Subject: Rev. Dr. Nolan Voyde: "Pedophilia, Conspiracy Style" (Part One)

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 06:24:24 GMT

From: (Nolan Voyde)

Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.

Newsgroups: alt.slack


Okay, right off the bat, I need to clear up two mistakes I made in my

previous posting, "A Natural Impulse To Religion?". The silly mistake

was leaving out two words from the end of the essay. I wrote "Fuck'em

whether they can take or not", when it should have been "Fuck'em

whether they can take A JOKE or not". The other mistake is the

serious one, when I attributed a quote transmitted by B. Gascoigne to

THOMAS Mann, when I should have written HORACE Mann. Man, I tell you,

writing non-fiction is harder than it looks. What can I say? Just a

case of brainlock. I re-read these damn things at least five times

before I post them, but still, little goofs slip through. At least, I

go back and re-check what I've written. Being familiar with Thomas

Mann and not Horace, I guess my mind kind of cross-wired on it. Oh

well, I promise I will try yet harder to achieve accuracy. I wouldn't

want you to think you can't trust me as a source of information.

Yeah, sure.


PEDOPHILIA, CONSPIRACY STYLE (part one) by Rev. Dr. Nolan Voyde

Are you sexually attracted to children? DON'T ANSWER TOO

FAST. The Conspiracy itself provides you with the answer to that

question, and it's most likely to be "YES". Now, bear with me, here.

To react only to the opening premise without reading the evidence and

logic that built up to it is the way Normal humans are trained to

think, and for any Pink mere human groveling slave-dog it would be

enough to stop reading right now and to walk away with the comfort of

knowing that they did not open their Conspiracy-purified minds to the

dirty, synapse-sullying truth.


Okay, so you're not a child molestor, or at least you haven't been

caught, yet. But, the Conspiracy knows that almost everyone IS

erotically attracted to our precious little youngsters, and they use

that fact to their nefarious advantage. In fact, in this as with

nearly everything else, they are so confident of their methods, and

their ultimate success in using those methods, that they work their

mind control voodoo right in the open for all to see. All who have

eyes to see, that is.


As usual, the Con has taken a healthy, naturally evolved instinct and

perverted it into a sick psychological control tool. "WHAT?" you say,

"pedophilia is a natural instinct? Voyde, you are DISGUSTING!" Well,

so I am. What's disgusting about me is my ability to face the truth,

however distasteful. What's even more disgusting about me is that I'm

not afraid to speak the truth out loud (or, in this case, post it for

public consumption). Just don't shoot the messenger before you hear

the whole message, okay? If I still come off as an unworthy piece of

shit at the end of this essay, then hate me all you like, because I

can handle it. Hell, I thrive on your hate. Bring it on!


Even the cow-like Pinks, contentedly chewing their cuds in the

Conspiracy's slaughterhouse feedlots, know that psychologists help

determine what we see on TV. In fact, that's one of the main reasons

why TV's brainwash is so effective, because professionals are

designing it to reach right into your unconscious mind. The action on

the screen provides a superficial veneer of entertainment so you can

justify to yourself why you are staring into that screen, but the REAL

message is being transmitted straight to your hindbrain, the parts

that control your basic, gut-level reactions. They have their

tecniques honed so fine that they can broadcast denunciations of

pedophilia on the one hand, while on the other hand they are

EXPLOITING it to control you.


To create this apparent paradox in thinking habits takes a lot of

programming and indoctrination, but luckily, our Conspiracy masters

work around the clock to create their towering superstructures of

illogical thought patterns, particularly and most easily in Normal



Like with Christianity, the web of lies has been so built up by so

many humans over so many years that it has become impossible to

grapple with the whole monster, at once. A point of attack focusing

on a particular lie is the only way to begin, and hopefully by

knocking out the support structures of the Big Lie one at a time, we

can, "Bob" willing, bring down the incomprehensibly vast matrix of

lies which are the pillars of the very Conspiracy, itself.


A group of people are sitting in a room designed like a small movie

theater. Each of them has a device attached to their genitals which

measures their degree of physical arousal, and each of them has a

camera focused on their eyes to measure pupil dilation responses. It

is a fundamental psychological reality that your pupils dilate when

you see something that pleases you, and they correspondingly contract

when you see something that displeases you. This pupil dilation

response happens to be the reason why many top-notch poker players

wear dark glasses, to conceal the unavoidable reactions of their

pupils to a good or bad hand.


Each of the people in the theater also has a pencil and an answer form

on the small desk they are sitting at. A series of pictures are shown

on the screen at the front of the room, and, as each image flashes on

and off again, the subjects mark their reactions to the pictures on

the form they have been provided with. Their genital arousal level

and their pupil dilation response are also recorded for each image.

The pictures are of many things; automobiles, landscapes, people's

faces (ugh!) armies in combat, autopsies (alright!) and nudes,

including pictures of nude juveniles.


The psychologists conducting the tests then give each subject an

interview, in which they are asked about their reactions to the

pictures. The results of all the data inputs are then tabulated and

analysed, and the results of that are sent on to the market consulting

firm which had been hired by the advertising agency which was hired by

the product distributor which was hired by the product producer. The

actual results of these tests have shown that many people (not

surprisingly, mostly females and bisexual/gay males) react generally

favorably to male nudes, provided that the male is reasonably

good-looking to begin with.


Even less surprisingly, pictures of nude women draw an even more

enthusiastic response from both men and women, but the warmest

reaction from men and women is for nude children of both sexes. Of

course, in this culture, no one in their right mind is going to admit

that they think little kids are sexy (they'll allow for "cute", but

not sexy). That's why the measuring devices: People routinely lie

about what turns them on, and psychs already know this. It is

standard practice for people to give untruthful or evasive answers

about the pictures of children, just as it also quite common for

raging homophobes to lie about what they REALLY thought about the

pictures of nude men. Just as you'd expect if you really thought

about it, the strongest negative verbal reactions often come from

those who have the strongest positive physical responses.


What the mercenary psychologists have reported to their corporate

masters is that latent inhibited pedophilia is a powerful potential

marketing tool. However, the use of this tool must be disguised or

excused in some way in order to bypass Conspiracy pleasure-denial

programming. This programming is, of course, placed in Pink minds for

reasons more fundamentally associated with guilt/fear control

mechanisms. TV advertisers, with full Conspiracy approval (hell,

they're part and parcel of the Conspiracy!), then begin planning new

advertising campaigns that take advantage of their ever-more-refined

psych inputs.


Anybody out there see or have a videotape of the Super Bowl that

featured Michael Jackson in the half-time show? If so, then you saw

what I saw. By some incredible cosmic coincidence (?), this very

Super Bowl (I can't remember the Roman numeral for it, but it was

about four S.B.'s ago, and just before Mikey was accused of

pedophilia) featured an advertisement for some Conspiracy financial

institution which in turn featured, guess what, a group of nude

toddlers roaming back and forth across an otherwise blank white

background. The last few seconds of the ad showed a small blond boy

sitting on a rotating turntable, slowly circling around to face the

viewer. The whole while, a soothing, bland voice-over extolled the

merits of the money-sharks who paid for it. The very instant before

the rotating boy's genitals would have been exposed to the viewer, the

ad ended.


A better-known example of this sort of thing is the Canon camcorder ad

which featured a boy running down a hallway naked as the actor

protraying his father (I assume!) videotaped his little bouncing butt.

This ad was likewise run during sporting events, but not as a one-shot

like the other, but over and over for months on WTBS!

What all this means is pretty obvious. The results of surveys like

the one described earlier is that a lot of macho men who like sports

are aroused by naked children, and particularly by boys. How do YOU

explain it?


By exploiting latent pedophilia to elicit powerful unconscious erotic

responses, the product, even something as dried out as investment

advice, is linked in the Pink mind to a memory of sexual arousal.


Pretty dirty trick, huh?


If you are disturbed or even in violent disagreement with me, all I

can say is that I am reporting publicly available facts. The only

original thing about this article is my choice of words. The

information I got from other sources besides my own foul, polluted

mind. Everyone who has read about subliminal advertising knows about

the psych tests, and the ads are a matter of very, very public record.

What other conclusion can be drawn from all this, hmm?


If you really want to see nudity sell products, check out daytime TV

shows intended for primarily female audiences. What do you see all

day long? Ads featuring nude infants, nude women and nude juveniles,

in that order of frequency. The exact order of frequency that the

tests show women like to see. Nude men are seldom used, because in

many women they elicit a threat response alongside the arousal. I

targeted the ads that are directed at men only because they're both

more blatant and more easily analysed in this way.


Yes, you have to be sly when you're sliding homosexual pedophilia past

football-lovin' macho "straight" men, but physiological responses and

increased purchase orders are hard facts (get it, HARD?) that cannot

be argued away. Just because they're the willing victims of life-long

inhibition training doesn't eliminate the instinctive responses. In

fact, the stronger the response, usually the stronger also the

superficial verbal and mental denial of it.


Now, if you choose to believe that I am advocating openly expressed

and practiced pedophilia (especially after part two), I say "Evil upon

him (or her) who thinks evil!" I don't care if you paid "Bob" thirty

dollars* or not, if you're a molestor, YOU'RE A DIRTY SICK PINK

MONKEY! Being psychologically attracted to children is not a sin, but

actively enticing one (even a Normal one) into physical sex is quite

properly considered a crime! I'm explaining a Conspiracy trick, not

advocating something too unsavory even for me.


In Part Two of this lecture, I will go into the evolutionary

mechanisms of latent pedophilia, explain in more detail why it is a

survival-oriented instinctive trait and how the Conspiracy fucked it

up like it does everything it touches.

Praise "Bob"

* I got one of the last $20 memberships, myself. Eat yer hearts out!



Subject: Rev. Dr. Nolan Voyde: "Pedophilia, Conspiracy Style" (Part Two)

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 06:26:04 GMT

From: (Nolan Voyde)

Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.

Newsgroups: alt.slack


PEDOPHILIA, CONSPIRACY STYLE (part two) by Rev. Dr. Nolan Voyde

Now, what's all this loose talk about pedophilia being an evolutionary

adaptation? Am I trying to claim that everyone is either a latent or

overt child molestor? No, actually I'm just reporting what I find in

the literature. The only reasons I'm not citing sources this time out

is, one, there are so many disparate sources I've drawn upon for these

articles and synthesized to make my point that listing them would be

tedious. Two, most of what I'm writing about is common public

knowledge, but stuff that people don't ordinarily care to discuss,

because they fear how the subject might seem to reflect upon them, and

three, who gives a fuck, anyway?


Back when Normal humankind behaved even more like wild

primates than they do now (imagine THAT!), there was nothing the least

bit strange about juveniles participating in the sexual activities of

the tribe. The Greeks were famous for perpetuating this practice into

civilized times. There are several reasons why it was okay then, but

not now.


First of all, being attracted to children is a survival of the species

thing. Picture in your mind (if you have one) being the patriarch of

a band of pre-homo sapiens hominids. From your point of view,

juveniles are a pain in the ass. They are noisy, they cry when you

try to sleep, they eat food you risked life and limb to obtain, they

can't keep up on long nomadic treks unless they're helped, and one of

them could grow up to bash your head in with a rock and take your

place at the head of the tribe. On top of all this, they keep the

females busy with them instead of having sex with you. Why in hell

would any rational dominant male want kids around?


Well, we can surmise that many dominant males DIDN'T want

kids around and took appropriate action, like dashing their little

brains out on a rock. Those tribes died out, for obvious reasons, and

the tribes led by males who liked (or could at least tolerate) them

endured to pass on their genes and habits. Natural selection insured

that the adults of these tribes would be fond of their children.

Normal humans, as we are well aware, will fuck literally anything.

Other animals, vegetables, rocks, inflatable plastic cushions and, in

a pinch, even other humans. Now, do you think a species that has

adapted to have sex with anything would somehow overlook those cute

little apes that they were selected to like, in the first place?

Indeed, there is abundant documentation that pederasty was one of the

all-time favorite vices of ancient times, and is still an accepted

practice in some parts of the world, today. Ever been to Bangkok?

(Bangkok, what a name!)


One of the major differences between then and now is that, back

then, people lived in nomadic or seminomadic tribes in which everyone

knew each other not only personally, but intimately. As with

chimpanzees and other primates, the juveniles participated in every

aspect of tribal life, including the sexual. Abusive behavior

doubtless occurred, but probably no more often than in your average

chimp tribe. After all, we are talking about mere humans in a deeper

state of savagery than we see them in today, if that's even possible.


The main reason we should not, and for the most part do not, allow

sexual activity between adults and juveniles (especially between

mutant children and Normal adults), is basically the same reason why

everything else is fucked up in this society. Rampant overpopulation

by the Pinks has resulted in most of the members of your tribe being

total strangers to you, and some of them very dangerous strangers. As

a practical matter, it is a bad idea to let anyone you do not know

well even near your children, much less get intimate with them. I

call this condition "supertribe alienation syndrome".


As the population grows out of control and the psychological pressures

this engenders become greater on the individual, more and more Pinks

are developing increasingly demented behaviors. Due to the aberrant

social skills learned from TV, it is even becoming necessary to

seperate older children from younger ones to prevent abuse. As things

stand today within the framework of the planet-wide catastrophe the

Pinks call their "culture", it is wise, just and necessary to equate

pedophilia with molestation and treat it as a crime, because the

social conditions that made it adaptive are long gone.


One of the ways the Pinks fucked up things for everybody, including we

semiyetis, is that most of the world's children these days, especially

American, are not exposed to sex at the learner's level at an early

age like they used to be. These kids enter adulthood as virtual

beginners at sex, and the result is THEY'RE BAD IN BED!!! Time after

time, I find myself having to teach grown-ups how to do it RIGHT, for

"Bob"'s sake. I mean, really, it's maddening! They either lay there

like a love doll with an internal heating unit, or they have

inhibition hangups that limit the fun for both of you, or they

accidently knee you in the nuts or...or...SOMETHING! It's always

something! FUCK! "Bob", I hate sex with Pinks.


Yes, the Pinks can even screw up a trait that was originally evolved

in them to guarantee their own survival! And then turn around and

allow the money-greed monkeys to exploit that trait for profit! (See

Part One). These Normal ape jokers can take something free, fun and

Dobbs-approved and then twist it into False Slack and SELL it to you!

It would be beyond belief if you couldn't see it happening every day!

Oh well, I've raved about enough on this subject, I guess. Go enjoy

the Super Bowl.


copyfreely 1997 VoydeZone

COMING SOON! Voyde takes on Edgar Cayce! Watch this space!


Hey, Michael Townsend (one of the few ministers who apparently uses

his Con name), thanks for the note of praise, I live for that sort of

thing. Too bad I'm not doing radio anymore, and I don't even live in

Atlanta where I did B.S. Funhouse, but I was getting seriously burned

out and my book on St. Paul was getting seriously neglected. No big

deal. I'm content these days to write my book and post an occasional

article for funsies. On the other hand, I'm likely on the verge of

doing some more stuff to try to get on the Hour of Slack, Stang

willing. In the meantime, I'm available for kid's parties. By the

way, the reason I only mailed you one tape since all that time ago was

that I had just started in radio and didn't know jackshit or have good

recording gear. When I got YOUR tape of Dad's New Slacks (still got

it!), I was humiliated by how much better your show was than mine. I

think I improved as a result of hearing what you do, especially after

I got a good deck and a mixing board. I played quite a bit of your

tape over several of my shows, and even chopped some of it up into

media barrages.



Subject: Rev. Dr. Nolan Voyde: "Pedophilia, Conspiracy Style" (part three)

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 20:26:21 GMT

From: (Nolan Voyde)

Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.

Newsgroups: alt.slack


AAALLLRRRIIIGGGHHHTTT!!! Outrage and scepticism! The scoreboard

lights up, at last!


