will you? I'm not an unintelligent person and I don't post just to hear myself talk. You might not want to hear it, but you guys are LOSING on Blogspot because the antis have the market cornered on public relations. What can you do to present your side of the story any better? You heard them. They're not interested in debate. Neither is the average Joe who's browsing through. He doesn't care about hearing your side of it, he only cares about hearing what reinforces the way he wants to view the world. For most people, that means a quick run-through of Absolute Zero will be enough to be convinced that we're just a bunch of sickos and Dreamer of Oz and her cronies are right. Then he'll go on his merry way, with his preconceived notions easily upheld.

It's stupid to try to comment on the anti's blogs, because all they'll do is reject our best arguments and only post the less-than-perfect things we say; the things that they can easily debunk to make us look bad. They're not going to give us a fair shake, so the more we engage them, we're just giving them more ammunition to turn around and use against us. This isn't a battle about facts, it's a battle about appearances. It doesn't matter if reason is on our side or not. The emotional aspect of it will always outweigh appeals to reason. We need to make ourselves look good, not just spew facts and arguments. It's too easy for them to say, "Look, they're just trying to justify their own desires," or "If they don't want to have sex with kids, why are they trying to abolish the age of consent?" Once they say that, it puts us right back in the corner where we can't fight our way out. It wins the heart of the common man, and he says, "Yeah, obviously those pedos aren't being honest with us, they're obviously just trying to push their own agendas." And then when Daydreamer of Oz says that she received death threats, why shouldn't he believe her? He'll think, "That sounds like something one of those sick pedophiles would do." It's depressing, but we lost that battle before it began.

Sure, maybe a few of the more intelligent ones will bother to dig deeper and uncover the truth, but most won't. It doesn't take very much to satisfy the average Joe that pedophiles are evil. He already believes it. It will take a lot more than facts, statistics, and the personal accounts of the "sick" individuals in question to satisfy him that we are not the monsters they think we are. Like I said, it's not about facts, it's about appearances, and in that battle they have us outclassed at every turn. I suggest you read about Edward Bernays, the so-called Father of Public Relations. From the Wikipedia article:

Born in Vienna, Bernays was both a blood nephew and a nephew-in-law to Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, and Bernays's public relations efforts helped popularize Freud's theories in the United States. Bernays also pioneered the PR industry's use of psychology and other social sciences to design its public persuasion campaigns. "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits." (Propaganda, 2005 ed., p. 71.) He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the "engineering of consent."

One of Bernays' favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead for his clients' causes. "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway," he said. In order to promote sales of bacon, for example, he conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendation that people eat hearty breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as a hearty breakfast.

Bernays drew upon his uncle Freud's psychoanalytic ideas for the benefit of commerce in order to promote, by indirection, commodities as diverse as cigarettes, soap and books.

Yes, that's where the battle needs to be fought. In the field of public relations, not public education. The average Joe isn't smart enough to question the sources of most of the information he takes in. But when he knows the information is coming from pedophiles, he's "smart" enough to automatically assume it's self-serving bullshit. So we need to educate indirectly, with or without his conscious cooperation, and in a way that makes the antis look like the freaks. Believe me, it can be done. Anything can be spun the way we want it to look.

Why not register a non-profit organization called something like American Council for Sexual Values? It's a nice friendly name that sounds like it'd have a message a lot of antis want to hear. Of course, there's no explicit mention of just what kind of "sexual values" this organization would be advocating. Use it as a mouthpiece for studies done by folks like John Money, Judith Levine, Rind et al., and so forth. It's cheap to set up a non-profit organization, and as such, it could receive donations. Those donations could be used to fund political action committees, buy advertising on network television and newspapers, you name it. Nothing blatantly pro-pedophilia, of course. Just press releases such as "Studies show effect of sex during childhood can be positive." and "Correlation found between late age of first sexual experience and trouble with relationships in adult life." Get it into the public's consciousness that way, and that'll open the door a crack.

Too many of us think we're being "brave" by coming out of hiding and painting targets on our chests for idiots like Hellpig to snipe at, just so we can say we're being open and honest and trying to square-deal the world. Nobody wants openness and honesty. Witness the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George Bush, Jr. Nobody wants openness and honesty, least of all from us. Working earnestly to "educate" the public is not going to work on a public that does not want to learn what we have to teach them. It's better to remain concealed, and use their own social machinery against them. Would they square-deal us? Not if their lives depended on it. They love to use the propaganda machine against us. They deserve no better than to be done the same way. It's all about appearances. Instead of waiting for them to approve of our naked, honest appearance as we are (hell will freeze sooner), we must make them see us the way we want them to.

Is it dishonest? Yes. Is it manipulative? Yes. Is it mind control? Yes. Is it all the things we accuse them of doing against us? Yes. But we can't say we believe in our cause and then say we have to leave certain options off the table. If we really believe in what we're doing, if we really believe it's for the good of the children, then just as they will use any means at their disposal, so must we. If we want to win, we'll have to do what works, not what's fair or nice.


Enigma