- Messages
- 916
About five years ago, I bought lifetime memberships in RSOL (Reform Sex Offender Laws), which seemed like a promising continuation of the work started by NAMBLA in bringing about sexual freedom for minor-attracted men (aka basically all men).
I bought one for myself, and one for my buddy Drake, who was in prison at the time for child porn (and is now in jail again on new charges).
What ended up happening was, the organization got taken over by feminists. Perhaps the idea was, "Let's put a bunch of women in the top positions on our board and in our executive bureaucracy, and that way people won't think of us as a bunch of predatory perverts." That makes about as much sense as a political party's nominating a woman for president so that she can't get accused of harassment or rape. Yeah, it might be effective for that purpose, but it could also cost that party the election if voters don't like that particular woman or don't like the idea of a female president in general. And even if she gets elected, she might not be effective; or if she is effective, she might be effective at fucking men over in ways that cause them enough inconvenience that it outweighs the benefits of electing someone from their party. In fact, when women are in charge, they may totally undermine the party's agenda and turn it into a totally different kind of party than what it was when men were in charge.
And that's pretty much what happened with NARSOL. The prime example is, male sex offenders thought it was a big deal that the International Megan's Law would prevent sex offenders from traveling overseas. The female NARSOL leaders thought that wasn't a big deal. Yeah, of course not; they don't want white Chads and betabuxxes moving to different countries and slaying foreign girls; they want them staying right here in the U.S., where they can benefit white women.
Anyway, Drake was saying I should've just put that $1,000 on his books rather than giving him a lifetime membership. If the organization had stayed true to its original intent, I would've still considered that $1,000 well-spent, since its purpose wasn't just to benefit him, but to help all pedos (as well as potentially allied groups, such as free speech advocates).
A similar mistake was buying lifetime memberships in the Libertarian Party for myself and my mom. That organization went down the tubes too, and a lot of that is due to the involvement of women in its leadership. One lifetime membership that did turn out well was when I joined Exit International, since that's run by Philip Nitschke; usually as long as the founder remains in charge, you're okay. Still, when you throw a bunch of money on an organization, they may wonder what to do with it; maybe it'll burn a hole in their pocket and they'll waste it, idk. Not that $1,000 is a lot of money, but you're giving them all at once the money that you would've ordinarily given them over a lifetime.
If you give it to them a year at a time, you avoid the possibility that they'll splurge or that they'll get taken over by people who have nefarious goals in mind for that money. You can preserve a sense of accountability.
I bought one for myself, and one for my buddy Drake, who was in prison at the time for child porn (and is now in jail again on new charges).
What ended up happening was, the organization got taken over by feminists. Perhaps the idea was, "Let's put a bunch of women in the top positions on our board and in our executive bureaucracy, and that way people won't think of us as a bunch of predatory perverts." That makes about as much sense as a political party's nominating a woman for president so that she can't get accused of harassment or rape. Yeah, it might be effective for that purpose, but it could also cost that party the election if voters don't like that particular woman or don't like the idea of a female president in general. And even if she gets elected, she might not be effective; or if she is effective, she might be effective at fucking men over in ways that cause them enough inconvenience that it outweighs the benefits of electing someone from their party. In fact, when women are in charge, they may totally undermine the party's agenda and turn it into a totally different kind of party than what it was when men were in charge.
And that's pretty much what happened with NARSOL. The prime example is, male sex offenders thought it was a big deal that the International Megan's Law would prevent sex offenders from traveling overseas. The female NARSOL leaders thought that wasn't a big deal. Yeah, of course not; they don't want white Chads and betabuxxes moving to different countries and slaying foreign girls; they want them staying right here in the U.S., where they can benefit white women.
Anyway, Drake was saying I should've just put that $1,000 on his books rather than giving him a lifetime membership. If the organization had stayed true to its original intent, I would've still considered that $1,000 well-spent, since its purpose wasn't just to benefit him, but to help all pedos (as well as potentially allied groups, such as free speech advocates).
A similar mistake was buying lifetime memberships in the Libertarian Party for myself and my mom. That organization went down the tubes too, and a lot of that is due to the involvement of women in its leadership. One lifetime membership that did turn out well was when I joined Exit International, since that's run by Philip Nitschke; usually as long as the founder remains in charge, you're okay. Still, when you throw a bunch of money on an organization, they may wonder what to do with it; maybe it'll burn a hole in their pocket and they'll waste it, idk. Not that $1,000 is a lot of money, but you're giving them all at once the money that you would've ordinarily given them over a lifetime.
If you give it to them a year at a time, you avoid the possibility that they'll splurge or that they'll get taken over by people who have nefarious goals in mind for that money. You can preserve a sense of accountability.
Last edited:
