As the U.S. fights over judging a judge…


With the United States tearing itself apart over sexual allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s pick for a vacant place as one of the Supreme Court justices, today’s guest blogger, veteran NAMBLA activist Peter Herman, gives us his take on dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee public hearings in which the stakes are huge. The outcome will potentially tilt the balance on the court in a way that could have massive implications for the future of gender relations and sexual mores in America – and even the wider western world – for a generation or more. Peter watched at length the testimony given by Kavanaugh’s main accuser, psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, and the embattled judge’s self-defence.



“What goes around comes around.” Those are words that Brett Kavanaugh used in anger as he lashed out at some of his questioners during Senate confirmation hearings. Though he meant these words in a different context, they have further significance, which I will come to.

As of this writing, no one knows whether the candidate for one of the highest judicial posts in the United States will get a pass. In either case, it will be bad for him. As with Justice Clarence Thomas, who was also accused of sexual misbehaviour, the taint will always remain.

I have strong feelings against Kavanaugh; but as for whether his appointment to the US Supreme Court will be a good thing for the country, I cannot predict. Again, I will come to that.

I watched almost all of Ms Ford’s and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony, and it would seem that almost any reasonable person witnessing both accounts cannot but see that the judge is either lying outright or lying to himself. Most telling was his refusal on several occasions to agree to an FBI investigation where at one point there were several seconds of silence as he could no longer rely on the canned responses he had been giving to these requests.

Of course, the FBI has done a lot of underhanded things in the past, especially under the tutelage of Edgar Hoover, but with the glare of responsible news media it is unlikely the agency would prevaricate. It is almost impossible to believe that Kavanaugh did not fear the uncovering of very uncomfortable events in his life.

He could not hide his past heavy drinking, but what he could try to hide was the strong likelihood of his belligerent demeanour while drunk and his inability to remember his behaviour while drunk. People who drink know that there are “mean” drunks and “mellow” drunks. Under the influence of brain-altering chemicals, there is no way of choosing the type of behaviour you will succumb to. Such people most often have no or little memory of their actions while drunk. It is a real life Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde situation.

What is most likely is that Kavanaugh did have some memory of what he did but was so horrified of behaviour he would not otherwise do while sober that he could not face the reality. As an adolescent, he had to deal with a strict Catholic environment and parents who had high ideals for him. This may be why as a jurist he has employed a large number of women all of whom report exceptional kindness on his part. It may be that he is like those Calvinists who, faced with a predetermined choice by the God they believe in, lead virtuous lives to prove to themselves that they are indeed the ones whom God has determined to save.

This is why I earlier said I could not predict whether, in my own view, Kavanaugh would be good for the country. Like the composer of Amazing Grace, a sinner can, when facing his own terrible sins, make amends. Kavanaugh, in his testimony, said very partisan things that would show him not to be the impartial and measured jurist needed for the highest court in the land; but that could have been a desperate move to save himself from the precipice of shame. Though no one can predict what kind of Justice he would be, I personally would not take a chance with him.

There is great irony in the predicament that Kavanaugh finds himself in. For decades now, lawmakers at all levels have whipped the flames of hysteria regarding sexual behaviour, and judges have obliged by imposing outrageous sentences. As awful as Kavanaugh’s alleged act against Ms Ford was when both were teenagers, a more understanding culture would have provided a way for the perpetrator to apologise, somehow make amends and not be labelled for life. This did not happen then, and it is surely not happening now. How long will it be until sufficient chickens come home to roost?

There is a further irony, at least for those who love boys and are persecuted for it, in that we may side in this case with the “Me Too” movement. Too many women who have been truly abused have erroneously projected their hurt onto those truly loving and consensual relations between men and boys. The answer to those who are therefore hostile to undifferentiated feminism is that we, male and female, boys and girls, men and women are one species and often subject to irrational conclusions.

The laws against ‘abuse images’ are abusive


Today’s guest blog is on child pornography, or “abuse images” as the current PC term has it, and is by Feinmann, whose debut as a blogger here was in April this year under the title “War on Kinds disguises one against kids”. Professionally retired, he remains highly active as a field researcher working on the conservation of endangered species. The splendid graphics (not intended for sexual gratification but feel free to enjoy them!) are the author’s own.