It seems that I am being misunderstood. I have received an e-mail

from a person who apparently does not wish to publicly agree with the

premises of my first two postings, no doubt because of the unjustified

odium which might become attached to their name. I respect that, and

will not reveal it. Although this person agreed with the basic truths

of my presentation, and for that I thank them, there are some slight

misconceptions implied in the message which I wish to clear up

publicly for the benefit of anyone who might share them or who might

harbor other misconceptions caused by my writing. First off, be ye

here informed that I possess an excellent command of the English

language and a fearless insight into my own warped personality. What

I have written is what I meant, and reading between the lines of my

work is bound to lead you into error. Although I wrote, and meant,

that testing indicates virtually all persons are erotically aroused by

the sight of nude juveniles, this person writes back to me that

8,999,999 people out of 9,000,000 would agree with me privately but

deny it publicly. My own statements were to the effect that more like

5 billion people would. Much more disturbing than this remark (which

I recognize as well-intended and basically in agreement with me) was

the implication that I am discussing something secret and dirty, when

in fact I was synthesizing a piece of light entertainment from sources

available in ordinary public libraries. The damn thing's not a

doctoral dissertation, for "Bob"'s sake! Misunderstandings were

anticipated (it is a rather loaded subject), but I had hoped to word

my articles clearly enough to indicate the following:

1. Active pedophilia (molestation) is a MALADAPTIVE, UNDESIRABLE PINK


2. It was, in the distant past, an adaptive trait which some cultures

have continued to the present day, although the need for it has long

gone, due to the potential for abuse by strangers.

3. Child molestors are mentally ill and in need of therapy. If

therapy fails, imprisonment is justified. If people in Thailand fuck

children, that is part of their culture and I do not condemn it. If

someone travels to Thailand to fuck their children, they should see a


4. The Conspiracy is perfectly aware of all this, and uses the

information to control Pink minds.


An analogy to this situation is that of Freud's problems with people

interpreting his use of the term "libido", which has become confuted

in partially-informed minds with "sex drive". "Libido" is actually a

much broader term referring to a general life-force/will-to-live which

encompasses and contains the sex drive among other components. When

saying that almost all persons are latently "pedophilic", I use that

word in the same sense that Freud used "libido". I tried to make it

plain that a latent pedophile is not a child molestor, but in fact a

normal person (not a Pink Normal, but rather a person acting within

acceptable societal norms). The entire intent of the article, besides

to provoke thought and entertain, is to point out how the Conspiracy

uses a vestigial natural instinct to control your thoughts and

purchasing decisions, and is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER A JUSTIFICATION

OF ANYTHING, except Hate Squared for Normals! I was afraid some

misunderstanding of my position would arise, but I'm just twisting

mainstream science into SubG-oriented humor. I had hoped this Part

Three would not be necessary, and perhaps it's really not, but you can

rest assured that, along with most people who seem to have better

sense than me, I will never breathe another word on this subject.




Tarla: The specific intent of my article was to point out that NUDE

children do elicit a generalized erotic response, as demonstrated by

the erection/vaginal dilation measuring instruments used in psych

marketing tests (not to mention by the commonality of child

molestation, an aberration which is hardly confined to males). Your

remarks about the general attraction of women to infants are correct

(and this is used by the Con, also!), but don't you think my postings

were long enough, already, without going into all that, too? Not only

have I not missed the point you mention, I find it ironic that you use

the word "subtle", considering that subtlety is apparently lost on

you. For example, it is true that women are fond of infants in any

state of dress, yet my point was that ConTV uses NUDE ones, as well as

NUDE children and women to sell products. YOU accuse ME of missing a

point? Further, by conceding that there is a "subtle pedophiliac"

response, you confirm what I was saying, in the first place. By the

way, you need to learn how to place your commas to mark off the

subclauses of your sentences. It detracts from the manifest towering

intellectuality of your writing.


Nully: Have I touched a nerve? If you disagree with anything I've

written (as you seem to imply), then I challenge you to formulate a

refutation. I will happily respond full force with references and

footnotes to any SPECIFIC accusations of inaccuracy, but I refuse to

waste hours of writing time on a defense for the entire article

against unstated accusations that I must first imagine and then

answer. It's a hell of a lot easier to issue a one-line challenge to

me than to find, interpret and organize literature refuting my

conclusions, I assure you. If you want a piece of the Voyde, I

suggest you GET OFF YOUR ASS and WORK FOR IT. Perhaps

teaming up with a heavyweight like Tarla will help.




Kind of funny how I've never drawn any criticism until I wrote on this

topic. Now, I've suddenly started missing points and am being subtly

accused of making things up. And thanks again to the anonymous

e-mailer. I appreciate your support and do not wish to cause offense

by my response.


Rev. Dr. Nolan Voyde