by Joseph W
Last month I mentioned Carl Lundstrom, the Far Right businessman who set up the illegal bit-torrent site Pirate Bay alongside Wikileaks financier Peter Sunde. Sunde was convicted last year for his role in the project, alongside Lundstrom.
Besides Sunde and Lundstrom, the two other Pirate Bay founders were also found guilty: Fredrik Neij and Gottvid Svartolm. Neij and Svartolm run the internet server PRQ, a site which hosts paedophile forums and also hosts Wikileaks.
Neij and Svartolm cite freedom of speech when defending why they host the forum, as they are welcome to do.
Wikileaks also cites freedom of speech when reproducing huge lists of banned websites including unredacted URLs of child pornography websites – to make the point that other websites have ended up on government blacklists.
Nevertheless, there are a few things I think are very odd about Wikileaks’ attitude towards paedophilia and the exploitation of child bodies for the purposes of pornography.
Wikileaks host an article called “An Insight Into Child Porn,” written by a “controversial source” who has spent “10 years inside the international child porn industry”.
The Wikileaks writer introduces himself as someone who personally knows children forced into posing naked for adults:
Also, I am in an unfavourable position: earlier, I was for a while strongly involved in the field of children models. From this time period I know of hundreds of pedophiles and have virtual contact with designers, programmers and operators of the sites that operate today’s CP [Child Pornography]. I have even got to know personally some of the girls (and their families) in the famous CP sets
The Wikileaks writer argues that some child victims exploited so graphically might actually pose naked “voluntarily”:
You see the kids grinning a big fun in front of the camera. I know some of these children are now teenagers or have even reached the age of majority. Many regret that they no longer can be models and did not understand why they suddenly no longer were photographed. Even tougher pictures from St. Petersburg show girls in their first voluntary sexual experimentation. Also there you can see that for the girls it is a game and that they had fun. I know that in most cases the mother was informed and that she allowed the daughter to participate. Nobody has suffered, no one has been forced and these were free decisions – why cannot the society simply accept this fact? Even money was not always the driving force. There were certainly girls from very good homes that had no shortage of money. But they had a passion for voyeurism, naked posing, etc. at a very young age (which you can see today with the phenomenon of “Sexting” where children and young people share very provocative pictures with each other, according to reports up to 20% of young people make and share this kind of pictures)
He apparently thinks that those concerned about paedophilia are the true paedophiles:
Could it be that each of us harbours an unconscious, dark and unbearable desire for the child that one can “unload” by expressing and projecting anger towards a pedophile monster? Why is the public so eager to know EVERYTHING about cases of child abuse? The public leeches every perverse detail of such a story and the sensational media makes an excellent business. The most insidious of the whole subject of child pornography is the public discussion about things the speaker only has ideas about but has never seen.
Child protection is worse than terrorism:
The Western world hardly has to worry about the Talibans but more about Christian fundamentalists crawling in through the back door of “Child protection”.
The writer is quite obviously still searching for disturbing images of children, and it’s clear where his sympathies lie:
A few months ago, I stumbled upon a new web site, hosted at DreamHost Web Hosting California. It showed suggestive images of Masha Allen, a Russian girl adopted by an American pedophile. Over the years, she was not only his daughter but also his lover. The photos made rounds around the globe. The father was finally identified and jailed and the girl was readopted by a woman from Georgia. Masha Allen has massively greedy lawyers. They have left up this website with suggestive pictures of Masha.
As I have written so far, the whole promotion of child pornography is done via spam (or publisheded list of domains blocked by the police :-). The spam mails sometimes also come with images. Even if you do not read the emails and everything ends up in junk folders there is still the possibility that child pornography images are saved on the hard drive. A different situation is when the computer has become infected and is a zombie – then all doors are, so to speak, open and the computer can even be used for the active dissemination of child pornography. Those who buy child pornography find links in the spam ads – most of them will lead to portals.
He thinks that children might have a legitimate source of income, by posing as “models” online:
The whole discussion about clothed model children on the Internet is totally superfluous. Many people, mostly poor families, had an additional revenue source through such Web sites and it provided considerable help against poverty.
He doesn’t see much difference between a clothes catalogue and a porn website:
Where, I ask kindly, is the difference whether a pedophile masturbates now in front of a computer, in front of an Otto catalog [a well-known German clothing store] or thinking about a girl on the beach? That certainly sounds very immoral to everyone but if one wants to understand the essence of the problem, you have to finally take on the reality. Everything else is window dressing and stupid chatter that leads to nothing and completely misses the target.
He thinks that children love taking pictures of themselves naked, and are not influenced by adults:
Why do today’s children and teenagers take sexy pictures, sometimes completely naked – even keenly? Nobody forced them! They don’t earn money from it. It is exactly what I learned during my talks with Eastern European girls involved in such productions: many had financial interests. However, many did so but also because was fun and financial aspects had no bearing. And many operators simply gave cameras to girls. They made the photos without the influence of adults. The pictures were then published by the operator and the money divided. There were no victims but partners, even if the partners were minors.
Finally, the writer refers to the paedophile-murderer Dutroux:
People like Dutroux are considered pedophiles even though I see him rather as a dangerous psychopath who targets not only children but also young women.
As we know, Wikileaks published personal details of victims and witnesses in the Dutroux case last year, outraging victims’ families.
This is all very odd.