newtowne

Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, at the age of 10 created a horrifying book filled with violence and descriptions of hurting children , which he reportedly created with another boy in his class (who’s name is covered), but the book was never turned in. It was called ‘’The Big Book of Granny’’. The book reportedly has several sections — one with granny jokes and another that describes ‘’granny action figures’’ — and some of them were especially disturbing.                                  

A section in the book titled “Granny’s Clubhouse of Happy Children” contains dialogue for an imaginary TV show that features Granny and her son Bobolicious where the show has a violent theme. In another section of the book labeled “Adventures of Granny,” Granny and her son rob and blow up a bank, and afterwards the son shoots Granny in the head with a shotgun.  

In another story from the “Adventures of Granny” section, Granny is violent toward a young boy. Another tale features a character called “Dora the Beserker” who talks about how she likes to hurt children , and many more disturbing stories.

3

Message Adam Lanza sent, as Smiggles on the Shocked Beyond Belief forums (From SandyHookLighthouse):

From: Smiggles

Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:25pm

Basically, I take the belief that everyone should have equal rights and apply it consistently. I’ve had these thoughts for years and haven’t spoken to anyone about them. I’d like to be able to discuss this in a topic, but it will probably be too offensive. I’m going to keep it to myself for now.

And now that I think about it, this might sound a bit satirical, but it’s not. Anyway, this is what I would have posted:

Ever since I was 14, the entire subject of gay rights which is so pervasive in this society has frustrated me. It’s not owing to any malice I have toward homosexuals, but instead is caused by the absurdity of the overwhelming fervor against the discrimination of homosexuals while there is another class of people who genuinely suffer from persecution for their lifestyle. While many people celebrate homosexual relationships, sexual relationships between adults and children are universally condemned and vilified. Every adult who is known to have been involved in one is automatically branded for life as a violent and dangerous rapist. Anyone who is unfortunate enough to be subjected to this societal corruption endures the effects of it for the rest of their lives: their personal information is widely divulged to their neighbors as if public castigation is encouraged; they are denied employment; their location must be reported to their oppressive government; whether or not an adult engages in a sexual relationship with a child, they must forever hide their mere sexuality or else be stigmatized infinitely beyond anything homosexuals endure. If any of this applied to homosexuals, the public would be appalled, yet no one cares when it applies to pedophiles.

It seemed as if the entire country was outraged when Tyler Clementi killed himself a couple months ago. From what I know, the catalyst for his suicide was the way that he had been mocked after being recorded by a hidden camera while he was engaging in sexual activity with another male. Yet To Catch A Predator, a television program which was based on the manipulation of hundreds of adults into being recorded by hidden cameras after desiring sexual activity with children, has never received anywhere near this level of outrage. The audience is supposed to find entertainment value in the humiliation of ephebophiles were afterward violently subdued by police and impounded, having the rest of their lives impacted significantly greater than anything Tyler Clementi had experienced. There was scarcely any criticism when one of the ephebophiles was forced into shooting himself in the head as police were surrounding him.

Watch this video objectively and imagine that they are speaking about homosexuals like Tyler Clementi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISzUkjTqvTQ&fmt=18 [note: dead link]

There is an inordinate amount of innately fallacious arguments against pedophilia, most of which are also directed toward homosexuality. I’m not going to address any of them to begin with because I assume everyone here already understands that arguments such as “The DSM recognizes pedophilia as a mental illness” or “pedophilia is unnatural” are ludicrously invalid. For this first post, I’m only going to address arguments which are remotely coherent. If anyone invokes more ignorant ones, I will address them later in this topic. I’m not sure how well I’ll be able to do this preemptively, though, because I don’t entirely understand the mindset of people who disparage pedophilia as a sexuality. From my perspective, it’s like trying to argue against someone who believes that females are inferior to males. It’s a patently absurd notion, and I find it to be sort of comical that I even have to make this argument.

To begin with, you must understand that pedophiles are not the only victims of this virulent persecution. The children who choose to engage in sexual relationships with adults are invariably severed from their loving relationships and are indoctrinated into believing that they have been abused, being labeled as “victims” and being subjected to the genuinely abusive will of psychiatrists (the most immoral profession I can imagine) who “treat” (coerce) them into believing that they can overcome their “abuse”. I don’t understand how this can be perceived as being fundamentally any different from the nature of the mental abuse which is used to indoctrinate political dissidents.