Some definitions

Pornography: derives from the Greek: πορνογραφία meaning “a written description or illustration of prostitutes or prostitution”.

Child pornography: the term appeared in North America during the 1960s, and is defined thus: “Pornographic material featuring sexually explicit images or descriptions of children”. Child pornography, when back-cast to the original Greek suggests: “a written description or illustration of child prostitutes or child prostitution”. The noun child pornography superseded the noun child erotica, but is now equated with child abuse images.

Inquisition: institutions within a system of government whose aim is to combat heresy, and is characterised by: a lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments.

COPINE scale: used by UK law enforcement (also known as officious paramilitary social workers) to determine sentencing for possession of child pornography. This ten-point scale was created in the Department of Applied Psychology in Cork in 1997 and adapted for use in UK courts. In 2002, the scale was amended to a five-point SAP (Sentencing Advisory Panel) scale. It then changed again in 2014 to a three-point SOD (Sentencing Offenders Definitive) guideline. The forging of this scalar weapon and its inclusion within the inquisition’s armoury, furnishes law-enforcement agencies with a most terrible servant to deploy … and deploy it they do with rigid absolutism.

Paedophile: a person who is sexually attracted to children, the word appearing in medical dictionaries in 1918, but, with a lack of distinction between paedophilia and homosexuality. From 1960 attempts were made to distinguish “homosexuals” from people then dubbed “paedophiliacs”. In popular usage, the word paedophilia conflates sexual attraction to prepubescent children with “child sexual abuse”.

Indecent Sentences

From Heretic TOC: What Defines Child Pornography?: “In many jurisdictions this is utterly unclear, because mere nakedness may in theory be permissible, but too close a focus on the genitals may constitute an illegal lascivious display or an indecent image. An allegedly suggestive pose can tip the balance from legal to illegal, even if the child is fully clothed.”

In his consultation paper of 2002, Sentencing In Child Pornography Cases, Tom wrote: “The danger lies in the vagueness of the word indecent. As Geoffrey Robertson QC says: ‘Indecency…is assumed to have an ascertainable meaning in law. Jurors and justices who use it as part of their everyday language are trusted to know it when they see it.’ Yet ‘scientific surveys, parliamentary debates and jury verdicts demonstrate no measure of consensus either about community standards or the sort of material which infringes them.’ It seems to me far from self-evident that indecent photographs necessarily involve exploitation in their making, especially as regards those at the lower end of the scale, in COPINE classes 1-6. Indeed, the Sentencing Advisory Panel concedes this point by saying: ‘Images that are relatively less harmful … may still involve … exploitation or degradation …’ They may. Or they may not. Unfortunately, the Sentencing Advisory Panel fails to pursue the logic of this ambivalence. Taking a shotgun approach, the Panel opts to assume the worst and blast away regardless.”

“Shotgun approach” indeed. Fifteen years on, governments still blast away with their indecent bullets to the point where free expression and free speech is critically riddled with holes. In relating the anger expressed over the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, Peter Herman in Heretic TOC highlighted the following bitter irony: “It has come to a point where, in many parts of the English speaking world, any image of youthful sexuality and even written descriptions of it will at the very least ostracize the individual, land him in jail or possibly get him killed.”

Endlösung der Pädophilenfrage – Final Solution to the Paedophile Question


But why is war on minor-attracted individuals waged? Why have those elected to protect the civil liberties of every citizen, failed to do so for members of this group? Why have law-makers labelled every member a sexual predator and treated them as a deformity on the body politic?

Being a paedophile has become a crime of such importance that merely to accuse someone brands them a child sexual abuser. The term crimen exceptum, a mechanism vital to the functioning of inquisitions executing social control via justice systems built on barbarism, describes this process well. The crimen exceptum updates the Magna Carta to read: we are all guilty in a court of law.

As with all inquisitions, the crimen exceptum enables a monstrously corrupt false allegations industry to flourish, enthusiastically stoked by child charities and accusers – the latter in the full knowledge that they will be believed, that their anonymity will be guaranteed even if they are found to lie, and that they can profit from selling their lies to a salaciousness-hungry media. These bounty-hunting allegators doubtless obtain an extra buzz from ruining the lives of the innocents they accuse.

