Edition 5 - 1 Mar, 2010
March 1st, 2010 by The AdministratorEdition 5 has been published.
In it, you will find editorials, news, updates and all of the usual topics we have been covering over the last year.
We really need your help to keep this magazine publishing, and to maintain the NewgonWiki website.
Thanks to Pyro for the cover art.
Edition 4 - 1 Dec, 2009
December 1st, 2009 by The AdministratorEdition 4 is now ready for reading!
Within this edition are two response editorials, one on political movements, one on the Age of Consent, information on the latest developments online, in academia and in the news, and some pointers towards recommended reading.
Edition 3 - 1 Sep, 2009
September 1st, 2009 by The AdministratorEdition 3 of Uncommon Sense is published and ready for viewing!
In it, we bring you:
Stephen James’ editorial on Child Erotica and Morality, updates on the state of the movement and academia, news digest from a large number of countries, and recommended reading.
We also invite you to participate in planning, writing and editing the next edition by contacting ncat -(at)- hushmail -(dot)- com. Letters and illustrations are also welcome.
PDFs/en Français
August 31st, 2009 by The AdministratorPDF Copies of both editions are now available:
Uncommon Sense Edition 1 - 16 Feb, 2009: http://newgon.com/w/images/UncommonSense1.pdf
Uncommon Sense Edition 2 - 16 May, 2009: http://newgon.com/w/images/UncommonSense2.pdf
Sens non commun Édition 2:
http://newgon.com/wiki/Sens_non_commun_%C3%89dition_2
Edition 2 - 16 May, 2009
May 15th, 2009 by The Administrator
Edition 2 of Uncommon Sense is available. (En Français)
In it, we bring you:
A great editorial, updates on the state of the movement, news digest from ten countries, updates on what has been said on the various forums, 3 months in “anti pedophilia” and recommended reading.
We also invite you to participate in planning, writing and editing the next edition by contacting ncat -(at)- hushmail -(dot)- com. Letters and illustrations are also welcome.
Thank you to Pantheadoros for creating the attractive cover.
Edition 1 - 16 Feb, 2009
February 16th, 2009 by The Administrator
Edition 1 of Uncommon Sense is available.
In it, we bring you:
Two editorials, updates on the state of political movement, news digest from five english-speaking countries, updates on what has been said on the various forums, 3 months in “anti pedophilia” and recommended reading.
We also invite you to participate in planning, writing and editing the next edition by contacting ncat -(at)- hushmail -(dot)- com. Letters and illustrations are also welcome.
Thank you to Pyro for creating the attractive cover.
Proposing, Veiling and Prosecuting Thoughtcrime
January 24th, 2009 by The Administrator[Reposted from ATC]
In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labelling disapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, “crimethink”. In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary: “Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.”
In this post, I will present three very real news stories and assess whether in my opinion they constitute thoughtcrime. For the purpose of this article, I will define thoughtcrimes as crimes convicted with laws and/or rationales entailing explicit and deliberate prejudice against the thought processes of a defendant. I do not deny that in reality many child porn convictions are based on faulty rationalisations, leaving no arguable rationale other than thoughtcrime.
1. Concerns over Exeter porn charge man.
“Mr Bennett told the court that other “material” was found at the defendant’s home when it was searched by police. “These images have to be seen against the fact there is clear evidence they are fuelling some very unlawful fantasies,” he said. “This is borne out by the fact that there are artefacts fuelling these fantasies, although fantasies are as far as they go.”"
The prosecutor is suggesting that the defendant’s fantasies are illegal in and of themselves. But as anyone well studied enough in British Law will tell you, there is no law on the statute that can be legitimately used against pedophilic fantasies. Whether through his own stupidity or opportunism, the prosecutor is therefore talking rubbish. It can therefore be concluded that what we are seeing here is a proposed thoughtcrime, and one from a biased, non legislative source at that.
2. Pervert had sick baby fantasy.
“A PERVERT has been jailed for four years for fantasising about kidnapping and raping a baby before strangling it. (…) Lloyd told how he wanted to steal a baby, rape and strangle it before burning the body to destroy DNA evidence. (…) Mr Roberts said: “Lloyd admitted what he said – but said it was stupid fantasy talk and he never meant it. “He told police he had downloaded sexual images and films on to his girlfriend’s computer from the internet but had deleted them.” Lloyd was sentenced to four years in prison for threats to kill and downloading child pornography.”