Children would not be “scarred” by their voluntary sexual experiences any more than adults in typical sexual relationships would be “scarred” unless their society shamed them into believing that they should feel guilty. The reason why a child would be mentally damaged after having consented to sexual activity is because they are socially conditioned into believing that what they did is in some ill-defined way deleterious. This is no different than submitting to oppressive religious beliefs that premarital sexual activity should be viewed negatively, and that anyone who engages in it should feel shame and remorse for having committed their sins. I assume everyone here understands that there is nothing innately pernicious about the nature of sexual relationships between adults, and that there is nothing innately immoral about sexuality in general, yet somehow sexual activity inexplicably becomes a pestilence once children engage in it. This argument is the equivalent of saying that the sexual activity of unmarried couples is harmful, yet the sexual activity of married couples is neutral, or even virtuous. It’s completely nonsensical. The morality of the sexuality of children should not be evaluated any differently than the morality of the sexuality of adults.

The specious propaganda which is primarily disseminated against the legitimacy of sexual relationships between adults and children is that a child is incapable of consenting to sexual activity, so any occurrence of it is inherently rape. This is an arbitrary assumption which oppresses children and is an indication of the abusive mentality which is inflicted upon them daily in this society, dehumanizing them and relegating them to the status of slaves.

Why is sexual activity considered to be incomprehensible to a child? What is so fundamentally challenging about the concept that there is not a single child who could possibly fathom it?

It’s absurd for to claim that sexuality is something which requires significant mental capabilities and thus must be violently controlled by governments, because there is no restriction against imbeciles being sexual. Children are innately incapable of comprehending it, yet once someone attains a certain age (which varies extremely depending on the time period and location, thus demonstrating that it’s absolutely meaningless), everyone is suddenly capable of it? If the nature of sexuality is fundamentally a concept to understand for all children, then it is not reasonable to assume that even a small minority of people are capable of comprehending its perplexity at 18. If an adult may engage in sexual activity because they are demonstratively capable of employing prudent rationality, then why may a child not enjoy the same right? Professing that a child is incapable of understanding the concept of consent because of the belief that adults are universally “more rational” than they are, and thus children do not deserve to control their bodies, is equivalent to claiming that females do not deserve to control their bodies because males are “more judicious in personal affairs” in relation to them, or some other such inane fatuity. It’s a senseless and morally reproachful position to hold.

There is the argument that the “power disparity” in the relationship between an adult and a child renders any sexuality between them to be inherently abusive. This notion can be applied against females, arguing that they cannot be in a sexual relationship because many of them explicitly desire one with a male who is in a higher position of societal “power”, thus none of them are capable of giving consent. No none believes that a pretentious “power disparity” argument applies to the legitimacy of sexual relationships between adults, yet it arbitrarily applies to children? It is also outright fallacious because the child has all of the control over the relationship. The adult would have to be extremely careful around the child because virtually everyone would accuse the adult of raping the child without consideration as to whether or not s/he gave consent.

Some of you may say that children would never consent to sexual activity, and that if they engage in it, an adult must have forced them into it. Apply this argument to females once again and it immediately evinces why this is a meaningless assertion. It is equivalent to asserting that violent persecution is justified toward any female and her associate who engages in premarital sexual activity because no females would ever desire it owing to some arbitrary criterion. It’s a presumptuous way to justify discriminatory coercion and is not based on any logical argument. Personally, I don’t understand why children in general would want to be sexual, but I also don’t understand why adults in this society are so sexual. If I was ever going to engage in any sexual activity, I would be certain that it would be meaningful, but adults everywhere engage in it as if it doesn’t matter. Adults seem to invariably claim that it is “making love” or some other haphazard justification of their licentious behavior. In that case, how can you define what is and is not a legitimate expression of love? If you believe that adults “making love” can be described as positively as I constantly hear it is, then the sexual activity of children is equally positive.