To heighten the moral panic and hysteria, the inquisition classifies an image of a naked child as obscene. Ironically, perversely, and hypocritically, one cannot be arrested for possessing images of terrorist crimes or violent crimes, no matter how sadistic or sickening. Heretic TOC recently discussed additional un-prosecuted “child pornography” in the public domain. It also flagged circumcision and the curious failure to prosecute the genital mutilation of some 10,000 and 1,000,000 male babies in the UK and the US, respectively, annually.

Conclusion: it has nothing to do with the image, and everything to do with the discrimination of those that promote and enjoy child sexuality; that includes the kids themselves.

The estrangement of adults from the lives of children


Frank Furedi in Spiked: “The promotion of paranoia in relation to every aspect of children’s lives accomplishes the very opposite of what it sets out to do.” With nearly one quarter of UK households with dependent children managed by a lone parent, 91% being women, one might envisage such homes to be fertile ground for feeding the paranoia Frank highlights: stranger-danger outside; evil internet inside. Any child daring to display natural sexuality will be instantly hermetically sealed within a bubble of suppression, any adult moving a hand to break the bubble, ostracised.

This from Moor Larkin: “Look after the children, the idea seems to go, and then by the time they see all this filth and perversion, they will be adults and thus impervious to any of its pernicious effects. However at the same time, a legal norm has built up that anyone looking at pictures of children in sexual poses will be likely to want to emulate that imagery in reality, and thus must be treated to remove these pernicious effects, and if they refuse to comply then they must be removed from society.”

Moor’s final comment applies increasingly to children. A primary source of child abuse images rather ironically, is the children themselves. Pediatrics in 2014 states: “That we did not find a link between sexting and risky sexual behavior over time may suggest that sexting is a new ‘normal’ part of adolescent sexual development and not strictly limited to at-risk adolescents.” With the ever-earlier onset of puberty – the term “adolescent” implies a person between 10 and 25 – time perhaps to review age of consent laws.

That youngsters experience fun (kid’s code for excitement) showing off to peers and strangers alike as cameras roll, has been self-evident to child erotica aficionados for decades. Kids, particularly boys, evidently have an interest in sexual imagery. Nothing really new there, but danger lurks on the internet. The inquisition’s Five Eyes will be quick to pounce and arrest young perverts. Oh yes, the inquisition wages a vicious war against youth sexuality too. Heretic TOC highlighted a sad fact that around one in three registered sex offenders in both the UK and the US are themselves minors. Society has totally acquiesced to the implementation of savage lunatic discriminatory laws that, far from protecting children, systematically abuse them, and go on punishing for the remainder of their hellish lives. It is time to STOP IT NOW!

Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud seep out


This poisonous lie from those who claim to protect society exposes the dark heart of the inquisition: “The FBI on behalf of the US government, claim that children are re-victimized every time images of their sexual abuse are viewed or transferred. That argument is one of the main rationales for punishing mere possession of child pornography, which under federal law and the laws of some states can be treated more harshly than violent crimes, more harshly even than actual abuse of children. That penalty structure is obviously irrational unless you believe that serious harm is inflicted every time someone looks at the image of a child’s sexual abuse. In that case, a large enough collection of images could equal or even surpass the harm done by a single child rape, so that it could make sense to impose a life sentence on someone who has done nothing but look at pictures.”

Another poisonous US Government lie states: “The commercial enterprise of online child pornography is estimated in 2005 to be approximately $20 billion, and it is an industry on the rise.” The lie is not easy to refute because it is illegal to research the facts, allowing the inquisition to launder statistics with impunity. In 2006, the Wall Street Journal in an investigative article commented: “to track down the number’s source yielded lots of dead ends.” A further source in 2001 concluded that the market in child pornography was actually negligible. Hyped claims that child pornography is a massively profitable industry appear to have been largely abandoned in more recent years, as the continuing lack of supporting evidence makes such claims less and less plausible. Attention is now focused more on estimating viewing figures, with people looking at what are now being called “child abuse images” being presented as a ‘social emergency’ (see also the BBC Child Pornography Epidemic link referenced in the bullet points below). The 2015 annual report of the Internet Watch Foundation claims “21% of the webpages confirmed as containing child sexual abuse imagery were assessed as commercial.”

More poisonous lies are recounted here.