Whilst Lloyd’s fantasies are sadistic and fundamentally non-pedophilic, they form an important part of our analysis. Despite his suicidal admission to downloading child pornography, Lloyd was also convicted for threats to kill. One can only assume that whilst there was no solid evidence that Lloyd threatened any particular child or was about to victimise one at random, the court nevertheless convicted the “pedophile” with extreme prejudice. This case can not be described as statutory or explicit thoughtcrime due to the good intentions of the law used to convict and the justification given for using it. However, the conviction may be better characterised as a phantom thoughtcrime - not explicitly stated, but implicit in the prejudices of those who lawyered for it.
3. Judge refuses to reduce 48-year prison sentence.
“A Champaign County judge refused Friday to reduce the 48-year prison sentence of a former Urbana teacher convicted of child molestation. (…) Clem sentenced White in early April on eight counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse to which White pleaded guilty in February. White admitted that he had eight blindfolded girls, about ages 7 to 9, lick sauces off a banana for his own sexual gratification (…) Olmstead argued 48 years was excessive given that the offenses did not involve actual sexual contact, that White never threatened or intimidated the girls, and that his conduct didn’t cause or threaten physical harm. “The acts were made criminal because of what was in his mind, something they couldn’t know,” he said of the victims who played White’s “tasting game.” (…) “Teachers should be safeguarding children in their care. They (children) certainly shouldn’t be reduced to bit players in someone’s sexual fantasies,” the judge said.”
This case differs markedly from the one above. Whilst the charge (sexual abuse) is again, not specifically tailored towards the conviction of thoughts, it is very clear that through the “pedophilic gaze” of the prosecution and judge, White’s thoughts modified a harmless, non-criminal tasting game into an abusive “sexual act”. In deciding whether this case should be described as an explicit thoughtcrime, we may ask ourselves whether there really is anything implicit about redefining “acts” as criminal based on the thought processes of a defendant. On that consideration, only one conclusion is appropriate. From this case alone, we can say that explicit thoughtcrime is alive and well in the United States of America.
The boy who refused to grow up
December 15th, 2008 by The AdministratorWhat follows is a January 25, 2007 review of Peter Pan, posted to the long-gone BL blog known as Paiderastia.
“I always forget them after I kill them”.
Thus speaks Peter Pan of his opponents in the eponymous novel by J.M. Barrie, and in those words lies all the difference between the original novel and popularized images of it.
Like just about everyone, I grew up more or less knowing who Peter Pan is, but for some reason, I never read any version of the story at the time, and neither, to the best of my ability to recall, did I see any film version. I do remember seeing pictures and models of Peter, and thinking that he was immensely handsome and impressive-looking. And I knew he could fly, which fired my imagination.But I retained a weird gap in my cultural education, and it was not until I saw the 2003 film version of the book that I obtained any clear idea of what the story was really about. I found the film disappointing. As sexy as Jeremy Sumpter was in the lead role, I thought the film rather boring. I got the impression of a perfectly wholesome movie for children under ten, but not something that an adult could take seriously.And so I ended up writing off one of the great classics of children’s literature. I should have known better. We all know what Hollywood tends to do to classic stories. Some committee of politically correct bureaucrats get together, and before you can say ‘Little Mermaid,’ they have transformed a masterpiece of literature into some syrupy, inoffensive piece of fluff that you see, enjoy and then forget.Fortunately, I had the good luck to stumble upon Barrie’s original in the library a week or two ago, and on a whim decided to give it another go.
It was a revelation. I simply could not believe just how different the book was from the film I saw. What made this even more striking is the fact that the film actually stays very close to the main events outlined in the book. And yet it seemed like two completely different stories. In short, the film version, as we have come to expect of Hollywood, is a sentimental, bowdlerized version of Barrie’s original great - and often dark and disturbing - masterpiece.