Why is this society so adamantly opposed to pedophilia? Children deserve all of the rights and respects that an adult should receive, yet this is not the case to any extent. The inexorable battery of children (“spanking”) is fully legal in the United States. Children’s free will is suppressed and annihilated in every conceivable manner within families. Beyond having their associations, location, and every action subject to their parents’ wills, they are denied their own thoughts, opinions, values, and religion, and instead are coerced into adopting their parents’. Within the rest of society, children are denied property (their parents instantly legally siphon it from their children’s domain regardless of how the child obtained it), employment, and are denied the right to have even an token impact on the government which innately subjugates them through its very existence (although I’ll spare you from my anarchistic rhetoric in this post). Children are not even allowed to control their own bodies: if an adult wants to force any medical procedures or treatments onto a child, the child does not have any choice in the matter.

This is why children are forced into being ashamed of their sexuality and why adults are violently persecuted for loving children. If pedophilic relationships were condoned, then it would be a recognition that children have human rights, which this egregious society is not capable of accepting. Children deserve all of the rights and respects that adults should receive, yet they do not because this morally reprehensible society implicitly enjoys the abusive subjugation of them as sub-human property instead of as people who have their own legitimate thoughts and desires. If you support civil rights, such as through being a feminist or a LGBTQIA activist, you should oppose the violent persecution of pedophilic relationships and the subjugation of children. The right of children to have sexual relationships is a small step toward liberating them from the oppression of adults which they currently endure.

I wasn’t intending on posting anything about this topic because I don’t think that anyone would consider an alternative perspective (about which I still have very little faith), but the recent removal of that book from Amazon has irritated me. I’ve barely read any information about the book or its removal, so I don’t know anything about its contents, but it was probably completely benign. It doesn’t matter either way, though, because it would have been removed under any circumstance merely because of the nature of its subject.

While it seems like nearly everyone wants the and anything like it to not be available through Amazon’s website, the motive of the very few people who oppose its removal is nothing other harrowing. According to them, it’s inappropriate for Amazon to not support the free speech of authors. These people use the same mentality and reasoning for the justification of the availability of material pertaining to nuisances such as racial supremacy, as if pedophilia is something that is equivalently morally repugnant; as if the existence of information pertaining to it should merely be grudgingly tolerated rather than supported as something which can be positive. I don’t have an moral opposition to a book which directs adults on how they can safely have a relationship with children: I condone its availability. Information like that needs to be available because any beauty which could potentially be present in such relationships is currently violently suppressed. I support anyone, child or adult, who believe that their love is important enough to be in a relationship together and risk the current consequences, because I believe that nothing is more important than love. Those who seek the application of violence to suppress these relationships are the depraved profligates, not the individuals who seek to express their love regardless of age.

I know that I will be accused of desiring sexual contact with children, and there might possibly be accusations that I have already had it, but neither case is true. I also have not seen any degree of child pornography (nor intentionally seen any adult pornography). All of the sexuality which is rampant in this society in general is as disgusting to me as pedophilia is, but that isn’t sufficient reason for me to desire the violent persecution of anyone over it because of personal perspective. I’m pretty confused when it comes to my sexuality, but I’m certain that I’m not a pedophile.

2

On the time Congress most “disgusted” him.

“Right after Sandy Hook, Newtown, when 20 six-year-olds are gunned down and Congress literally does nothing, that’s the closest I came to feeling disgusted. I was pretty disgusted.”

He added that “that’s the exception rather than the rule.”

On race relations in America (in which the president says the n-word).

“I always tell young people in America, ‘Do not say that nothing’s changed when it comes to race in America unless you lived through being a black man in the 1950s or Sixties or Seventies.’ It is incontrovertible that race relations have improved significantly during my lifetime and yours and that opportunities have opened up and that attitudes have changed. That is a fact. What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, that casts a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on. Racism, we are not cured of. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say 'nigger’ in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t overnight completely erase everything that happened two to 300 years prior and so what I tried to describe in the Selma speech that I gave, commemorating the march there, again is a notion that progress is real and we have to take hope from that progress.”

On breaking the cycles of poverty and racism.

“What are we doing to help…lowest-income communities? We know, for example, that early childhood education works. That is one way to break the legacy of racism and poverty. If a 3-year-old, 4-year-old kid is in an environment of love and is getting a good meal and has a teacher that is trained in early childhood development and is hearing enough words and is being engaged enough, they can get to where a middle-class kid is pretty quickly….What hasn’t happened is us making a collective commitment to do it.”

On Charleston.

“During the course of my presidency, it feels as if a couple times a year I end up having to speak to the country, and to speak to a particular community about a devastating loss. And the grieving that the country feels is real – the sympathy, obviously, the prioritizing, comforting the families, all that’s important. But I think part of the point that I wanted to make was that it’s not enough just to feel bad.”

On our country’s gun laws.

“There are actions that could be taken to make events like this less likely. And one of those actions we could take would be to enhance some basic, common-sense gun safety laws that, by the way, a majority of gun owners support. This is unique to our country. There is no other advanced nation on earth that tolerates multiple shootings on a regular basis and considers it normal….The question is just, is there a way of accommodating that legitimate set of traditions with some common-sense stuff that prevents a 21-year-old who is angry about something or confused about something or is racist or is deranged from going into a gun store and suddenly is packing and can do enormous harm. And that is something that we have not ever fully come to terms with and unfortunately, the grip of the NRA on Congress is extremely strong. I don’t foresee any legislative action being taken in this Congress, and I don’t foresee any real action being taken until the American public feels a sufficient sense of urgency and they say to themselves, 'This is not normal.’”

Read more

Another shot of the VEGAN donut sundaes we had the other night from @gelatoblue @dobbys_donuts 😍✨
Gotta make another stop at Newtown asap! It’s seriously vegan heaven there 😁👌
I reckon the easiest way to show people how amazing vegan food can get is to win their hearts over with vegan dessert… 🙌

Visit to St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church: Part 2

After viewing the windows, Father Sanderfoot and I drove over to the church graveyard where Scott Lawrence of Grave Concerns and James Gibb of Gibb Archaeological Consulting were continuing to search for the circa 1661 Jesuit Chapel. This was the second excavation in the graveyard. The full report for the May dig can be read here: http://bit.ly/RfTAa7 .  The report for the August dig isn’t available yet but will likely be posted on the Charles County Archaeological Society of Maryland, Inc.’s blog.

I was warmly received by the crew who were working on two excavation units a few feet apart. It was a great opportunity to learn about the archaeological site and to see what they were uncovering. I’ll be posting a series of six photos with description of what I saw and learned during my visit to the site.

2

Why Are So Many Mass Shootings Committed by Young White Men?

By Josiah M. Hesse

When Dylann Roof ended Bible study at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal in South Carolina and unleashed a hurricane of bullets, he secured himself a place in the dark history of young, white American males who kill strangers indiscriminately. Of course, we’ve known for some time that most violent crimes are committed by young people, and that men are more violence-prone than women, but in recent cases like Roof’s, Sandy Hook’s Adam Lanza, and the Aurora Theater’s James Holmes, it seems like this newer breed of psychopath is more dangerous than its predecessors.

When trying to decipher gun violence, it’s tempting to focus on impoverished minority neighborhoods defined by structural woes like mass incarceration, poverty, lack of education, and so on. But research shows that mass shootings are primarily committed by white males—the most privileged class in society. So why are they the ones who snap? And is calling them “mentally ill” a way to avoid talking about race?