Anglosphere child charity ‘statistics’ can be equally poisonous: “… research has shown that one in four children (27%) will experience sexual abuse before the age of 18.” This is 1,258 times more than the figure given by the Parliamentary Education Committee for England. The treacherous NSPCC is no better.

These poisonous lies oil the vicious circle and empower the inquisition to:

A model for the future

When any item in demand is outlawed, mechanisms arise that circumvent prohibition. Child pornography was legally produced and sold across several European countries thirty years ago, but is now restricted to, but freely available within the dark web. As images can be viewed, downloaded, copied, and distributed to a thousand destinations instantly, the war on pornography (as for drugs) is unlikely to be won despite huge commitment, funding, and, inane declarations of war.

By waging an intelligent, pragmatic, anti-war on drugs, certain countries in Europe ensure the cure costs less than the problem. Portugal decriminalised possession of all drugs for personal use in 2001 by implementing wider health and social policy changes. Results have been remarkable. The fact that Portugal benefited overall from the intelligent reversal of its stance on drugs, should be a wake-up call for governments that pig-headedly persist in waging costly, ineffective wars on items that society clearly wants.

Anglosphere countries should institute an anti-war on child pornography to unstitch manifestly corrupt and repressive laws that discriminate against citizens on the basis of their sexuality, and deny everyone the basic human right to articulate opinions and ideas. Articles 7, 12 and 19 of the United Nations Human Rights Declaration are relevant here; these continue to be breached with impunity. The unstitching process should dismantle dangerously unaccountable law-enforcement agencies (plus their allies) that design and deploy McCarthyesque witch hunts to create immense damage across society. One candidate the author would recommend for retrospective prosecution on the basis of discrimination is this one. If any single institution is guilty of fomenting mass-hysteria, discrimination and misery across the world over many decades in the total absence of any scientific justification, this is it.

We do not want future generations to have insanely fucked-up attitudes towards human sexuality like those that lie within the heads of the fascist moral “protectors” that infest Anglosphere governments today. To this end, society must ensure that every child receives adequate education on: human sexuality and human relationships, and the illegality of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It would be instructive to highlight the fact that the animal kingdom is saturated with sexual deviance (for example: casual intergenerational sex play), and that as deviance is widespread in nature, deviance in humans is natural too.

This inquisition has been successful in suppressing free thought and scientific thought on the issue of child sexuality and intergenerational sex. Peter Herman again: “Following surveys in a number of countries, including, Denmark, Germany, Japan and the Czech Republic, a strong association has been demonstrated between the ready availability of pornography and reduced levels of sexual offending, including against children. Research also shows that non-coercive sexual acts with minors, in themselves, do not result in psychological trauma.” ipce summarises similar research findings. It is high time we revisited these findings and conducted additional rigorous scientific research to clarify the full diversity of human sexual needs, regardless of age.

Apple bites man from the government


Prolific Heretic TOC contributor Dissident steps up from the Comments column today to the top of the page, with Part 1 of a two-part guest blog on the related topics of state security, fear-mongering and the Dark Net. His piece was submitted on the eve of the Paris terrorist attacks. Although these awful events thus go unmentioned, there is no need to be deflected by them. Dissident’s piece is about baseless, irrational fears, rather than entirely well-founded ones about jihadist fanatics. For more about Dissident, who has a substantial body of published work to his name, see my introduction to his guest blog in January this year, At last, the paedophile as hero!



  1. Privacy Vs. Security: A Surprising Turn in the Never-Ending War…

I’m sure most of us in the Kind community are by now aware that various government agencies in the U.S., particularly the Department of Justice, are heavily resisting the new encryption technology that Apple – along with rival companies, like Google and Microsoft – is using for iPhones and other communication devices. And interestingly, not to mention surprisingly, Apple politely told the DoJ to take a hike when the latter demanded the company surrender records of text messages sent by suspects of something or other who utilized Apple’s encrypted iMessage system. Of equal interest, as explained in a good New York Times article, is a similar battle the DoJ is having with Microsoft over the company’s refusal to comply with a warrant to turn over private e-mail correspondence from a user who was a suspected drug trafficker:

The conflicts with Apple and Microsoft reflect heightened corporate resistance, in the post-Edward J. Snowden era, by American technology companies intent on demonstrating that they are trying to protect customer information. “It’s become all wrapped up in Snowden and privacy issues,” said George J. Terwilliger III, a lawyer who represents technology companies and as a Justice Department official two decades ago faced the challenge of how to wiretap phone networks that were becoming more digital.

