Subject: Rev. Dr. Nolan Voyde: "Pedophilia, Conspiracy Style" (Part One)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 06:24:24 GMT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Nolan Voyde)
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
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.
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
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
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
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.
* 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: email@example.com (Nolan Voyde)
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
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
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
Subject: Rev. Dr. Nolan Voyde: "Pedophilia, Conspiracy Style" (part three)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 20:26:21 GMT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Nolan Voyde)
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
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.
And, again, EVIL UPON THEY WHO THINK EVIL.
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.
FUCK'EM WHETHER THEY CAN TAKE A JOKE OR NOT!
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