“If you look at how the James Holmes case has played out, it’s amazing how the themes [of other shootings] line up,” true crime author Stephen Singular, who collaborated with his wife Joyce on the new book The Spiral Notebook: The Aurora Theater Shooter and the Epidemic of Mass Violence Committed by American Youth, tells VICE. “Most of these young white shooters—they’re not underprivileged, they have so many advantages, particularly in the Holmes case. He was dealing with an inner reality that he didn’t know how to contend with.” As Mother Jonesreported, “Since 1982, there have been at least 70 mass shootings across the country… Forty four of the killers were white males. Only one of them was a woman.” So white men have been responsible for about 63 percent of mass shootings in that span, despite comprising a far smaller portion of the total population. And while the motives for mass murder vary from perpetrator to perpetrator, since the Columbine school shooting in 1999, there has been a remarkable consistency—if not uniformity—in the age, gender, and race of the people who carry out these egregious crimes. According to FBI arrest data, the peak ages for violent crime are 16-24. “This is a period of substantial transition in an individual’s life, when they’re less likely to have significant attachments in their life that deter them from criminal violence,” Pete Simi, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Nebraska, tells VICE. “Those who are not committing crimes on a regular basis is largely because there are constraints in our lives—we have things to lose.” When attempting to prove Holmes was insane at the time of the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in April, his defense team pointed out that he was the typical age at which schizophrenia tends to present itself in young men—teens to late 20s. In their book, the Singulars write that Holmes knew he was ill before the shooting, had sought out therapy—where he admitted having obsessive, homicidal thoughts—and was given medication as a remedy. “If you look at the list of mostly male shooters, they were all on some type of antidepressant or anti-anxiety drugs,” Stephen Singular says. The Singulars looked at a number of factors that could potentially unwrap the complexity of young male shootings, particularly the issue of young males experiencing a crisis of masculinity in the 21st century. “Holmes didn’t want to tell his parents about he was going through because he didn’t want to appear weak,” Stephen Singular says. “I think we’re dealing with how we socially construct masculinity, and the extent to which being masculine means being aggressive,” adds Simi, the criminologist. “It’s not a simple cause and effect, but it certainly sets up a context that makes men much more likely to engage in violent behavior.” A 2013 study at the University of Washington looked at the disproportionately high numbers of mass killings—defined as having at least three or more victims during a single episode—committed by young white men in America, and found a correlation between feelings of entitlement among white males and homicidal revenge against a specific demographic. “Among many mass killers, the triple privileges of white heterosexual masculinity which make subsequent life course losses more unexpected and thus more painfully shameful ultimately buckle under the failures of downward mobility and result in a final cumulative act of violence to stave off subordinated masculinity,” the authors wrote. This would certainly fit with the case of Elliot Rodger, an economically privileged, sex-obsessed 22-year-old who killed six people in May 2014, citing revenge against women who rejected him as a motive. Both 20-year-old Sandy Hook killer Lanza and 23-year-old Tuscon killer Jared Loughner also shared a misogynistic rage toward their victims. Of course, there is relatively little mystery surrounding Roof’s motives. His fear that black people have come to “rape our women” and are “taking over the country” are both traditional expressions of racism in America, and serve as textbook examples of killings motivated by white privilege and feelings of emasculation. “There’s a feeling of entitlement that white men have that black men don’t,” Alan Fox, a professor at Northeastern University and co-author of Extreme Killing, told the Washington Post in a 2012 interview. “They often complain that their job was taken by blacks or Mexicans or Jews. They feel that a well-paid job is their birthright. It’s a blow to their psyche when they lose that.” Roof was reportedly unemployed at the time of the shooting, having previously worked in landscaping. Since the tragic killings in South Carolina last Wednesday, there have been a series of polarizing op-eds arguing about whether Roof should be declared a racist, terrorist, or mentally ill—suggesting that these three designations are mutually exclusive. But Roof’s alleged belief that gunning down a roomful of innocent people would start a race war is something most people would consider profoundly delusional. Indeed, it is strikingly similar to the plan behind the Tate-Labianca murders organized by Charles Manson—a young, white criminal whose bona fide lunacy is rarely questioned. “You can easily look at the Manson family as a race-motivated terrorist group,” says Professor Simi. Though Manson’s apparent madness did not grant him immunity from prosecution, as there is a difference between “insanity” (which is often a legal term) and being “mentally ill” (a medical one), Simi believes it’s probable that Roof had an undiagnosed mental illness. Still, that doesn’t mean the 21-year-old is not legally responsible for the crime. It’s likely, Simi adds, that Roof’s extreme racist ideology simply exacerbated an already ailing brain. “I’m sure he felt that [anger] to his bones, and I’m sure it bothered him for a long time,” Simi says, noting the connection between stress and mental breakdowns. “I think if we could have monitored his physiological data over that time, you could see changes. When you take on these views, it changes how you think and feel. A driver cuts you off and the driver happens to be African American, and that’s evidence that they’re taking over the country, and the person experiences extreme stress.” The idea that focusing on mental illness skirts the responsibility of being a privileged white male and stigmatizes anyone with a brain disorder fails to acknowledge the universality of that ailment. “We all have mental health issues to some extent,” Simi says. This does not mean that we are all potential killers, or that any killer with a mental illness can be dismissed as merely “insane.” Racism, misogyny, and entitlement—and the violence they inspire in certain number of young, white men—can be both a sincere manifestation of their bigotry and an expression of a mental illness. After all, what’s crazier than straight-up racism?