What made the whole thing even more laughable is that so many critics thought the film version was actually quite daring, since it shows Peter and Wendy kissing. As if such innocent kisses amount to a sort of implied child pornography. In my opinion, the most disturbing thing about the film is just how utterly undisturbing it is. How the hell do they manage to do this, one has to wonder, and why?
The good news is that unexpurgated versions of the book are still, thankfully, available, despite all the efforts of the politically correct. Yes, indeed, Barrie lived in different times, and it shows. Violent battles (the sheer carnage is quite beyond belief!), boys wearing the skins of bears that they themselves dispatched, and a main character who is, to put it mildly, something of a psychopath. Even better, just as with all real psychos, Peter Pan manages to be both creepy and inexpressibly sad at the same time. For all his exuberance and love of adventure, there is also an embittered loneliness and alienation about him, and his tendency to quickly forget even very notable things makes for a confused, fragmented and almost schizophrenic personality.
That all of this was, at the time when it was written, considered perfectly suitable literature for children, tells us something about changing attitudes. I was also struck by how much more mature and even downright ‘difficult’ the writing is, compared to so much of modern children’s literature.
Whole encyclopedias have been written about what the story might tell us about J.M. Barrie himself. Was he a pedophile, or was he really completely uninterested in sex, as many who knew him reported? Does something of his presumed sexual self-repression surface in the novel? There is not really anything overtly sexual about the story, but I have to say I seemed to perceive a sort of vague, half-formed sexuality seething just below the surface, that you cannot quite put your finger on, but seems to be there all the time. But perhaps that says more about me than about the book! This is the ever-present danger in interpreting all texts. One has to wonder though, about a male character in Barrie’s time, in puritanical Britain of all places, who goes about clad only in leaf skeletons and tree sap, and visits sleeping girls in their bedrooms that way.
Many other enigmatic passages are found in the book. What are we to make of Peter’s reply to Hook’s question about what exactly he is? “I am youth, I am joy,” says Peter, and then proceeds to feed Hook to a crocodile. What exactly does Barrie mean by the ‘riddle of his existence?’ Is Barrie just whimsically making all this up as he goes along, or is he hinting at something deeper, or perhaps even doing a bit of both? Did he deeply think through the implications of what it would mean for a child to really never grow up, or is he just having a bit of fun?
Perhaps I am the one who is reading too much into all of this, but I found the character of Peter to be fascinating and disturbing at the same time. His cavalier attitude towards even extreme violence, his egocentrism, the way in which he quickly forgets friends, including even Tinker Bell, and claims ownership of other people’s ideas all make for an altogether frightening and unlikeable character, a sort of clownish but thoroughly terrifying Stalin in drag.
And yet, we end up liking him, and I found myself feeling sorry for him too, when he forgets all about Wendy, and years later visits her only to find that she has gone and grown up. For all the joys of remaining a child forever, there is also a terrible price to pay for it, and his confusion about just who and what he is, and his terrifying nightmares, the content of which are never disclosed in the book, strike a chord that is perhaps more relevant in these times than ever before. I found his world of arbitrary make-believe to be simultaneously magically attractive and repulsively terrifying.
The book has generated some controversy, but for all the wrong reasons. Mostly, modern reviewers are concerned about the somewhat blatant racism and misogyny here and there in the story, but Barrie after all lived in different times, and this is an aspect of the book that should really neither surprise nor offend anyone. I am much more fascinated by Barrie’s portrayal of a child character that is in some respects so empowered and emancipated, but in others still vulnerable and in need of emotional nurturing. Peter and his gang of Lost Boys are indeed very thoroughly lost. That Wendy so quickly becomes their source of strength is actually something of a feminist statement way ahead of its time!
But most of all, what I liked was the sheer complexity of the themes. No simple moral or moralistic little lessons here for young readers. Barrie’s novel confronts them head-on with a confused, fragmented, magical, beautiful, terrifying kaleidoscope of themes and characters, and they have to make of it whatever they can. What a far cry it is from the insipid, sentimental, propagandistic slush that passes for so much of children’s literature today. Peter Pan is great children’s literature not despite its content, but because of it. It is through confronting issues in fiction that we learn to deal with them in real life.
For those who have not read it (and I mean specifically the version written by Barrie himself, not the many expurgated versions that are constantly floating around), I can heartily recommend it.
Blast from the past
November 6th, 2008 by The Administrator
As we await the publishing of our magazine’s next edition on the 15th of February, let’s go back to April 16, 2006 - when sites were beginning to be censored and this whole thing was about to kick off for real. This post from the now deleted My Silent War pertains to another censored website that I will be using to plug the gap between now and the 15th of February.
“This world, the planet Earth, is dominated by the human race. Dominance is decided by the power of one over the other. As said in The Matrix Reloaded, “if we really wanted to, we could smash these things to bits”. Potential to destroy is what power is measured in, and it’s this power that so many desire.
Because of the innumerable horrors this has led to, a group of trusted leaders came together at the closure of the worst human disaster of all time, determined to prevent such an unimaginable tragedy of human nature from happening again. At the end of world war two, an assembly gathered amongst the ruins of humanity’s worst crimes imaginable. They resolved to make a declaration, that every singe man, every single woman, and every single boy and girl would be granted rights. Rights that no person, circumstance or event could ever take from them. They were:
- The right to life, liberty and security of person.
- The right to an education.
- The right to participate fully in cultural life.
- Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.
- Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
- Freedom of expression and opinion.
This document has been decleared as the world’s most translated document, with it being available in 321 languages and dialects. For the past fifty-eight years, it has been the basis of what groups like Amnesty International have been determined to achieve. For the past fifty-eight years, ALL humans on this earth have been promised the above rights, regardless of ANYTHING. And for the past fifty-eight years, it has been repeatedly violated, forgotten or ignored.
We live in a world where people are too steeped in prejudice to learn. We live in a world where hipocracy is the very foundation of any action. We live in a world where hate is accepted and love is despised.
We live in a world where it takes a horrific tragedy like World War Two to make people realise just how fucked up everything really is.
A few hours ago, I checked on Paiderastia to see if any more posts were up, or if any of the new flames were replying to my message of support. To my utter contempt, the blog was gone. 404 - not found. “visit the Blogger homepage or the Blogger Knowledge Base for further assistance.”
There are two explanations for this: Either an admin of the blog was sick of the press and flaming, and deleted it of their own will, or Blogger.com caved into the pressure and deleted it.
Blogger, and its parent Google, were in a no-win situation with this. They could support the rights and freedoms of the “boy-love-blog”gers and let the blog stay up, much to the fury of bigots like Stacey Harp (who is in fact not particularly “SHarp”), or they could cave to the pressure from such individuals out of fear of the ensuing headlines of “Google supports CHILD MOLESTERS!”, “Blogger.com refuses to delete PEDOPHILE blog!!” and “Blog site not safe for kids!!!”.
Why is it that because a fucking Christian bigot doesn’t like it, Google were bullied to taking the damn thing down? How come freedom of speech is only an illusion, and you can say whatever you want as long as you aren’t a PEDO? WHY can you accuse other bloggers of despicable crimes, WHY can you spam their blogs with nonsense and flames, WHY can you go on the fucking NATIONAL NEWS and spout any kind of lies about the site, but GOD forbid if you mention your pedo-ness!
And now that Paiderastia has been silenced, any one of us could be next to get our blogs censored because some narrow-minded bitch thinks it’s wrong to talk about how we find children to be beautiful.
Because this is the world we live in. What a world we live in…”
Evolution is reality!
October 20th, 2008 by The AdministratorFor just over a year, Uncommon Sense remained the main publication of Newgon.com. It had garnered 59 posts and 424 comments up until this point. Changing pressures on this site lead an administrator to post a forum topic proposing that it be overhauled. There was very little response.
As of today, Uncommon Sense is a blog no more. Due to the launching of our forum and wiki earlier in the year and the general upgrading of this site, Uncommon Sense will become a quarterly webmagazine to be published in Wiki-Format and promoted on this wordpress blog. Former Uncommon Sense writers are encouraged to contact an administrator and sign up for an account on our wiki, where we can work on a structure and running draft for the upcoming version of Uncommon Sense Magazine (which should be available by Feb 15, 2009). As with the blog, there will be very few restraints with this new publication. I would personally like it to be well illustrated and written in good humour.