Oath of Ahimsa
Before I begin, I want to make it unequivocally clear that my support for political activism in the interests of defending Dharma is strictly in terms of non-violence. This is about challenging bad beliefs, bad ideas, and the cultish practices of this particular Christian institution. Most Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and related followers of Sanatana Dharma would agree and believe this Oath to be unnecessary and obvious. Some may even nitpick this oath on the nuances of Ahimsa’s meaning regarding cases of self-defense. Nevertheless, the core of Ahimsa is non-violence and if you’re going to be using this work that I’ve compiled, then I want you to make an oath of non-violence to yourself right now on my behalf. My interests in writing this as a self-identified Hindu Atheist are in criticizing what I find to be the harmful ideas of Christianity that Christians hold. I will never condone any violence or discrimination against Christian people. This is about criticizing Christianity; it is not about bigotry and violence towards Christians. Exposing abuse crimes of Christian Priests is not support for wanton violence against any Christians (priests or otherwise). If you see a Christian priest harming a child then the use of force is necessary to keep them away from children, if they are harming a child then of course you must stop them, and call the police after they’ve been successfully kept away from children. However, that shouldn’t mean assuming Christians in general are likely to harm children. Christians (priests or otherwise) are annoying and they have dangerously deluded beliefs; my interests are in exposing those annoying and dangerously deluded beliefs because they harm children. They are never and will never be in hurting Christian people, priests or otherwise. You may only use this work if you agree with an oath of non-violence against Christians. Christians are simply fallible human beings filled with bigoted and generally narcissistic beliefs, but that doesn’t nor shall it ever justify any violence. If you cannot make this pledge for me to yourself and keep it, then there is nothing for you here and you should stop reading. If, however, you think this was unnecessary and you’ll obviously never support violence against Christians in general, then please continue reading.
For those who wish to know what prompted me to do this and my thoughts on Christian theology and Christian history in general, please click here.
Despite what the majority who read my blog may think, my reasons for documenting what are largely child rape abuse cases revealed to the public and my antagonism towards Christianity contains no animosity towards Christian people. My interests in writing this specific blog post are purely compassionate; Christians are a people who are brainwashed into believing a raving narcissistic lunatic with a god complex was actually a god and not just some lunatic who the Romans appropriately punished for his narcissistic lunacy. They’ve been brainwashed into believing some of the most insane paradoxical beliefs that make absolutely no sense such as the number 3 and the number 1 having the same numerical value once you add nonsensical terms like “salvation” or “Holy” to it, the teaching of “forgiveness” which encourages abuse – including rape – of children by having perpetrators simply forgive themselves after they harm other people, or the deluded belief that “repentance” means not committing sins when it just means believing in a deluded narcissist’s ego-trip from 100 AD about being a god. These ridiculous beliefs are actively harmful and the spread of Christianity will mean more children being raped by Christian priests who then forgive themselves for raping kids while attempting to keep their crimes hidden from secular officials like the police and politicians.
I had thought at one point that I should just stop, recognize that these people follow a cult and can’t really be helped in changing their minds due to being brainwashed into believing Jesus Christ was a god and related nonsense associated with Christianity, and that I should just turn away and focus on other important social issues. However, I realized after thinking over it that this sort of apathy is incredibly harmful and dangerous as it would mean being indifferent to Catholic priests raping more kids. I admonished myself for thinking like that; as a Hindu and an Atheist, it is incumbent upon me to oppose these hateful beliefs using factual evidence and Free Speech. We Hindus are Truth Seekers and most of us generally support non-violence; we should try to expose the truth peacefully, make a difference which will hopefully decrease the amount of future child rapes by Catholic Priests, and share credible information not just among ourselves but with any who are willing to listen and hopefully encourage them to share this information with people whom they believe are susceptible to the brainwashing of Christianity. Similar to India’s national motto, Truth Alone Triumphs, we should share the facts honestly and make our voices heard because we have compassion for people who were deluded enough to be brainwashed by Christianity. I unfortunately cannot stop the hateful teachings of Jesus Christ which cause child rape due to the doctrines of forgiveness, the Seal of Confession in Catholicism, and other barbaric teachings in Christianity; but I can do just this much in providing avenues to fight back against the hateful beliefs and practices of Christianity through peaceful means. To do this, we should be exposing the horrifying abuse stories to show exactly what the teachings of Christianity really lead to and how those who follow Jesus Christ’s hateful teachings really behave because we have the utmost compassion for Christians who need to be saved from Christianity. If you think this is ridiculous or going to an extreme, think of how many children will be safe and away from harm from child raping priests in Catholicism and potentially other Christian sects which have their own child rape sprees due to the hateful and barbaric teachings of Jesus Christ. Also worth noting is that the people being saved from Christianity are Christians themselves who do not deserve to suffer the horrors of having their kids raped by Christian priests; nobody deserves that and the very thought is too horrifying for most to contemplate, but it is a lived experience all over the world for those who follow Catholicism and many of these other Christian sects. So, when I call Christianity barbaric, I am referring to the barbaric teachings of Jesus Christ and when I refer to “Christian barbarians” I usually am referring to historical figures like the Anglican Christians of the British empire. British soldiers and British government during the 1770s – 1940s in India supported and whitewashed the massive starvation campaigns and subsequent death tolls that their export of rice, creation of internment camps that didn’t provide any relief and exploited Indians by often working them to exhaustion with less than a handful of rice as a reward for torturous labor, and indifference to disease that spread as a result of weakened immune systems resulting in calamitous death tolls across the history of India during British rule. Genocidal violence like that is only rightfully called barbarity and since it was under Anglican Christian authority, it stands to reason that Anglican Christianity is primarily responsible since Great Britain never had a separation of Church and State and followed Church economic directives that caused a death toll estimated to be between 60 – 80 million in India under British rule. Frankly, how am I suppose to feel when I know this history, the history of the Native Americans (particularly the Christian boarding schools that tortured Native American children), and so much else that quite clearly shows a pattern of abuse linked to the teachings of Jesus Christ specifically? After all, those British soldiers who starved Indians to death could simply forgive themselves and recognize themselves as sinners, those Catholic nuns and Catholic Priests who raped and tortured Native American children could likewise forgive themselves by recognizing they were sinful people and accepting Jesus Christ’s forgiveness, starving the Irish Catholics in a planned famine just like what the British government and Anglican Church did to India would likewise be justified by simply forgiving themselves using Jesus Christ’s forgiveness, and all these Catholic institutions are doing the exact same thing of forgiving themselves using Jesus’s doctrine of forgiveness as they continue to commit abuse against children. Therefore, the teachings of Jesus Christ are indeed producing child rape, produce conditions that encourage genocidal violence on non-Christians, and continue to commit abuse even in modern times, but it is now the public attention is more specifically upon their own Christian congregations and not just non-Christians as it has been throughout history. As such, since religion still has a special status despite just being make-believe for most world religions, it is imperative that these abuses are more widely disseminated when news of exposure is revealed to the public in order to help victims and prevent future victims who are usually children.
One final issue I’d like to make clear, there is no evidence to support that child abusers are predominately gay – even the child raping Catholic priests who primarily abuse young boys. Of the research that has been conducted into this issue, there’s been no findings that homosexuality has any connection to child abuse at all. Here is a lengthy snippet that you can read from:
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
Prof. Herek’s blog Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority’s most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization “Save Our Children,” and warned that “a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children” (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]
In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America’s policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley’s resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.
It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church’s attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican’s early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.
Public belief in
The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that “Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children” or that “Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner.”1
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.
Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977.
Even though most Americans don’t regard gay people as child molesters, confusion remains widespread in this area. To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of scientific research. However, when we evaluate research on child molestation, our task is complicated by several problems.
One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.
Terminology A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.
Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.
Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.
Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.
Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don’t imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.
Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.
Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.
As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: “The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however” (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).
To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men’s sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men’s abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don’t implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.
The distinction between a victim’s gender and a perpetrator’s sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators’ sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.
Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means “a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being “stuck” at an early stage of psychological development.
By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is “a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual’s development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.
Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989).
For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).
Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects’ penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).
In summary, each of these studies failed to support the hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.
Reflecting the results of these and other studies, as well as clinical experience, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
In a later literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women” (p. 259).
This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. For example, a 1998 comprehensive review of published empirical research on the sexual abuse of boys reported only one study (the 1994 study by Jenny and colleagues, cited above) that included data about the self-reported sexual orientation of perpetrators (Holmes & Slap, 1998).
Proving something that is already widely known simply isn’t a priority for scientists. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters “have little to do with everyday child abuse” and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children’s sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).
In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old.
These are cases in which the term pedophilia – referring as it does to attractions to prepubescent children – can cause confusion. Rather than pedophilia, the accusations stemming from these scandals raised the question of whether gay people shouldn’t be trusted in positions of authority where there is any opportunity for sexually harassing or abusing others.
Here again, there is no inherent connection between an adult’s sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others. Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority. As explained elsewhere on this site, sexual orientation is not a mental illness nor is it inherently associated with impaired psychological functioning.
Apologetics for the Seal of Confession despite it protecting child rapists in the Catholic Church:
Timeline of Catholic Church Abuses from 2000s – 2010s known Discoveries:
Timeline of 2018 Discoveries:
1950s Child Kidnapping rings in Ireland while stealing from the hard work of single mothers whom they terrorized into giving up their children:
UK Birmingham Archdiocese permissive attitude towards pedophile priests:
2 of UK’s leading Catholic Schools have culture of acceptance of sexual abuse of children:
German Catholic Churches cover-up of Child Rape Crimes:
7 Percent of Australia’s Catholic Priests accused of sexually abusing children:
Chilean child rape scandal by Catholic Church:
Dutch Catholic Church’s widespread cover-up of child rape and abuse for over 65 years:
Endemic rape and abuse of children in Catholic Church care within Ireland:
Rape Crimes in Catholic Orphanages in Ireland:
Children of Catholic Priests begin speaking out:
Child Rape of Deaf and Mute Boys in Catholic Church run Deaf and Mute School:
Catholic Bishop raped Nun 13 times in India and then the Catholic Church ordered the Nun who initially spoke out to be silent:
Physical and Sexual abuse of Native American children at Catholic Residential schools in Canada:
US Catholic Church cases of the Rape and Abuse of children:
200 Deaf Boys raped in Wisconsin by Milwaukee Archdiocese:
Montana’s Native American Reservations were “dumping grounds” for pedophile priests:
Texas child abuse by pedophile Catholic Priests:
West Virginia Lawsuit over pedophile Catholic Priests:
Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report on Pedophile Priests:
Rape and abuse of children in Minnesota by Catholic Nuns:
Sexual violence against children in Catholic schools in New Jersey:
Vermont Child Abuse at St. Joseph’s Catholic Orphanage:
What happened in Native American Boarding Schools:
Bill Donohue, President of Catholic League of Religious and Civil Rights, trivializes Catholic Churches sprees of Child Rape and Molestation:
Actions by the Catholic Church or exposure of new abuse cases in Chronological Order from 2017 onward:
2017: Pope Francis Quietly Trimmed Sanctions on Child Rapists: https://apnews.com/64e1fc2312764a24bf1b2d6ec3bf4caf
2017: Pope condemns gender re-assignment surgery of Trans people:
July 6th, 2018: Catholic Child Kidnapping rings now relocated to India under Mother Teresa’s Missionaries for Charity: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/rot-has-set-into-missionaries-of-charity-after-mother-teresas-death-activist/313161
July 27th, 2018: Rape culture in the Catholic Churches across the world, Priests found to have sexually abused Nuns, and Priests cajoled Nuns into getting abortions:
Catholic Church paid out nearly $4 billion of its donated money over allegations of child rape and other abuses by pedophile priests:
Australia Catholic Church Rejected Calls for Priests to report Child Rapists to go to the police due to the Seal of Confession as part of their faith in Jesus Christ:
November 2018: Vatican used their authority to stop US bishops from voting on reforms for Catholic Churches in the US:
December 2018, Pope Francis makes a speech about how Clerics should hand themselves in, but no steps for reform are made:
January 2019: 64 Syracuse area clergy abuse victims among 981 NYers to get paid by Catholic church
February 2019, German Cardinal Reinhard Marx admits that documents pertaining to child rape and other forms of child abuse by Catholic clergy were destroyed, tampered with, or never made:
March 2019: Catholic Church sweeps claims of Nuns sexually abusing young girls under the rug unless there are credible claims. Hundreds of Nuns convicted of credible claims with many suspecting it is just the tip of the iceberg:
April 2019: Nuns credibly accused of molestation of children were protected, moved, and had no public record made after quiet settlements by the Catholic Church and help groups now being made to help those who were abused by Catholic Nuns:
June 2019: Catholic Church spent $10 million on lobbyists to prevent victims of child rape and other sexual abuses to sue the Catholic Church by reforming the Statue of Limitations in the US:
Sept 2019: Research indicates that Catholic Church was raping kids prior to the Vatican II summit. It contradicts the claim that sexual revolution of the West in the 1960s was the cause of pedophilia in the Catholic Church:
October 2019: Report finds that approximately 1700 Catholic clergy members credibly accused of child rape remain near children in unsupervised roles in the US:
November 2019: Convicted Child Molester in Belgian given flight travel and access to child refugees in Africa, a safe flight to India to visit the Taj Mahal where he took selfies, makes him country-wide director of Caritas International in the Central African Republic, and he gets away with raping kids living in refugee camps in Africa thanks to the Catholic Church. In response to the scandal, the Salesian Order of the Catholic Church put him in a residence that has a school on campus in Belgian:
December 2019: For decades in a California school, it is revealed that Catholic priests targeted, repeatedly raped, and tortured underprivileged white kids and threatened their parents jobs by saying they would fire the parents working for the Catholic schools of the Salesian Order, if the kids told anyone of what was happening to them:
March 2020: The Catholic Church allowed more than 50 U.S.-based clergy to move abroad after facing credible accusations of sexual abuse. Some continued to work with children:
July 2020: Catholic Church lobbied for US taxpayer funds and got between $1.4 billion and 3.5 billion due to COVID-19 pandemic relief. This was reportedly alongside other religious institutions:
Nov 2020: Catholic Church in England and Wales, UK found to have swept credible accusations of child rape under the rug to protect pedophile Catholic priests:
Feb 2021: Scandal reveals German Nuns sold Orphan children to sexual predators forcing them into gangbangs and other horrors. The Catholic Church did a last-minute shut down of the full report being unveiled to the public:
March 2nd, 2021: French Catholic clergy may have abused at least 10,000 people since 1950, say investigators:
March 15th, 2021: Catholic Church forbids Same-sex marriages and calls it sinful:
March 28th, 2021: Catholic Church lobbied against suicide prevention of LGBT:
April 7th, 2021: Around 2,801 people file lawsuits against the Catholic Church from August 13 2019 – December 31, 2020 for child rape they endured in the past in Syracuse, NY. Dates of incidents go as far back as 1942. This was after the Child’s Victim Act was passed in NY State. More cases are expected to come:
May 11th, 2021: Hundreds of new cases being reported in the California Bay Area due to California reforming laws for victims to sue Catholic Church, allowing a 3-year window:
2 thoughts on “A Self-Updating List of the Catholic Church’s Contemporary History of Child Abuse and Anti-Human Rights stances”
Pingback: The US Government, US Mainstream Media, and US Think Tanks Just Murdered their Credibility and they’re Too Stupid to Realize it | Jarin Jove's Blog
Pingback: World’s End Harem Controversy: Westerners are Scapegoating Japan for Christian Pedophilia | Jarin Jove's Blog