Gangs of Thugs

Absolute Zero has been focusing heavily on RSO activists for the past 9 months. And while I think it's obvious to everyone here just exactly how devious and heartless those people are, there may be a question as to just what exactly that may have to do with an anti-pedophile blog.

Is there a difference?

In RSO activism and pedophile activism?

If there is, I've yet to find it. Their rhetoric is the same as the pedophile activists - the only difference is that the RSOs try to put disclaimers on theirs by stating "We don't support pedophiles!" while supporting pedophiles.

As if no one would notice.

The CEO of Sosen for example signed that pro-pedophile petition which called for the abolishment of virtually all restrictions and punishments regarding sex offenders AND calls for the abolishment of age of consent laws for prepubescent children. When confronted with this Sosen claimed ignorance and the woefully stupid statement that "there are no pedophiles in our group". Apparently they believe that because they can't see them they don't exist -- And yet, they can't see ME -- does that mean I also don't exist?

What it all boils down to is this... those people will say ANYthing whether or not it's true, whether or not they believe it. They will stab their own supporters in the back to get what they want. When all is said and done they have a "ME ME ME" mentality. So while they do understand that they need each other they would be more than willing to throw their brother under the train if it suited their purpose at the time. They react thoughtlessly, and impulsively and if they are ever sorry for one second for something they've done, they would never admit it, they would never express remorse. Jan Kruska is a fine example of this one. She's done more to hurt sex offender groups than any other single person or group of persons combined.

There are approximately 600,000 registered sex offenders in this country. Of those there are only a handful that are activists. Of the activists there are only a handful that are sex offenders. Why is that? Because they have their enablers doing the dirty work for them. These co-dependent mousy women whose lives depend on 'standing by their men' whether it's their spouse or their child, they will rationalize for them. Minimize their crime. Blame the victim. Bash the victim. Mock the victim. They'll lie, they'll cheat, they'll even steal. They'll try to find ways to rip off the system, and the taxpayers. They'll call you ugly names and accuse you of being ignorant and uneducated. They'll say you're a professional victim. Or in the case of Cheryl Griffiths, she'll just call you "disgusting" "scum sucking idiot" etc etc etc

So, no, not all activists are RSO's. Some are family members and some are in it for seemingly altruistic motives. Think Margie Slagle, Sarah Tofte, Niki Delson. Their thinking is just as distorted but without the same motivations present. It's no less dangerous, it's no less outrageous, and it's no less supportive of pedophile causes.

Sometimes these activists say things like "these sex offender laws should only apply to the ONE PERCENT of RSO's who are truly dangerous" The question that begs to be answered then is "who do they consider dangerous"? Obviously not those repeat offenders deemed at high risk of re-offense at Coalinga Hospital. After all, they rallied to get them released.....against the advice of experts. And where do they get that one percent figure? Well, they SAY that the majority of registered sex offenders were convicted for consensual sex, or for drunken mooning or for peeing behind a bush. Well that may or may not be true, but if it is, I've yet to see someone charged for peeing behind a bush and put on a sex offender registry. And if it HAS indeed happened, it's not one of THESE people we're discussing. No, their offenses are far worse than that.

This is what I think. I think they need to stop blaming society, the government, parents, and the victims for what they think is unfair and look to themselves and try to find what's missing.

Perhaps instead of blaming, minimizing, rationalizing, bashing, mocking, lying, cheating and deceiving they should tell Lee Lee to take care of her other children before they turn out the same way. Perhaps they should tell Linda that it's not appropriate for her to ask for donations considering her welfare fraud conviction. Perhaps they should tell Tikibug to stop posting on pedophile websites. Perhaps they should look long and hard at exactly who they are involved with and the projects they're undertaking on their behalf. Perhaps. And yet, perhaps is a word too big for these people. Perhaps has possibility. These gangs of thugs have none.

HT to Jacey

Truth, Justice, Honor

We've talked a lot lately about sex offender activists, both the offenders themselves and the family members who enable them.

The Blame Gamers we call them.

But now let's look at some people who aren't sex offenders or family members of sex offenders. People who attempt to further their cause with seemingly no motive to do so. I'd like to know who they are. I'd like to know why their compassion and empathy is directed towards people who harm others and why they blame those who are the victims.

Let's talk about the case of the judge, the lawyer and the therapist.

First up we have Australian Judge Sarah Bradley. Her case involved a 10 year old girl who was gang raped by 9 men. The prosecuting attorney described the rape as

"a form of childish experimentation, rather than one child being prevailed upon by another" and said the males including a 17, 18 and 26-year-old, were "naughty".

And Her Honor based her judgment on her own opinion that the girl

"probably agreed to have sex with all of the offenders"

This ten year old child had previously been molested multiple times AND she contracted a venereal disease during this encounter. She was subsequently removed from her foster family and returned to the community where all her victimizations had occured and in which her victimizers lived within their prestigious and now obviously influental families.

With this decision, Judge Bradley told this girl she was unimportant. That what these men did to her was just something she would have to accept. Every single one of the rapists pleaded guilty. Every single one of them received a slap on the wrist except for 6 of them who received........nothing.

Kea of GirlChat said:

"i'm not saying what happened to that girl is ok, i'm saying that holding a bunch of scared aboriginal kids up in front of australian society and accusing them of 'gang raping a ten year old girl' is a sad and pathetic response.

they aren't responsible for her, or their own situation, and sending them to jail will probably kill them"

He then went on to explain that in the Aboriginal culture it's not unusual for adults to have sex with children. And the pedofreaks bought it. Even Moth.

It reminded me of THIS story. Horrifying in itself, the reactions from the pedo community were mind boggling.


Next we have the case of Philip Russell. A Connecticut attorney who accepted the case of the music director at his church. Church officials had discovered child pornography on Robert Tate's laptop computer. The church, a prominent church, "didn't want a scandal. They wanted it to go away", according to Mr. Russell.

Mr. Russell acted swiftly. He took a sledgehammer and beat the hell out of that laptop, thus destroying the evidence and enabling Mr. Tate.

Mr. Tate had done a lot more than possess child pornography of young boys, some of it sadistic in nature. Regarding Robert Tate, Judge Alan Nevas said he had "never, ever seen such a sexual abuse history as Mr. Tate's, going back 30 years, involving trips overseas, and bringing child prostitutes to the parish and church grounds". Nevertheless, Mr. Russell who could have received 3 years in prison for his part, instead was given 1 year probation, 6 months of home confinement, a $25,000 fine and 240 hours of community service. He can reapply for his license after a period of one year. Hopefully the scumbag will be disbarred.

As for Mr. Tate? He plead guilty to possession of child pornography and will be sentenced on January 31. No one seems to know why he's only charged with CP. Perhaps it's the good ol' boy system operating in Connecticut. Mr. Russell says that he's "very relieved and happy" that the case is behind him. But what about those boys in those images? Who are they? What about those boys in Mr. Tate's extensive baby raping history?


Niki Delson is a therapist. Her clients include sex offenders. Her clients also include child sexual abuse victims. Niki is a pro-pedophile, pro sex offender activist. While Niki's peers are publishing in professional journals, Niki is publishing in the American Chronicle. I bet she leaves that off her resume though, ya think?

Niki believes that it's natural and quite normal for adults to be sexually attracted to sexually immature, sexually undeveloped prepubescent children. To back up her claim, she quotes a study by Briere, which we talked about HERE and which has been proven to be biased and purposefully deceptive.

Insanity, a legal term, may be used to defend criminal behavior if the person did not understand that what they were doing was illegal. Being mentally ill does not mean that one is insane, however. And while experts agree that mental illness which effects a persons behavior - if not curable, is treatable, while the alternative - EVIL - is not. The best you can hope for with someone who is just plain evil is behavior modification, a tortuously long process with a poor success rate. And it's easy to see why.

And yet Niki's partner Ron Kokish teaches the exact opposite, he says it's best to be evil because, well you could simply change your behavior.

"Simply put, adult sexual attraction to children is normal. It's part of biological sexuality"

"Sexual offenses are not essentially different from other cruel and selfish acts. When we pretend they are, we are simply trying to avoid acceptance of our own nature, we are barking up the wrong tree, and we are making the situation worse"

Niki, besides being the Media Director and a member of the Strategic Planning Committee of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending, is deeply involved in activism. Writing propaganda in the same style as the other blame gamers on the tabloid site American Chronicle, blogs, forums and news sites, we see her twisting statistics and studies and showing up in strange places like the eAdvocate website, SoClear Media Productions, Martijn of the Netherlands Political Pedophile Party, the Reform Sex Offender Laws Petition website, MySpace, Nigel Oldfields website, Zman's blog and the yahoo group belonging to Erika the Mouse.

Niki is an activist for sex offenders, she advocates for less restrictions, no registry, and no notification. Niki believes that pedophilia is normal. Niki is counseling sex offenders, feeding into their cognitive distortions. Niki is counseling children who have been sexually abused by the pedophiles she believes are normal. There is something not quite right with this picture.

I wonder what she would think of the pedophile Jason. I wonder what she would tell him when he said:

Masturbation has no known harmful effects on an otherwise healthy child. Even if a child were forcibly masturbated against his/her will, any harm would be minimal and quickly overcome if parents and the law took a sensible attitude toward the "assault"

Even where a child is truly forced and protests against being masturbated, any ill effects would be virtually eliminated if society would only get rid of the current sexual hysteria

I'll leave you with some thoughts from another professional who treats sex offenders. He doesn't sound at all like Niki to me. Can't you just hear her now? "I am Niki D of the American Chronicle". No they don't sound anything alike and sometimes common sense alone will tell you what's the truth and what's a lie, so let's meet Dr. Bill Glaser:

• There are some who say that we are becoming unnecessarily panicky about child sexual abuse. The evidence is that we have not panicked enough.


• If we had some sort of plague or epidemic which affected one in four girls, one in eight boys, there would be a national outcry about it and we would be setting up national coordinated efforts to deal with the problem as we have with modern day epidemics such as HIV.


• Despite the implications of its Greek etymology, paedophilia is not a love of children but a lust for them. The sole aim of the paedophile is to sexually abuse children. Any display of care, affection or friendship towards the victim is always secondary to this.


• It has often been said that paedophiles tend to be “good with children”. That is precisely what makes them so dangerous; this “goodness”is difficult to differentiate from (say)“good” parenting. One has to talk with many victims at length to realise how insidious and how overwhelming has been the influence of an offender on all aspects of their lives.


• An incest offender is simply a paedophile who sometimes abuses his own children or young relatives.


• And most of all,we have to understand the how and the why of paedophilia: the subtle, bizarre and cruel ways in which seemingly blameless and upright men insidiously cripple the most vulnerable members of our society. We have possessed that understanding for a long time; we have ignored it for too long.


• The measure of successful treatment is not that of a happy perpetrator but rather of a safe victim.

Graphics courtesy of Jacey