The Coming Legalization of Child Porn and Pedophilia

Child porn and pedophilia to be legal soon, by Pandora Pushkin (Not satire)

In which Pandora Pushkin discusses the latest push to legalize pedophilia and make it a trendy new “alternative lifestyle”.


ALICE:  Help! I’ve just been raped by Jimmy Savile disguised as the Mad Hatter!

MAD QUEEN:  Too many complaints—off with her head!

If Jimmy Savile had lived a few more years—say ten at the most—he could have found himself living in a world in which pedophilia was legal. Instead of being vilified for his creepy sexual activities, Jimmy could have found himself a national hero.

Resorting to the same tactics used by gay rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek a similar legal status, arguing that their sexual desire for children is just a natural “sexual orientation”. If homosexuals like going to bed with their own sex and that’s okay, why is it so wrong if a 70-year-old man wants to go to bed with a 7-year-old girl?

“If a guy offers the kid candy and she consents to sex, what’s the big deal?” it’s now being asked. It’s not like he’s forcing her, is it? Shouldn’t the child have a choice to say Yes or No?

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. Gay advocates have taken offense at such a position, insisting this would never happen.

Well, it’s happened.

Pedophiles are using exactly the same brand of logic as homosexuals once used to get their preferred form of sex legalized. Sodomy is just an alternative lifestyle. Gay sex is cool. Sure, we all know that. Like the world is round, gay sex is cool. Nothing wrong with gay sex. Gays are made like that. They can’t help it.

It follows from this argument that if a guy in his seventies fancies a 7-year-old girl, or boy, there’s nothing wrong with that, either. Heck, that’s how he’s made! It’s his sexual orientation. And what harm is he doing if the 7-year-old girl (or boy) doesn’t mind being specially nice to him for a little extra pocket money?

Calling him a “dirty old man” is sooo wrong! It shouldn’t be allowed. That’s hate speech, like calling someone a “kike” or “nigger”.

Come to think of it, what’s so wrong if this same guy is into corpses, like Jimmy Savile is reported to have been? Corpses can’t say “No”. So there’s no question about getting cadaveral consent.

Let’s consider necrophilia for a moment. This is not off-topic. It’s highly relevant.

I guess it’s possible to argue that sex with corpses can also be pretty cool and awesome. Like it’s just an alternative lifestyle. I mean, if you happen to be born with a natural sexual orientation for sex with the dead, maybe society should be a bit more tolerant and not start making moral judgments.

Maybe necrophiliacs ought to put in for protected minority status, just like pedophiles and homosexuals…?

I guess one way to settle this vexed question about necrophilia, if it’s right or wrong, is to ask yourself: if YOU were a corpse, how would you like someone to make use of your dead body for sexual purposes? It can easily be argued that most people are not going to mind, for no other reason than this: they’re going to be dead! How can you mind if you’re dead? When you’re dead, what do you care? If you don’t mind being burned to ashes or put six feet under, why should you mind being used as a sex object that gives pleasure to a necrophiliac?

Thus the smooth casuist will be able to argue.

I foresee certain problems of course with legalized necrophilia, but I am sure these can be overcome easily enough with advertizing campaigns on TV assuring the public that sex with corpses is just fine and dandy — just like killing innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine is fine and dandy, if you can con people into thinking these people are very wicked.

I mean, if torture is okay — and torture IS perfectly legal in America and Israel — there’s absolutely no reason why necrophilia (or pedophilia with dead children) shouldn’t be legal too, is there?

I can understand that the relatives of the corpse might get a bit upset. That’s to be expected. Relatives can be like that. Uncooperative. But the responsible necrophiliac is never going to misbehave with  a corpse, is he?  If he’s got any self-respect, he’s going to check it out with the deceased’s relatives first. To ask if they mind. To get their compassionate consent.

“I’m dead and in the cooler

But I wanna come back

As a serial killer

Or a necrophiliac.”

— Anon, Kinky Graffiti

Psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

They decided that pedophiles were to be called “minor-attracted people” from now on. “Pedophile” was thought to be too harsh a word. It had negative connotations. So a clear attempt is now being made to “prettify” pedophilia and make it not only socially acceptable but a harmless and trendy “alternative lifestyle.”

Just like homosexuality.

The idea is this: if people can be brainwashed into thinking homosexuality is nice and normal, why can’t they be brainwashed into thinking pedophilia is nice and normal too?

In ten years time, it is hoped, the public will be ready for the legalization of pedophilia. In the meantime, they need to be softened up. The stigma attached to pedophilia needs to be removed. Not only this, but the same stigma will need to be subtly transferred to those who oppose pedophilia and feel pedophilia is morally wrong and repugnant. These child protectors will need to be portrayed as desperately out-of-touch cranks, as reactionary crackpots hostile to the child’s right to free sexual expression.

Will a new word of abuse and contempt, like “homophobe” and “anti-Semite”, have to be invented for the nasty people who disapprove of pedophilia? I don’t think so. There’s already a word that will do beautifully: PEDOPHOBE.

Loosely translated, this means “child hater”. By extension, it  also means “pedophile hater”. The word can be applied to anyone who opposes pedophilia and thinks it is disgusting.

The word “pedophobe”, in other words, will soon be applied as a term of abuse to anyone who opposes pedophilia. If you don’t like pedophila, you will soon find yourself labeled a “pedophobe” — an object of disgust and contempt which will put you into the same category as a “homophobe” or “anti-Semite”.

As far back as 1998,  the APA issued a report claiming that “the negative potential of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Only earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia was a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. So there was nothing to worry about. It ought to be accepted.

Mr Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with homosexuality.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem.  Quinsey said that pedophiles have a definite sexual preference for children. “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else,” he said. (See here)

In July, 2010, Harvard Health Publications chipped in and gave pedophilia another boost. “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and is unlikely to change,” they said. Harvard is now 25 percent Jewish, and the most influential part too, so one can expect a trendy contempt for Christian values to emanate from this ivory tower. Indeed, it was only last week that a sex bondage club, catering for student sadists and masochists, was set up at this august university. (See here and here)

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender] groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages.” (See here)

It’s only a matter of time before Harvard university and its Ivy League imitators begin to set up student clubs for pedophiles and child porn enthusiasts, provided they can first give the whole enterprise a veneer of academic respectability—which of course they will be able to do, given all that Jewish talent at their disposal.


Children like this are being deliberately groomed for pedophilia. Toxic hormones are being surreptitiously introduced into junk foods, soft drinks, and the water supply so as to produce early puberty and sexual precocity on an epidemic scale.
Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

I am not surprised that a man with a name like “Milton Diamond” should put in a good word for child pornography. We know what ethnic group benefits most from the promotion of pornography. And Milton Diamond obviously belongs to this elite group of cultural Marxists who would like to see the entire world take up compulsive masturbation as a hobby.

Dr Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The same institute lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that include “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another thing they praise is “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The Institute also states, significantly, that “no one should be disadvantaged because of  age.”

Dr Diamond makes it crystal clear what kind of brave new world he would like to see us all living in.  It is reassuring to know that no one will be left behind —  that “no one should be disadvantaged because of age.”

Dr Diamond sees the protection now extended to toddlers as a “disadvantage”. Why are these adorable little creatures, full of life’s promise, being denied the pleasures of sexual intercourse with wise old coots ten times their senior?

Just think what a 7-year-old child could learn from entering into intimate relations with a 70-year-old senior citizen! To deprive the child of the benefits of his superior wisdom is positively cruel!

Penis size will of course have to be taken into account, and men with exceptionally large penises will obviously have to be disqualified from intercourse with toddlers. Or maybe they can be encouraged to use vaseline and special lubricants which will help to anaesthetize the three sexual orifices likely to be utilized.

In any case, it’s early days. Not to worry. The experts will work it all out. Leave it to the boffins.

Here’s more good news for you if you happen to be a pedophile: Dr Diamond says he would like to legalize child porn so that you can enjoy the innocent pleasure of masturbating over children. Isn’t that kind of him? He thinks this will stop you raping and killing children.

Gosh, why didn’t someone think of this before? For more information on this fascinating topic, click on:

Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim that the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks, for example, are unfair because it penalizes them for life.

“Why’s that pedo flashing at me from behind that tree? Hmm, I guess flashing at kids is pretty cool… an awesome alternative lifestyle.”

Let’s face it, friends: perversion is cool. I mean, anything can be perceived as cool — even eating shit. If you’re born a perv, you need respect and understanding from the community. You need special facilities laid on for you so that you can indulge your perversion as a human right.

Child porn is just a stepping stone toward even greater liberties. Child brothels, regulated by the state, will obviously be the next step on the Noble Eightfold Path. Even cannibalism and murder, provided you get the written consent of your victim, ought not to be ruled out.

As they say in New Zion or USreal, every option should be kept on the table.

This is the way the word ends…not with a bang but a whimper…as one pushes beyond the borderlines of the banal in the ultimate quest for mystical union with the divine — or diabolical.


Beautiful 6-year-old Jersey Bridgeman, from Arkansas, was found raped and murdered last week a few doors from her mother’s home. She is here seen wearing LIPSTICK. Why has this child been so needlessly sexualized and made to look more like an adult? If her mother hadn’t bought her that lipstick, would she still be alive today? (See here)

Is this little girl “asking” for it?

Is she being groomed for pedophilia?

If you have time to watch this 10-minute video

about the sexualization of young children,

click HERE.


Ending Legal Apartheid in Age of Impunity and Superstition

Arrest Bush: From Calgary, Alberta to Surrey, British Columbia

By Joshua Blakeney

On Monday May 2nd 2011, a coalition of activists and civil resisters, myself included, marched on Surrey City Hall in an attempt school Mayor Dianne Watts on the voluminous domestic and supranational legislation which exists pertaining to credibly accused war criminals and other violators of human rights. Mayor Dianne Watts’ ill conceived invitation to George W. Bush to come to Surrey, British Columbia to attend the annual Surrey Regional Economic Summit this October 20th stimulated the demonstration, which was organized by Mohawk activist and author Splitting the Sky, who led the procession which marched peacefully in the direction of the mayor’s office chanting “Arrest George Bush! Enforce the law!”

George W. Bush intends to come to British Columbia, Canada to attend an economic summit on October 20th, 2011

Splitting the Sky presented Mayor Watts’ communications specialist Tara Foslien with documents demonstrating the correspondence between Bush’s self-admitted misdeeds and the Canadian laws explicitly prohibiting such crimes. The civil resister cited domestic legislation such as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act as examples of two legal bodies enshrined to prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for war criminals. Splitting the Sky informed Ms. Foslien that: “at one point he [Bush] was a credibly accused war criminal but now he’s a self-confessed war criminal…the mayor of Surrey B.C. here, Dianne Watts, has invited George Bush…for an economic summit on October 20th of this year…and we’re saying that this is totally unacceptable…We cannot allow a war criminal into Canada. This guy’s a self confessed war criminal. He violated Article III of the Geneva Conventions against the use of torture in warfare…[Bush] admitted in his book that he in fact allowed his judiciary, the justice department, [and] his lawyers…to bend the law and break the law…George Bush technically should be charged with torture and murder.”

In the year 2000 the Canadian parliament enacted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act with the ostensible goal of preventing Canada from becoming a “safe haven” for war criminals

Also in attendance was Professor Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge. Hall emphasized the need for law enforcement officials to transcend politics and implement the law equitably, regardless of the status of the offender. Hall confronted the many police officers present with the following question: “when there’s a street person drunk and disorderly…does the police officer say “I have to phone the mayor…I have to phone the Prime Minister to ask if I can arrest him?” ” continuing “the police will be told…[Bush] is an “Internationally Protected Person.” That is not true! [Bush] is a civilian. He is no longer a head of state.”

The attempts to elucidate the illegitimacy of the proposed visit of Bush to British Columbia in October ought to be viewed as an extension of the citizens’ mobilizations which began with Bush’s controversial visit to Calgary, Alberta on March 17, 2009.[i] That visit was Bush’s first visit to a foreign country without diplomatic immunity. After the failure of law enforcement officials to do their jobs and arrest the then credibly accused war criminal – now self-confessed torturer – Splitting the Sky courageously and selflessly attempted to breach the police lines and conduct a citizen’s arrest on the former US president.[ii]

During the subsequent trial in Calgary which some dubbed The Trial of Splitting The Sky versus George W. Bush former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark – Splitting the Sky’s former lawyer – and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney flew in to the oil-patch city to participate in the proceedings.[iii] The trial culminated with Splitting The Sky being given a conditional discharge by Judge Manfred Delong allowing him to avoid immediate incarceration. Some read this comparative leniency as a tacit acknowledgement by Judge Delong that Splitting the Sky was, as he submitted, being a conscientious citizen when he attempted to uphold the rule of law by seeking to arrest Bush.

The “I was only following orders” Defence

According to a report in TheProvince Norm Stowe, the manager of the annual Surrey Regional Economic Summit to be attended by Bush, stated via email that “the city respected the rights of protesters to present their views but will have RCMP support to ensure the event is not disrupted…The RCMP have responsibility for security and we know they’ll find a balance that allows people to express their views without risking the safety of our speakers or those attending the summit”.[iv]

These comments, by the organizer of the economic summit, show a distinct failure to grasp the main contention of those protesting the impunity afforded to credibly accused war criminals in Canada. It is the law enforcement agencies themselves, including the RCMP, who are being objected to as it is they who are failing to do their jobs. How is it that Norm Stowe can be so positive that the RCMP will protect, rather than arrest, the self-confessed torturer during the October 2011 summit? Who gave the orders to the RCMP to reassure those organizing the event that their guests – even if they’re culpable for the most murderous of crimes – will be protected on that day? All those police officers who opt to protect, rather than arrest, George W. Bush when he comes to British Columbia are putting themselves in a position where they can be accused of complicity in the break down of the rule of law in Canada.

Those law enforcement officials who shirk their duties to uphold the rule of law in Canada might well use the defense in the future that they were merely “following orders.” This was the common alibi of many officials tried at Nuremberg and it didn’t wash. If I were an ordinary bobby assigned to shield George W. Bush from the law during his upcoming visit I would ask myself serious questions as to whether my role might have personal ramifications for me down the line.

If a police officer arrested Bush in Surrey on October 20th s/he could easily justify doing so to an independent judge before a court of law. Firstly, by doing so the officer would be doing his/her job of upholding the rule of law. Secondly, by arresting the self-confessed torturer the officer would be maintaining civility and order as s/he would be eliminating any possibility of a confrontation such as that which arose in Calgary when Splitting the Sky was compelled, due to the failures of law enforcement officials, to attempt to break through the wall of immunity and impunity and arrest George Bush. During Splitting The Sky versus Bush the defense of those police officers who had obstructed Splitting The Sky from implementing the law was that they were keeping order during a lively protest. Surely the best way to maintain law and order would be simply to arrest Bush as this would remove the catalyst of the protest and maintain peacefulness on the streets of Surrey?

The Liquidation of the Osama Bin Laden Franchise And The Increased Need To Arrest War Criminals

As the war machine continues to transform our benighted planet into a domain of never ending warfare the need for law enforcers to hold to account the protagonists of illegal wars has never been greater. An intensification of the 9/11 wars could only be prevented if Human Rights legislation began to be enforced on the organized gangsters in the highest echelons of power. The recent liquidation of the multi-billion dollar Osama Bin Laden franchise would not have arisen without some preconceived militaristic agenda. Cashing in the Bin Laden chips will serve as a smokescreen to legitimate further misery and warfare.

It is widely held that the biological Bin Laden died several years ago. Much evidence was marshalled to support this conclusion in David Ray Griffin’s book Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?[v] However, until May 2nd a virtual Bin Laden had surfaced from time to time in indecipherable camcorder-produced videos serving the function of conditioning millions of global citizens to falsely perceive a threat from Islamic terrorism. The mythical Bin Laden’s theatrics were used to justify U.S. and Israeli assaults against Arab and Muslim peoples. The unsubstantiated, ahistorical assertion that Bin Laden was killed on May 2nd has been described by author and pundit Webster Tarpley as a “completely manufactured, invented story created out of whole cloth by the US intelligence community primarily for the purpose of targeting Pakistan.”[vi] The demonization of the Pakistani security state, who stand accused of aiding and abetting Osama Bin Laden, is likely to serve as a pretext for the U.S. military to further colonize Pakistan.

"Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?" was authored by Professor David Ray Griffin back in 2009“Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?” was authored by Professor David Ray Griffin back in 2009

That Bin Laden was killed by U.S. Navy SEALS with Obama “watching a feed [of the murder of Bin Laden] from a camera mounted on the helmet of one of the US SEALS who carried out the operation”[vii] is beyond the pale and, most importantly, completely unsupported by video or documentary evidence.

The Obama administration, which has been described by International law Professor Francis Boyle as “Zionist controlled and funded,”[viii] is on the one hand seeking to control Pakistan and on the other submitting to the Likudnik agenda of reordering and Lebanizing the Middle East. The successful Likudnik geopolitical strategy of fomenting a Big Rwanda type situation of ethnic and religious civil war could not have been visited upon the people of the Middle East without the 9/11 fraudulent trigger incident from which Israel was a prime beneficiary. Recent rhetoric of a possible NATO assault on Syria – a much emphasized priority for Likudnik foreign policy– coupled with the brutal assault on Libya (which was partially implemented to prevent the Libyan government from developing plans for a pan-African currency, the Gold Dinar) illuminates the pressing need for enforcement of international and domestic legislation pertaining to crimes against humanity and war crimes.

One could imagine that if George W. Bush was arrested and prosecuted for his self-confessed crimes that subsequent presidents of the declining American Empire and prime ministers of the ascending Israeli empire might think twice before they conduct further crimes against humanity and war crimes.

9/11 Skeptics Attacked by Post-Rationalist, Psychoanalyst Jonathan Kay

As is the case with all other aspects of the 9/11 sacred myth, citizens are expected by the military-industrial-academic-journalistic complex to prescribe to the “May 2nd killing of Bin Laden” state-conspiracy-theory, relying on faith in our betters, rather than demanding substantive evidence. Invariably those of us who understand the basic tenets of deductive logic – and who are inclined to survey evidence before forming conclusions – are denounced for daring not to take at face value what the U.S. government tells us.

One such attack on scientific reasoning and Enlightenment principles is found in a recently published psychoanalysis of the 9/11 Truth Movement entitled Among The Truthers (purportedly) authored by post-rationalist journalist Jonathan Kay.

Postmodernist Jonathan Kay has written one book mischaracterizing the 9/11 Truth Movement and produced another book with a retired Mossad agent. As with UN Watch’s attack on Richard Falk, the attacks on the 9/11 Truth Movement often seem to emanate from individuals or groups who are heavily partisan to Israel

Kay, who previously produced a book with a retired Mossad agent, captures the postmodern, subjectivist academic zeitgeist in his critique of genuine skeptics. Like most postmodernists Kay distances himself from those of us who seek to construct metanarratives based on our belief in science’s ability to unmask absolute truth.  The anti-Enlightenment, epistemic relativist denounces our quest for absolute truth vis-à-vis 9/11, writing “These metanarratives [of 9/11 skeptics] are so elaborate and ambitious that they essentially describe alternate moral universes” (Among The Truthers, 15). Since when has it been advisable to abandon the quest to figure out how our world operates simply because doing so might require one to be “elaborate” and “ambitious”? Since when has it been acceptable for a metanarrative to be deemed false simply because it is elaborate and it took ambition to formulate? This kind of nonsense is not atypical. Those of us who are the attempting to save the Enlightenment’s legacy from it’s postmodern enemies encounter such hostility regularly. Truth has always been the enemy of those ideologues and public intellectuals who are servants of certain factions of the ruling class. Kay himself concedes in Among the Truthers that sometimes “I [Jonathan Kay] bend the rules of logic in the service of ideology or partisanship” (Among The Truthers, 323).

The following statement offers a quintessential example of Kay’s ideology (an ideology which is perhaps identifiable from the subject matter of his previous book) influencing how he writes about the largely philo-Semitic 9/11 skeptics community : “By teaching ourselves to recognize conspiracism’s unchanging basic structure – from its archetype in the Protocols [of The Elders of Zion] to its modern incarnation in the 9/11 Truth Movement – we can protect our brains from conspiracy theories [i.e. metanarratives pertaining to conspiracies] before they have a chance to infect our thinking” (Among The Truthers, 317).

Kay thus prefers to innoculate the subject from encountering the object (i.e. the harsh reality of the world around us). This is typical post-rationalist discourse befitting our Age of Impunity and Superstition.

WW~Notes: Jonathan Kay is most definitely a cultural marxist.  In his testament regarding truthers aka conspiracy theorists he is using a form of psychological attack called DYNAMIC SILENCE which was created by Rabbi Fineberg of the American Jewish Committee in 1947.  Dynamic Silence is a method of closing all access to the public media – and thus the larger culture – for people or organizations deemed to have an unacceptable point of view. The twofold strategy is a combination of techniques (which there are minor adaptations and alterations). One part consists in denying immoderate exposure to the public. The second part involves only reporting on negative or unseemly sides of a thing in order to de-legitimize these things. Where the first one concentrates on silence or very tight restriction, the second part is done in a spiral form; its effect is cumulative. All the press reports on a subject will be negative. As the negative is expressed continuously, the public is conditioned to recoil from them.  See my post on this subject,

Persecuting Judges Rather Than Prosecuting War Criminals

In Canada, with the neoconservative, pro-Likud, pro-war party winning a majority in the May 2nd elections we might expect to witness the kinds of assaults on Canada’s Human Rights legislation, such as the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000), that have begun to crop up in some European polities. In Britain, the country that famously set the Pinochet Precedent,[ix] the Israel lobby-influenced Conservative government has now taken steps to sanction political intervention in the judiciary. Soon judges who wish to provide arrest warrants for credibly accused war criminals will require approval from bought-and-paid-for politicians to do so which makes a mockery of any notion of judicial independence.

British politicians made overtures to circumscribe the autonomy of the judiciary after a British judge issued an arrest warrant for the former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni who was largely responsible for the 2008/2009 massacre in Gaza. This rare but potent application of Human Rights law to Israeli credibly accused war criminals in the British courts continues to instill fear among those who have guilty consciences. According to a recent report by Press TV one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aides Yohanan Locker refrained from visiting Britain in recent weeks for fear of being arrested.[x] Any renaissance of judicial neutrality and universal jurisdiction could be short lived however. The locus of power labeled by Professor James Petras as “The Zionist Power Configuration,” via it’s stooges in the British parliament, is incessantly attempting to attain immunity for all Israeli credibly accused war criminals.

Likewise in Spain, home of the pugnacious activist Judge Baltasar Garzon, there have been moves to circumscribe the latitude judges have to prosecute credibly accused war criminals. On November 4, 2009 the Spanish parliament added three conditions to Spanish laws pertaining to war criminals. Credibly accused war criminals can now be prosecuted only if (i) the alleged perpetrators are present in Spain, (ii) the victims [of the alleged war crime] are of Spanish nationality, or (iii) there is some relevant link to Spanish interests.

Israeli credibly accused war criminal Yohanan Locker cancelled a visit to the UK out of fear that he might be arrested for his complicity in the Gaza massacre of 2008/2009

The subtext of these politically motivated restrictions on the enforcement of international law is that political elites in Spain and Britain are themselves deeply complicit in the same war crimes and crimes against humanity that the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney stand accused of. Thus, the co-guilty have a vested interest in minimizing the agency objective Third Parties have to prosecute credibly accused war criminals.

Legal Apartheid and The Genocide Industry

“Law enforcers” in Canada have demonstrated that the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act is only to be invoked to prosecute tin pot tyrants from Third World countries, such as Désiré Munyaneza, who was prosecuted in May 2009 for his participation in the CIA-sponsored Rwandan genocide.

It was perhaps not coincidental that less than 12 months after citizens exposed the double standards and politically motivated complacency of the Calgary law enforcement milieu during Splitting the Sky versus Bush that a Guatemalan accused war criminal was apprehended in the Southern Albertan city of Lethbridge. Jorge Vinicio Orantes Sosa, who stands accused of complicity in genocidal acts in Guatemala in 1982, was tried in the very same Calgary Courts Centre in which the convincing case had been made that law enforcement officials had illegitimately shielded Bush from the law. Time and time again political (and economic) expediency militates against the supposedly politically neutral application of the law. The result is that the most murderous war criminals on the planet enjoy impunity.

The Palestinian genocide has been divorced from less politically inconvenient genocides. Now there is a Genocide Industry which censors certain politically inconvenient genocides from it’s discourse.

Having laws that only apply to war criminals emanating from Third World countries is intolerable. This legal apartheid is buttressed by the pseudo-scholarship and politicized analyses pumped out by the apparatchiks of the Genocide Industry. The Genocide Industry is expressed most egregiously in the disproportionate amounts of scholarship and journalism dedicated to demonizing politically expendable perpetrators of genocide, such as Rwandan Hutus like Munyaneza, whilst at the same time diminishing the modern day genocides being perpetrated against Arabs and Muslims. At the core of the Genocide Industry is the insistence that Israel’s extremist politicians be allowed to cynically play the worn and tattered Nazi holocaust card to immunize themselves from accusations of being pro-genocide.

Nuclear armed Israel in 2011 is characterized too often as a victim of non-existant genocidal forces whilst the Palestinians’ status as victims of genocide is deemphasized in the vast preponderance of scholarship on the subject of genocide.

Bush Should Be Arrested in Canada

There is still much uncertainty for law enforcers, political elites, general citizens and the millions of victims of the 9/11 wars about how the relatively new Canadian domestic legislation pertaining to war criminals will be applied over the coming months and years. Thus far there have been gross inconsistencies exhibited by Canadian law enforcers who are willing to prosecute Rwandans and Guatemalans but not Texans or Israelis. Whether the Age of Impunity & Superstition will be compounded or desisted in Canada will be determined by those law enforcement officials who will be confronted with a self-confessed war criminal, George W. Bush, seeking entry into Canada this October.

2011 copyright – Joshua Blakeney