Wow! Think about this for a minute. Big companies like Microsoft and Apple foregoing public brownie points by putting the privacy of its users above that of the state’s demands? That may be the most surprising recent political event since Jeremy Corbyn’s election victory with Britain’s Labour Party! Or the announcement of Pee-wee Herman returning to the screen following Paul Reuben’s long-ago bust for indecent self-touching in an X-rated theater, take your pick!

That certainly hasn’t been the trend for the past two decades, with tech companies publicly vowing to fully cooperate with the state whenever they declare their war on something. Could it be that good P.R. with the state may now be taking a back seat to protecting the privacy of tech customers in accordance with civil rights legislation and/or principles? Stranger things have happened, after all.

As noted in this NYT piece by Nicole Perlroth, the summer of 2015 found a group comprised of 14 of the world’s top computer scientists and cryptography experts uniting to oppose the American and British governments’ unprecedented degree of surveillance-oriented hacking into corporate data centers over the past decade. This, too, is due to a major backlash in the era of post-Snowden revelations that are now causing civil rights activists, computer technologists, and even the state’s usual comfy bedfellows and beneficiaries – the big corporations, albeit specifically those that deal with private communications – to overcome their reluctance to challenge actions claimed as vital for combating terrorists and other miscreants.

Usually, it pays for big corporations to cooperate openly and proudly with the agencies of the state which they have empowered to protect their hegemony over our class-divided society, but it’s always interesting when major conflicts of interest between society’s two separate ruling branches arise like this. It makes things crystal clear as to which of the two ruling class branches is the real boss in society, and a true spectacle is guaranteed during the rare occasions when such conflicts happen to work for, rather than against, the interests of common people and consumer interests. So let’s enjoy this while we can and take a closer look at what’s happening here, and how it relates to us Kind folk.

  1. To Snow on Security’s Parade

As Perloth wrote:

After Edward J. Snowden’s revelations – with security breaches and awareness of nation-state surveillance at a record high and data moving online at breakneck speeds – encryption has emerged as a major issue in the debate over privacy rights. That has put Silicon Valley at the center of a tug of war. Technology companies including Apple, Microsoft and Google have been moving to encrypt more of their corporate and customer data after learning that the National Security Agency and its counterparts were siphoning off digital communications and hacking into corporate data centers.

And then, there is this: “Yet law enforcement and intelligence agency leaders argue that such efforts thwart their ability to monitor kidnappers, terrorists and other adversaries. In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron threatened to ban encrypted messages altogether.” Is this surprising to anyone with a modicum of political knowledge? Do online videos frequently have annoying buffering glitches? Do bears shit in the woods? Do yellowjackets enjoy inviting themselves to your outside summer family barbecues? I think you get the gist. And the relevance of all this to the Kind community? Read on!

  1. Beware The Dark Net

All the usual hysterical nonsense, lies, and exaggerations about Kind-related issues are being used to claim that encryption and any privacy-granting technology – or any privacy at all, actually – must be nobly given up in the interest of protecting children from the prevailing cultural bogeyman.

The newest mysterious threat to arise in relation to that is the Dark Net, which refers to many difficult-to-locate sites on the internet hidden beneath layers of onions (i.e., encryption technology, often accessible only by surfers who use Tor). The Dark Net, something which relatively few surfers navigate, has become the new demonic darling of the technophobes’ eroticized nightmares. It allegedly hosts any number of sites that cater to numerous forms of human debauchery… everything from drug trafficking sales, to hit lists for people its users want “rubbed out,” to all the oft-heard claims of sites that traffic in child torture (now often referred to as “hurtcore”). The latter allegedly features an endless selection of pics and vids of children or adolescents who have been kidnapped and subjected to horrific forms of brutality, all to cater to the alleged legions of “pedophiles” who are said to thrive on such depraved sadism.

It’s the old Satanic ritualist-cum-child-snuff-addict re-dressed in technophobic clothing for the digital age. It amazes me that so few people both within and outside the Kind community have yet to identify it as such. Yet all of this should seem quite familiar to anyone who has carefully watched cultural trends during both the past 35 years of the current hysteria, and all previous moral panics throughout history.

  1. I’m Gonna Bogeyman, Bogeyman On Down the Roa-oad…

Predictably, at least one reader, likely a member of the Kind community, will attack this post along these lines: “Everything they say about the Dark Net is real! I can’t talk about it in detail here because of the rules, but I’m telling you, I’ve been there, I’ve seen it! So I don’t understand why you’re saying this type of shit, Dissident, when you don’t know!”

Oh, puh-lease! Reality check: Where have we heard this type of thing before? And how many times?

Are these respondents liars? No, they are resplendent drama queens, caught up in the aesthetic excitement offered by notions of the macabre and terrifying. Let’s examine the history of this prolific trend over just the past few decades alone.

Such claims always seem to carry a variant of the familiar bogeyman archetype, whether it be in a religious or fully secular guise. These stories show that people in our alienated, consumer-focused, heavily competitive society have a deep-seated need to believe in things like the Dark Net. The idea of a Hell after death has been superseded by imagining a real Hell on Earth.

This particular Hell and those shadowy figures said to rule it (no reports of horns or clown masks as yet) are designed specifically for the digital age, replacing the underground tunnels said to lie beneath the McMartin pre-school, where terrifying evil allegedly lurked. And no matter what guise this evil took, it usually situated the greatest threat to children (and underagers in general) outside the “safe” confines of the nuclear family home. And more specifically, this cultural trope is embodied in the idea of adult sadists who get a perverse sexual pleasure out of torturing and brutalizing children, evil-doers who seek to share that brutality with the allegedly countless other members of their demonic ilk. And allegedly making millions of dollars on an international level to continue financing the creation of this nightmarish form of erotically-overtoned entertainment to such depraved legions. And always staying one step ahead of the police, who mysteriously never seem able to account for the innumerable horribly mutilated and/or murdered bodies of young people that one would logically expect to pile up from such a sought-after hobby of global scope. And whose families mysteriously never come to the public for support and help in finding their purloined children (are we to believe each and every one of what must be a multitude of such families are too “scared” or “ashamed” to come forth?).

Even if these kids were covertly brought someplace, tortured horrifically, and then returned “safely” home under the neighborhood’s radar (as if none of these residences had their equivalent of Gladys Kravitz), one would think that parents and teachers would notice the plethora of cigarette burns, rack-torn muscles, sliced flesh, and severed tongues. But apparently we’re to believe that these Dark Net torturers can teach Michael Myers a thing or two about supernatural stealth, physics-defying logistics, and making a Houdiniesque art form out of covering their tracks to escape the authorities and resume their mayhem for throngs of eagerly awaiting audiences across the globe.

This sounds similar to the claims of “child torture sites” that so many people, Kinds and otherwise, of the supposedly noble variety, would claim to just stumble upon early in the previous decade before the Dark Net had caught the public’s fascination. No evidence was ever provided (“I obviously can’t link the sites here for legal reasons, dude! We have to save these kids!”). And most tellingly, if the pics and vids depicted real instances of horrible torture caught on camera, as opposed to just young-looking actors taking the role to cater to “extreme” interests of individuals who weren’t actually so ghastly evil as to insist upon the real deal only, no explanation could be provided for the lack of bodies, understandably emotional families coming to the public, or anything more ephemeral than the knife-wielding murderers dressed like clowns who apparently infiltrated America’s day care centers during the 1980s, and who allegedly filled the nearby grounds with the bones of numerous slain infants and toddlers.

Any horrifying imagery out there would likely turn out on inspection (but fantasy is preferred to scrutiny) to have been the result of young-looking thespians playing a role, aided by convincing but not-difficult-to-acquire special effects. This would mirror the numerous claims of snuff films in the 1980s. Countless people swore they had seen them, but no evidence was provided to substantiate that an ongoing international business of such a nature was routinely racking up bodies, adult or otherwise.

Nevertheless, such fantasies, from Snuff to Hurtcore, continue to fascinate and horrify the public, because they are fueled by two very potent and symbiotic forces: people’s need and willingness to believe the worst, and the benefit government agencies derive in pandering to this need. More in Part Two.


%d bloggers like this: