We Know the Truth – Maybe

How many of you are thinking right now that this case against Brian Kohberger, the alleged murderer of the four Idaho students, is incomplete?

There are a lot of questions to be asked.

Putting aside DNA evidence for the time being, why would Kohberger target these four Idaho students?

In the seven weeks since the murder, not one person has come forward to state that Kohberger knew any of these four students.

So how did he meet them?

How would he know where they lived?

How does he know anything about the house?

For all he knew a burly cop with a gun might have lived in that house.

So how does he develop the guts to go into that house not knowing that a person with a gun might be living there?

He could have known that if he had been in that house numerous times.

Yet no one has come forward to put him in that house in anyway.

Isn’t that strange?

Maybe it was an inside job. Maybe Kohberger was a murderer for hire.

I am concerned with how this case was handled.

If the police suspected him when he was living in Pullman, why didn’t they bring him down to the station and ask him questions?

That’s the traditional way.

Many suspects incriminate themselves during the interview process.

Wouldn’t it have been better for them to bring him down to the station, ask him questions, get a DNA sample there, if he so agreed, and listen to his side of the story.

How many times have we seen suspects brought down to the station to be asked questions?

A lot of times.

Perhaps he has an alibi that is rocksolid.

My concern is that by not bringing him down to the station, by not giving him the opportunity to clear himself, the police fostered and encouraged a bias toward convicting him.

It almost seems as if they didn’t want to know that he could be potentially cleared.

Perhaps there was too much pressure upon the police to solve this case.

The white Hyundai ELANTRA is hardly evidence enough in itself.

The Hyundai ELANTRA is a very popular car. Looking at the production numbers there were easily 100,000 of these vehicles sold per year for the last 10 years

That makes approximately 1 million of these vehicles on the road in America.

Assuming that one and every five of these is white colored (White is a popular color. Just look on the road the next time you are driving.), that yields, given a population of 325 million, approximately one white ELANTRA for every 1625 people

Given that there are approximately 50,000 people between Pullman and Moscow, plus another 25,000 in the surrounding area, that would make for approximately 50 white ELANTRA’s.

Factor in that the ELANTRA is a car more likely to be owned by college students, and you can estimate that they’re probably 60 to 70 white ELANTRA’s in the area.

So, having a white ELANTRA is hardly enough to convict Kohberger.

Let’s not also forget that the police were looking for an ELANTRA of model year between 2011 and 2013

Kohberger’s white ELANTRA is a 2015 model.

As far as the cell phone records are concerned, a cell phone tower usually handles a radius of a mile or two before handing off to another cell tower.

Even though Kohberger’s cell was found around where the four students lived, there are a lot of eating and shopping establishments within that radius

Now, to the DNA evidence. From what we know so far, they did not have prior to the arrest a direct sample of DNA from Brian Kohberger.

They used genetic genealogy to arrive at Brian Kohberger as a suspect. Well, genetic genealogy is not foolproof. Wrong accusations have been made in the past.

The DNA they retrieved came from the sheath of the knife that allegedly was used to kill the four Idaho students. It was left behind.

What!

Why would such a careful killer leave behind the sheath of a knife. And if he did, why would one of the students on the bottom floor not see him carrying a knife on his way out the door?

And why would this student having viewed the perpetrator, allegedly Kohberger, at around 4:30 in the morning, not call the police right away?

If you’re that scared, why would you not call?

Does anybody think this is strange?

It is strange.

In the field of medicine, we build a diagnosis from the bottom up. We take a history first, then we do a physical exam. Then we order tests after that.

The test results generally should fall within the context of the history and physical. If they do not, then we begin to question the validity of the tests.

The same should apply to the investigation of a murder.

This is why law-enforcement is encouraged to build a case from the bottom up, the traditional way.

This does not seem to be done in this case.

From my perspective it appears that the police relied too heavily on the DNA evidence and built this case from the top down.

This is not to say that Kohberger didn’t do it.

But maybe he was a murderer for hire. Maybe there are other people involved. Maybe

How many of you are thinking right now that this case against Brian Kohberger, the alleged murder of the four Idaho students, is incomplete?

There are a lot of questions to be asked.

Putting aside DNA evidence for the time being, why would Kohberger target these four Idaho students?

In the seven weeks since the murder, not one person has come forward to state that Kohberger knew any of these four students.

So how did he meet them?

How would he know where they lived?

How does he know anything about the house?

For all he knew a burly cop with a gun might have lived in that house.

So how does he develop the guts to go into that house not knowing that a person with a gun might be living there?

He could have known that if he had been in that house numerous times.

Yet no one has come forward to put him in that house in anyway.

Isn’t that strange?

Maybe it was an inside job. Maybe Kohberger was a murder for hire.

I am concerned with how this case was handled.

If the police suspected him when he was living in Pullman, why didn’t they bring him down to the station and ask him questions?

That’s the traditional way.

Many suspects incriminate themselves during the interview process.

Wouldn’t it have been better for them to bring him down to the station, ask him questions, get a DNA sample there, if he so agreed, and listen to his side of the story.

How many times have we seen suspects brought down to the station to be asked questions?

A lot of times.

Perhaps he has an alibi that is rocksolid.

My concern is that by not bringing him down to the station, by not giving him the opportunity to clear himself, the police fostered and encouraged a bias toward convicting him.

It almost seems as if they didn’t want to know that he could be potentially cleared.

Perhaps there was too much pressure upon them to solve this case.

The white Hyundai ELANTRA is hardly evidence enough in itself.

The Hyundai ELANTRA is a very popular car. Looking at the production numbers there were easily 100,000 of these vehicles sold per year for the last 10 years

That makes approximately 1 million of these vehicles on the road.

Assuming that one and every five of these is white colored (White is a popular color. Just look on the road the next time you are driving.), that makes approximately, given a population of 325 million, approximately one white ELANTRA for every 1625 people

Given that there are approximately 50,000 people between Pullman and Moscow, plus another 25,000 in the surrounding area, that would make for approximately 50 white ELANTRA’s.

Factor in that the ELANTRA is a car more likely to be owned by college students, and you can estimate that they’re probably 60 to 70 white ELANTRA’s in the area.

So, having a white ELANTRA is hardly enough to convict Kohberger.

Let’s not also forget that the police were looking for an ELANTRA of model year between 2011 and 2013

Kohberger’s white ELANTRA is a 2015 model.

As far as the cell phone records are concerned, a cell phone tower usually handles a radius of a mile or two before handing off to another cell tower.

Even though Kohberger’s cell was found around where the four students lived, there are a lot of other eating, and shopping establishments within that radius

Now, to the DNA evidence. From what we know so far, they did not have prior to the arrest a direct sample of DNA from Brian Kohberger.

They used genetic genealogy to arrive at Brian Kohberger. Well, genetic genealogy is not foolproof. Wrong accusations have been made in the past.

The DNA they retrieved came from the sheath of the knife that allegedly was used to kill the four Idaho students.

What!

Why would such a careful killer leave behind the sheath of a knife. And if he did, why would one of the students on the bottom floor not see him carrying a knife on his way out the door?

And why would this student having viewed the perpetrator, allegedly Kohberger, at around 4:30 in the morning, not call the police right away?

If you’re that scared, why would you not call?

Does anybody think this is strange?

It is strange.

In the field of medicine, we build a diagnosis from the bottom up. We take a history first, then we do a physical exam. Then we ordered tests after that.

The test results generally should fall within the context of the history and physical. If they do not, then we begin to question the validity of the tests.

The same should apply to investigation of a murder.

This is why law-enforcement is encouraged to build a case from the bottom up, the traditional way.

This does not seem to be done in this case.

From my perspective now it appears that the police relied too heavily on the DNA evidence and build the case from the top down.

This is not to say that Kohberger didn’t do it.

But maybe he was a murderer for hire. Maybe there are other people involved. Maybe Kohberger knew people who had it in for the four Idaho students.

A better way to solve this case might be to compare all the people who own a white ELANTRA in the area with all the people who knew or who came in contact with the four Idaho students. Then compare those lists with all the people who had contact with Kohberger.

It might be fruitful.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2023 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

The Sham

Hey, look everybody, Bill Clinton’s coming to town. Let’s turn off our brains and participate in the sham.

One of the neatest tricks in politics occurs when former Presidents get out there on the stump for candidates currently running for political office.

Bill Clinton is coming to a town near me.

Barack Obama may be coming to a town near you.

It’s not just Democrats though; Republicans will play the same game.

So, when you see these politicians getting out there, it’s only natural for you to believe that the elections are real and that the elections matter.

Otherwise, if the whole game was rigged, why would they be out there?

I’ll give you a couple of reasons.

Number one, they have to continue the sham that your vote matters. If the sham is exposed as a sham, they would have to change the system. This they do not want to do. They are making too much money by it.

Number two, they don’t give a damn about your vote; they only care that their faction of the corporate gang gets to divvy up the perks.

What they’re saying is this: If our party wins, we get 2/3 of the perks. If the other party wins we only get 1/3.

Either way you the American people lose.

The government always gets in power.

It’s a gentleman’s agreement between the two parties.

Democracy is a sham.

It only exists to give you the illusion that you have a choice.

Unfortunately, you don’t have any choice at all because they’re both going to rip off the system, promote war as an economic model, and continue exploitation of workers abroad.

Hello, suckers!

You know this to be true in your guts.

You are in denial.

You are furiously pumping yourself up with slogans.

Consequently, there is this force that draws you to vote.

It is an inexorable force.

You say to your self: If I don’t vote, I can’t complain, and I can’t have any opportunity to change things.

Here’s a ticket on the clue train: You can complain, and even if you do vote, you won’t change things.

There are other ways to change the world.

Don’t get suckered into thinking that the only way is through politics.

You can change yourself by having a measure of self-respect.

Stop disrespecting yourself by participating in a sham.

Actually the elections have been shams since the day democracy was invented.

Over 200 years ago Napoleon and his brothers rigged plebiscites in France. Naturally they would win. They were so brazen they would rig the votes with even numbers. So Napoleon would win the elections by 16,000,000 to 4,000,000.

Talk about comedy!

The comedic act continued its roadshow into the United States during the last election of Joe Biden.

No serious person could possibly believe that a man sitting in his bunker, a man who had not energized his base, could possibly win.

I can tell you a stone cold fact. The success, as defined by turnout, of every party that I have hosted at my house or office has been directly correlated to the amount of energy that I put into promoting the party.

When you promote yourself, you have a greater chance of success. When you don’t promote yourself, you lessen your chance of success.

Joe Biden energized nobody in the 2020 election. He was not out there on the stump to any significant degree. His opponent, Donald Trump, no matter how much you detest him (and I do), did go out on the stump, and he did energize his base.

And yet, we are told that Joe Biden won the election.

That does not comport with reality or anything in my own experience.

The purpose of this letter is not to justify the illegitimacy of the 2020 election. The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate that democracy is a sham.

The elites figured out a long time ago how to rig the elections.

As Mark Twain stated over a century ago: If voting mattered they’d never let us do it.

Elections don’t matter, and they don’t care.

You won’t change a damn thing by voting.

The politicians didn’t go into politics to do what you want; they went into politics to do what they want.

They don’t see themselves as servants of the people; they see themselves as rulers of the people.

I don’t care what the Constitution says. I don’t care about the way it’s supposed to be.

That’s not cynicism; that’s hard earned reality.

Now, there’s an argument to be made that at least voting gives you the opportunity to change things.

That would be true only as long as the political class cared about you.

But when the political class has been hijacked by a Harvard Cabal that considers its own interests and its own immortality first, a place where noblesse oblige does not exist, that representation is not possible.

And that is the state of affairs in the United States today.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Who We Are

Follow this through.

As I may have stated before, my father died when I was 13 years of age. That produced a significant amount of trauma in our family’s life.

I was not immune to that trauma.

If that was the only trauma that I had suffered, I might’ve had a chance at a normal life.

I might have been able to get married and have kids.

The Lord took me in a different direction.

My mother remarried when I was 15 years of age, and that remarriage doubled the amount of trauma to my developing psychosexual identity.

Suddenly I inherited a stepfather and two step brothers, and we lived under the same roof.

It’s a strange thing to combine two families together.

It’s a tremendous adjustment, more so if you are in early to mid adolescence.

I know the transition was difficult on my older stepbrother Stevie, who turned to drugs.

It was tough for me even though I stayed away from drugs.

Combining two families is stressful. It’s nothing like you see on television.

Television portrays the combination of two families as a joyful, non-stressful event that the children are willing and gleeful to engage in.

Perhaps this is true for many families, but I suspect that for the majority of families the children are not desirous of their parent’s remarriage.

This is a true story.

Our combined families minus the parents were sitting around in our recreation room watching an episode of My Three Sons.

In this particular episode Steve Douglas, played by Fred McMurray, along with his soon to be bride named Barbara approach the children from both families in their living room and announce that they are getting married.

The children upon hearing the news immediately rise up in vigorous happiness and congratulate their parents.

When our real combined families saw this scene, there was a moment of silence before we all burst out in laughter.

It was obvious that none of the children from our combined family wanted our parents to get married.

There’s a reason for this.

In the developing child there are two forces, one from the father, and one from the mother, that are attempting to integrate with each other into a unique personality that is you.

The child desperately wants to integrate these forces into a nice tight integrated dovetailed joint.

Divorce and death weaken this joint. What you get is a weak unstable joint and, consequently, a weak unstable personality – one that is more fractured.

The older you are in adolescence, the stronger this joint is should the parents divorce, or should one parent die.

The earlier you are in adolescence, the weaker this joint becomes.

This is why trauma in the family affects younger adolescents more than it does older adolescents.

When this trauma hits, the child will do anything to preserve and strengthen this joint.

They definitely do not want their parents to remarry. That is a television fantasy.

In my case, this double hit from both my father’s death and my mother’s remarriage cause me to become more angry and introverted.

I lost all the socialization that normally takes place during high school years.

I participated in almost no activities. Sure, there were a few, but only a few.

There was an entire world of student parties and socialization that I was oblivious to.

It’s difficult to remember back on fifty years with extreme clarity, but I remember going through a decision process in my mind with regard to survival and direction in my life.

Somewhere in my subconscious I made a childlike decision, because I was a child, that close relationships could result in extreme pain should one of those relations die.

It would therefore cause me less pain emotionally if I was not closely attached to other people.

This is logical, but it is not normal logic. It’s aberrant because most people don’t think this way.

Nevertheless I was a child.

It therefore became logical to my childlike mind that if I never had any girlfriends, or by extension a wife, I could not have children. If I did not have a wife or children, they could not die on me. Therefore I would experience less pain.

Thus my child-like mind embraced this logic, and there grew within me a force that would automatically prevent me from interacting normally with the opposite sex even though I had a biological desire to do so.

I remember experiencing this force in high school. There was this girl that I liked and wanted to ask out, but I could feel this force within me preventing me from doing so.

This force has persisted throughout my life.

It feels at times as if I am missing a set of instructions, or if there is a blockage on a set of instructions within me.

It causes me to act awkwardly when I try to engage the opposite sex in a sexual way.

It is not a force that I can defeat.

It has become part of my integrated, aberrant personality.

This force is so strong that when I have tried to have sex with the opposite sex, my body shuts down.

It’s a protective mechanism gone awry.

I was able to obtain an erection by myself, but not with the opposite sex.

My body shuts down. There is nothing that I can do to control this.

This was frustrating to me when I was young, but now that I am older and understand what’s going on, I am not frustrated at all.

The mind of a child when undergoing stress in adolescence, when psychosexual identity is being forged, makes conclusions about life.

Those conclusions define who you are throughout your life. You cannot alter them.

I suspect that homosexuality, pedophilia, asexuality has its roots in the forging of psychosexual identity during adolescence.

People want to know why they are the way they are. I can only give you insight into the way that I am.

Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to know why he was the way he was.

Let’s put aside the notion that a hernia surgery caused by Jeffrey Dahmer to be the way he was. There is no evidence, nor will there ever be any evidence that a hernia surgery leads to this type of activity.

What we do know is that Jeffrey Dahmer‘s parents argued and fought constantly.

I suspect that the extreme trauma that he was undergoing during his early childhood and adolescence disrupted his integrating personality.

In an attempt to survive and stay alive, he made internal conclusions which became part of his personality. He reached out into his own experiences and used those experiences to form a psychosexual identity, unique to him, which permitted him to survive.

Of course these internal conclusions were flawed and aberrant. Of course these conclusions made and make no sense. He made these conclusions when he was a child.

Internally to him they made sense. To us they are flawed and aberrant.

He understood that his logic was aberrant to the rest of us, but to himself, the logic was valid.

In terms of his own body and psyche, his actions seemed right and valid. He understood that his actions were wrong in terms of the rest of society, but to his own self his actions were right, not wrong.

Similarly, in my case, my logic seems right to me in terms of my own survival. I understand that my logic is flawed in the broader context, but in terms of myself it is correct.

I bring this up to point out the flawed legal concept of knowing right from wrong.

Yes, Jeffrey Dahmer knew that you believed his actions were wrong, but in terms of himself, he believed his actions were right.

Much time is consumed in the legal system as to whether an individual who commits a crime knows right from wrong.

It’s a waste of time.

A person who commits a crime obviously feels within his own context that what he’s doing is right.

The only thing that counts in the legal system is what the majority of the people think.

In that sense, anybody who commits a crime, obviously has some psychological trait that is aberrant from the norm.

Why is this important?

It’s important because we then begin to realize that all crime and aberrancy has a psychological basis.

This realization then compels us to prevent this aberrancy to the highest degree possible.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

This realization also compels us to understand that much of aberrancy is not fixable.

You can’t fix me into being a normal functioning heterosexual unless you’re willing to send me to North Korea and have Kim Jong-un take me down to a baby and rebuild my personality, something you’re not willing to do.

You can’t fix a homosexual. They are who they are.

You can’t fix a pedophile. They are who they are.

You can’t fix Jeffrey Dahmer. He was who he was.

There is no rehabilitation possible. There is no conversion therapy that is going to work.

What you see is what you get.

What you can do, is prevent sexual aberrancy. What you can do is prevent aberrance of all types.

You can create a society where families are not stressed out economically. You can ensure an economy that works to provide more people more money.

You can create a more stable family structure. You can eliminate pornography as a force that affects children adversely.

You can delete society of mindless algorithms and standardized tests which place too much pressure upon adults and children.

You can treat stop treating people as numbers.

You can stop human resource departments from treating people as widgets.

Of course, you can’t prevent a parent who dies of a heart attack, but you can create a healthier society.

You can put high taxes on deep fried foods, and foods that contain high fructose corn syrup.

You can give monetary inducements to the Medicaid and Medicare populations for keeping their weight within certain limits.

You can put intelligent controls on all addictive drugs that would find the healthiest balance between the lowest addiction rates and the least amount of organized crime.

You can deemphasize gambling in the United States.

If we are going to have a service economy forever, we can mandate that workers in the service economy must make a living wage.

We can do a lot of things.

All of these public measures can impact the family and the developing child.

None of these measures can impact me and my particular psychosexual identity because I am old and because I am who I am.

But we may be able to prevent so many people from moving down aberrant pathways.

I will leave you with this analogy.

A developing psychosexual identity is akin to an offshore oil platform being built upon the sea.

As long as the sea is calm, the platform is fine. Everything is as it should be.

But what happens when an earthquake or rogue wave hits the platform.

The platform becomes destabilized.

The structures begin to waver up and down, and move from side to side.

The men on the platform become frightened and furiously move to stabilize the platform. They take whatever materials they have on hand and Gerry rig a solution.

The solution isn’t perfect; indeed, the solution is twisted and perhaps a little ugly.

But it works. It holds the platform together and enables the men to survive.

Well, this is what happens with a developing psychosexual identity that has been traumatized.

The only difference is that there’s no one to come around and rescue an individual.

The men on the platform can call for help, get on a boat and escape. Later the oil platform can be towed into port and rebuilt.

A human being can not.

What you see is what you get.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

You Made Your Bed

Dear Harvard graduate,

It’s not my fault that you went to Harvard.

You did that on your own.

You became seduced.

You became seduced by greatness.

You didn’t even know that you were being seduced.

You didn’t know because the seduction began when you were a small child.

You were roped into believing in the greatness of men.

As were we all.

You were regaled by the media of the supposed greatness of people like FDR, Eisenhower, Churchhill, and so forth.

Of course, they weren’t great men. They were robbers of people’s potential. They were puppets of the empire, and their true goal was to gain money and wealth for the powerful elite.

They did not stand up for the common man. Indeed, they compromised the common man through war and foreign exploitation.

These are the people who are talked about.

You wanted to be one of those people, and because you are smart, it was only natural that you could be one of them too.

To achieve this end, our society conditioned you to believe in the greatness of Harvard University and its ability to mold great men.

This is how you became seduced.

You wanted to be one of the people who are talked about.

You made a deal with the devil.

To be fair, you didn’t know that you made a deal with the devil. You were only seventeen years at the time.

But you did.

You went to Harvard, and the grooming stepped up a notch.

You began to meet important people at Harvard. Famous actors stopped by at the Hasty Pudding Club.

Maybe Tom Cruise. Maybe Brad Pitt.

Prominent politicians gave guest lectures.

Your professors personally knew the so-called movers and shakers in society.

Perhaps, you were even invited to parties and soirées where royalty was present.

Hey look, there is Prince William.

Gradually, gradually, gradually the Harvard machine indoctrinated you.

They roped you into the cult.

When you got married, an announcement was made in the New York Times. Then when you had a baby, that announcement was made as well.

The Sulzberger clan (the publishers of the NYT) are part of the Harvard machine. They engage in deep propaganda, so deep that you don’t even know you’re being propagandized.

Your name in the New York Times! Just think of it!

Why, you must be important! Why, you must be better than other people! Why, you must be a demigod!

Why, why, why you must even be God’s representative on Earth!

That’s a heavy experience.

When you went to apply for a job, large corporations took notice. The big guys coveted you.

You were put on the fast track, and you didn’t even know it.

Of course, you were doing it yourself, you convinced yourself.

How could it have been any other way, you reasoned.

When you wanted to write a book, it was a piece of cake for you to get an agent and a hearing with a major publishing house.

That’s what the Harvard machine can do for you.

It’s not just a school; it’s a connection network.

It’s not my fault that this happened to you.

It is my problem though.

And it’s your problem as well.

It’s your problem because you think that because you went on to Harvard, that you are going to be invited into the true power structure of the United States and by extension the world.

But you’re not.

The true power structure is only going to give you a taste of power.

For that taste of power, they are going to use you in their money making rackets.

If you are a politician, they will humiliate you, then, if they decide to do so, toss you away into the wastebasket.

Have you heard of the Rothschilds?

They are a very wealthy family, and they have a lot of power in the world.

One branch of the family lives in the United Kingdom.

According to Evelyn de Rothschild, the Rothschilds are not part of British aristocracy. Their family is too new. They have only been in England for a few hundred years. There are families who have been there eight hundred years.

How about your family, Mr. And Ms. Harvard graduate?

You came from regular people, didn’t you?

Do you seriously think that American aristocracy is going to let you run the place?

Think again.

Think of all the Harvard Cabal graduates who have been thrown under the bus by the ruling elite.

Bill Clinton, Scooter Libby, Henry Cisneros, and more.

How about Alexander Acosta? He was the lawyer who was working on the Jeffrey Epstein case in Florida. He was the one who got Jeffrey Epstein off on a light sentence.

Alexander Acosta’s political career is over. He couldn’t win a race for dog catcher in a one-man town.

I’m sure he wanted to go far in politics.

He’s not going to go far. He’s another guy who joined the cabal thinking that he was going to be in the power structure.

They used him.

I’m sure the cabal will take care of him in some way, but, alas, his name is ruined.

Is that what you want, Mr. and Ms. Harvard graduate?

Well, sorry to tell you, it doesn’t matter what you want anymore. That’s what you signed up for.

By now, you have already received many of the perks that the cabal can offer, and one of these days the cabal may ask you for a favor.

Here is my advice to you: if you want to retain your privileges, if you want to keep your first class ticket on the jet, you damn well better do what they tell you to do.

If you don’t do what they tell you to do, you’re going to find out just how important that cabal was to your success.

And it won’t be pretty for you.

That’s the reality. That’s what you bought into.

That’s the way it works.

You made your bed, you sleep in it.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Aaron Judge and Legacy

Soon Aaron Judge will break Roger Maris’s home run record for the Yankees.

Some are touting it as the real record for home runs in a season – 62.

They believe that Barry Bonds is not the true owner of the major league record for home runs in a season – 73 – because he was allegedly doing steroids.

They are wrong.

Barry Bonds is the legitimate owner of the major league record for home runs in a season on two levels.

First, the executives of Major League Baseball looked the other way during the steroid era. They knew that the players were doing steroids; they didn’t want to know that the players were doing steroids. They looked the other way because they liked the attendance records that the home runs were bringing in.

By looking the other way, by saying nothing, they gave approval to the use of steroids. By their silence they legitimized steroids. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

The fathers of Major League Baseball would like you to forget their role in the steroid era. They denounce players like Barry Bonds, and they now try to walk away from him and the other steroid users.

They bar them from the Hall of Fame through their sycophantic baseball writers.

Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. They don’t get to do that.

By saying nothing about the steroids, they hopped in bed with Barry Bonds (and the others) and legitimized their use.

Secondly, there’s nothing wrong with steroids in professional sports. If we are going to allow players to improve their vision with contact lenses, then steroids are just as legitimate.

If we are going to allow players to get ACL repairs and UCL reconstructions, then steroids are just as legitimate.

One set of cells in the human body does not have special rights over another set of cells.

If I am a baseball player who has excellent vision but average muscle strength, why am I not allowed to pump up my muscles to the level of Mickey Mantle?

Why is a poor-sighted player with natural muscular strength allowed to improve his vision, but another player with perfect vision is not allowed to improve his muscles through steroids?

Why does one set of cells in the body have greater privileges than another?

If we’re going to dismiss Barry Bonds’s record, then we have to dismiss all of Mickey Mantle’s records. From what I’ve been able to read Mickey Mantle would get loaded and drunk the night before the game, then he would take uppers before the game began.

Well, my friend those uppers are performance enhancing drugs. For that reason we have to throw out all of Mickey Mantle’s records.

Mickey Mantle cheated.

Is that what you want me to say?

I didn’t think so.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

A Letter to Michelle Obama

Dear Michelle,

Just yesterday I was watching a tape of you explaining to white people, I presume, that the reason we white people moved out to the suburbs was to get away from black people.

I will paraphrase. Try to imagine me doing an impression of you. That should be hysterical enough in itself.

“Y’ all were all trying to get away from us. We were doing all the things that we were supposed to do, and y’ all were moving away from us.“

I’d like to respond.

The white flight you are talking about occurred after World War II. This was when many young GIs were returning home from the war. It was also the time that major developers like William Levitt were building massive developments out in the suburbs.

These developments fit in nicely with the vamping up of the intrastate and interstate highway system which made it possible for people to drive their cars 25 miles away from an urban center.

Now here’s the kicker: Since most of us baby boomers were born after the war, we didn’t make any decision on going anywhere.

Being born in 1954, I didn’t have any choice of where my parents lived.

Given the parenting skills that existed in post World War II America, had I said anything, I would’ve been told to shut up.

I might also have been given a spanking.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, before permissive liberals ruined America, children didn’t dress up in black pajamas and lead their parents around with a machine gun.

Now, of course, we live in an era in which parents are completely dominated by their children.

Back in the day, parents told children what to do, where to go. And if you didn’t like it, tough darts.

Okay then, since we’ve established that baby boomers had almost zero choice and zero contribution when it came to white flight, let’s go back a generation and ask why the greatest generation engaged in white flight.

Were they racist?

Were they afraid of getting beat up by black people?

I doubt it.

The black community had not been thoroughly devastated yet. It would take Democrats running their welfare plantations three or four decades to accomplish that.

No, I think the greatest generation were afraid of another guy. I think that guy is why they left the inner-city if they ever lived there in the first place.

My dad grew up in the periphery of the Philadelphia area. Because his father was working for the railroad, he moved around a bit. For a time he lived in Wyncote. I know that he graduated from Cheltenham high school.

My mother grew up in Smyrna, Delaware which is a small town south of Philadelphia. There was no inner city there.

When they were young and poor my parents did live in West Philadelphia – 4244 Chestnut Street.

Between 1946 and 48, they lived in a one room apartment without a refrigerator. There was a private bath down the hall.

I don’t think they were afraid of people. I think people were afraid of them.

Soon after, my dad took a job at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. That’s where I was born.

When I was four years old, hardly in a position to make decisions for my family, we moved to the suburbs in Philadelphia. I grew up in Warminster.

Why did my parents move there? Was it to get away from you, Michelle?

I don’t think so. If they were trying to get away from anyone, they were probably trying to get away from Jimmy Markum.

Have you seen the movie Mystic River?

It’s a wonderful movie, and all the actors are marvelous.

In the movie Sean Penn plays Jimmy Markum.

Jimmy Markum is a tough guy who will kill people when he needs to. He plays a scary guy who sports what appears to be a prison tattoo on his back.

Laura Linney plays his lowlife, white trash wife who will readily support the evil shit that Jimmy does.

Jimmy Markum is a bad guy.

That’s probably who my parents were moving away from. In those days white people didn’t have to worry about black folk. They had enough on their hands with other white people.

Now, where we moved, there were a few black families around. I don’t remember my parents ever making a disparaging remark about black people.

One of my friends in grade school was a black boy named Dave. I didn’t have anything against him. I wasn’t raised to hate black folk.

In spite of all that, racial epithets were used freely in that era. I wasn’t immune from using them. Like all regular people, I used them. I’m not like the phony broadcasters and politicians who you hang out with, Michelle, the fakes who claim that they never uttered a racial slur, never smoked a joint, and never told a lie.

One time when we boys were playing cards I slipped and used the word nigger. I was trying to choose who would deal, and I said out loud: “Eeny meeny miny moe, catch a nigger by the toe.” I forgot that Dave was standing next to me. After I said that I looked at him, and he gave me this evil grin. Then he chased me around the room.

We were only twelve or thirteen, so I’m pretty sure we made up after that. Kids aren’t fundamentally racist.

And, unlike you and your friends, especially after you get your brains reverse-engineered by Harvard University, kids instinctively know that there’s a difference between barring someone from participating in an activity and calling someone a name.

It’s true that there was one or two people in our neighborhood who were afraid of black folk. I remember my sister telling me that her friend’s father said that he was going to sell his house if a black family moved in.

So I agree that there was a lot of fear going on. I agree that there was a lot of discrimination going on – even from William Levitt who would not allow blacks to live in his developments.

A side story to William Levitt is that he wouldn’t let Jews live in his developments either, and William Levitt was Jewish.

What do you make of that?

I think the people of the greatest generation had been programmed to believe that it was better to keep ethnic, racial and religious groups separate. I think they felt that many problems could be prevented by separating different groups. They probably felt that different sub-cultures when mixed would create more conflict and violence.

I don’t think it was overt hatred that motivated them.

I also don’t think that racial hatred motivated white people to move to the suburbs.

I think it was a combination of new areas opening up, the emergence of the automobile as a force in America to give people mobility, the creation of suburbs by people like William Levitt (yes, there is a Levitown in the Philadelphia area), and of course Jimmy Markum.

Don’t underestimate the power of Jimmy Markum. People don’t want to live around people who behave badly.

I think it’s too easy to say that white people were moving away from black people.

By the way, Michelle, why aren’t you living with the black gente who your husband represented all those years?

Why did you and Barack move to a white area on Martha’s Vineyard?

Didn’t you engage in what you accuse us of doing?

Sure you did.

You wanted to move away from Jimmy Markum.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

A Letter to the Republic Campaign of the UK

This letter was posted upon a YouTube site that the Republic Campaign runs out of the UK. The Republic Campaign is opposed to the monarchy.

Dear Sirs:

I admire you for speaking out. I don’t think that the authorities will allow you to substantively challenge the monarchy in a peaceful way, but I think you are brave in speaking out.

It’s important for young British minds to understand what the monarchy truly is. The monarchy is the glue that holds Criminal Corporate Britain together. The monarchy and the system of peerage is the focal point, the rallying point around which corporate Britain revolves. It has been that way for centuries.

You have your work cut out for you. You have to re-educate young British minds. The authorities will never permit you to do this within the school system. It will have to be done by word of mouth from house to house. They will censor your YouTube channels. They will censor your posts on Facebook. There is too much at stake for them to not do so.

Young British minds have to be told about the crimes of the British Empire. You have to deconstruct the hagiography that has been built up around frauds like Winston Churchill.  The programming is pervasive and goes deep into your movies and television shows.  It goes deep into the music industry as well. Look at people like Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney. They grew up as middle-class people who were crapped upon by the British upper class. Why would they seek any honors from that criminal sort?  Both these men, like eager puppies, readily lapped up the dog biscuits of empire.  They sold their souls to the elites for a few bucks.  Now they are part of the system that oppresses you.

Your fight in the United Kingdom is our fight in the United States also. We have people in the United States who are enthralled with the monarchy. Just the other day Tucker Carlson called the British Empire benign. Hardly. Talk to the people of Kenya and India about that.  The British Empire starved millions to death in India, Bengal, and Ireland. Then they blamed it on the people for breeding like rabbits. Knave Winston Dunghill was one of those voices.

Our leaders in the United States have cozied up to your monarchial upper class and have copied them. We Americans have perfected British brutality.  Our leaders here have killed 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people in Vietnam, 500,000 in Iraq, 500,000 in Syria, 200,000 between Afghanistan and Libya. They sponsored a war in Yemen that has killed conservatively 100,000 people.  We are not even talking about the millions of people who were forced to live as refugees in tents.

Sorry, I forgot about the walking wounded and the people afflicted with PTSD.

There is nothing benign about our American empire. We do not support democracy. We do not make people’s lives better. Indeed we prop up thugs by the dozens to run and maintain our sweatshops. Here’s a list, CNBC cocksuckers: Marcos, the Shah, Trujillo, Somoza, Diem, Suharto, Machado, Torrijos, Noriega, Armas, Zia, Pinochet, and any President of Colombia. The list goes on; the hits keep on coming.

We ensure that Haiti remain impoverished so that Levi Strauss can maintain its sweatshops. There the workers fight to make five dollars a day.

There is nothing pleasant about our American empire.

Likewise, there was and is nothing benign about the British Empire. It killed millions around the globe and subjugated millions more.  It forced the Chinese to purchase opium.

Unfortunately young British school children are not taught about these crimes. They are fed fantasies about obese slobs like Churchill. Here in the USA, MIT fuckers like Joe “Society Destroyer” Kiernan lounge around the CNBC coffee table and reflect casually upon the “wisdom” of Dunghill and what he had to say about a particular situation – as if anyone should listen to a murderer like Knave Winston.

Too many people in the United Kingdom believe that the monarchy is populated by smiling, powerless doofuses and  screw ups. Knave Andrew is the poster boy for this sales pitch. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The monarchy is much more powerful than that. It is powerful because Criminal Corporate Britain revolves around that monarchy. The monarchy is the organizing influence of corporate criminality in Britain and the world.

Our leadership in the United States, once horrified by the crimes of the British Crown and well-aware of the writings of Thomas Paine, now are co-opted puppets of the Harvard Cabal which sucks the royal cock of England.

It’s not enough for people to just donate money, then walk away. They must obligate themselves to be a soldier and tell people the truth.

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Letter to Steven Hanke

This is Steve H. Hanke. He hates Bitcoin.

Does he look like a man who would respond to my email?

Not to me. He is too important.

So I will write a letter for him to you. This is in response to an article he wrote for National Review which proclaims Bitcoin a failed experiment in El Salvador.

Clearly Professor Hanke is an officer of the Empire. He has a million and one credentials. He is everything I am not. So here goes …

Dear Professor Hanke,

Hello,

I am reading your recent article that proclaims Bitcoin a failure in El Salvador.  Your arguments border somewhat on mania.  I definitely detect a bias; but you are an economist, and, alas, I am not, so it’s possible you know much that I am not aware of.

1.  You state that Bitcoin was forced upon the people of El Salvador, yet only 20% of businesses there accept Bitcoin. Accepting that as the case, how is it possible then for Bitcoin to have caused such economic travail for El Salvador?

2.  You state that the cost of implementing Bitcoin was 100 million dollars, correct?  You also state that the value of that Bitcoin is now 48 million dollars.  Is that about right?  If so, it seems a stretch to state that a 52 million dollar loss is enough to crater a country whose annual government budget is about 5.5 billion. 52 million divided by 5.5 billion is 1%. Are you stating that a 1% loss is enough to crater an economy? Applying El Salvador’s presumed loss to Archer Crosley Pediatrics, my profession, would you state that Archer Crosley’s poor choice in purchasing a fur-lined sink (Steve Martin), costing 1% of his budget, cratered Archer Crosley’s pediatric practice thus prompting his lender to panic?

3.  Is it possible that the downgrade in El Salvador’s creditworthiness is in retaliation for its decision to adopt Bitcoin?  Or are there other reasons for the downgrade in creditworthiness? Maybe the government is engaging in forms of corruption that is responsible for the downgrading of creditworthiness?

4.  If adopting the dollar was a magic cure for an economy, then why is there massive inflation in other economies that have adopted the dollar either officially or unofficially?

5. If using Bitcoin in El Salvador is only one of many options in employing currency, then how is that bad for El Salvador? Doesn’t adopting Bitcoin give El Salvador greater flexibility? What is wrong with that?

6. Since, according to your resume, you are a currency expert and connoisseur, why do you object to Bitcoin? What precisely is your beef with Bitcoin? Shouldn’t people and governments be given the free will choice to either adopt or reject Bitcoin?

7. You state that Bitcoin is a speculative investment? You are right on the money with that. But is that the fault of Bitcoin? Or is Bitcoin’s high speculativeness the consequence of man’s desire to get rich? Who is at fault here?

8. Isn’t it true that Bitcoin’s value has risen over its short lifetime?

9. Doesn’t Bitcoin offer a greater degree of fungibility over gold and silver? How is this a bad thing?

10. I notice that you were involved in taming Argentina’s inflation decades ago. Suppose Bitcoin was used in all economies of the world in the future as a backup reserve to buffer inflation. Suppose that in this future we reach a point where all the Bitcoin that can be mined has been mined. Would such an adoption of Bitcoin be a good thing or a bad thing? If Argentina had possessed such an option during the Mexican peso devaluation, could the resurgence in hyperinflation in Argentina have been avoided?

11. Shouldn’t the addition of Bitcoin on a limited basis in El Salvador (clearly the case in El Salvador) increase people’s confidence in Team El Salvador?

12. If everyone in El Salvador kept 10% of their net worth in Bitcoin wouldn’t that give them some form of a safety net to protect themselves against hyperinflation? Wouldn’t that be a better option than sequestering one-hundred dollar bills? Wouldn’t that adoption help preserve wealth for El Slavadorans thus obviating pressure upon the government to print money? Won’t the adoption of Bitcoin help mitigate future rioting?

13. If Sri Lankans had been invested in Bitcoin to a value of 10% of their wealth, would that have been good or bad for Sri Lankans?

14. Why is El Salvador talking to the IMF? Isn’t it true that El Salvador’s decreased creditworthiness is largely due to excessive government spending and not the purchase of a measly one hundred million dollars of Bitcoin? And why is the IMF pressuring El Salvador to move away from Bitcoin? Why does the IMF care? Doesn’t Bitcoin make El Salvador more resilient and therefore more able to pay back IMF loans? Or is there some truth to what people say about the IMF: that its loans are designed to fail so that the US, CA, AU, NZ and GB can buy a country’s precious assets on the cheap? If that is the case, doesn’t Bitcoin represent a threat to the scam that the IMF has been running?

15. Were you pressured to trash Bitcoin through loss of position or prestige? Were you asked to trash Bitcoin? Do you stand to gain financially or otherwise by trashing Bitcoin?

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley, MD

Pediatrician

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

A Bad Brand of Political Discussion

The other day Tucker Carlson told us that Greg Gutfeld had surpassed Stephen Colbert in the ratings.

Apparently this is the first time that a cable show has defeated a network show in the ratings.

We are supposed to celebrate.

Are you worried?

You should be.

As a conservative let me say this, Gutfeld is one of the most inane shows I have ever seen in my life.

If this is the future, count me out.

Through his show, Gutfeld dumbs down the American public.

His sarcastic comedy is a cheap substitute for serious discussion.

Moreover, Gutfeld recruits people into the political process who should never be there in the first place.

Politics should be boring, boring, boring.

We want it boring so that people who don’t know what they’re talking about, people who don’t read books, will go away and focus their time on the Kardashians.

By making politics exciting and funny, Gutfeld recruits clueless boobs into the voting booths.

These people will be enticed into thinking that they know the issues.

These people will then actually vote.

Gutfeld is not giving us an intelligent alternative to Stephen Colbert, he is replicating Stephen Colbert for a different group of people – conservatives.

This is bad news for us.

We don’t need any more Stephen Colberts, John Stewarts, Bill Mahers, or people of this ilk.

Nor do we need more Greg Gutfelds.

We actually need none of them.

When you watch these shows, you don’t learn anything new. All you learn are jokes.

These shows don’t cater to the truth; they cater to the cheapest quick gimmick that will gain laughs and applause.

Instead of experts or people who know what they’re talking about, you get pseudo experts in the form of Gutfeld’s friends.

You also get SNL type skits, lots of chuckling, jokes, and sexual innuendo.

It’s a morning zoo type atmosphere producing a wall of sound designed to entertain, not inform.

The Important point about all this is that legitimate criticism of establishment ideas is not even permitted. For example, both sides in the political debate nonchalantly accept without pause that Putin is the bad guy when it comes to Ukraine. Gutfeld isn’t challenging Colbert about Putin’s nature; he is opposed to sending billions to Ukraine.

Well, hold on a minute, shouldn’t Gutfeld be talking about why Putin is invading in the first place? Shouldn’t he be talking about NATO’s encroachment into Russia’s sphere of influence? Shouldn’t he talk about Ukraine’s violation of the Minsk Accords? Of course he should, but he doesn’t.

Maybe Putin isn’t the bad guy.

Uh oh, danger, Will Robinson, that’s an unapproved thought!

Both Gutfeld and Colbert both turn politics into a sporting match.

What you are watching is the Kansas City Chiefs versus the Las Vegas Raiders.

Both shows will oppose each other on every issue.

There will never be any common ground.

But what if both sides are wrong?

Perhaps the right move for Gutfeld is not to oppose Stephen Colbert on a particular issue with the cheapest of arguments, but to jettison the battle altogether.

Or better yet, to agree with the other side.

Let’s look at a particular example.

Why is it necessary for Gutfeld’s guests to reflexively oppose student loan relief?

Why not bring on educators, university presidents, and experts on education who can explain why tuition costs escalated so rapidly, and what schools did with the money.

Why why not just ask questions?

Young people on the right should not be herded into the cattle pen of mindless reflexive opposition to everything a Democrat says.

Nor should young people on the left be herded into the cattle pen of mindless reflexive opposition to everything a Republican says.

Both should be encouraged to ask questions and to gravitate toward the truth that the answers to those questions reveal.

A Republican party is not made stronger by opposing everything that the Democratic Party stands for.

Nor is a Democratic Party made stronger by opposing everything that the Republican party stands for.

Both Gutfeld and Colbert weaken the electorate by inviting you to mindlessly oppose the opposition.

They do it through jokes and stunts.

You don’t win a contest by relying on tricks.

You win a game by consistently hitting solid shots.

Democracy only works with an informed electorate.

Gutfeld and Colbert do not substantively inform the electorate.

Let me illustrate exactly how their shows do damage.

To begin with, both Gutfeld and Colbert are owned by Corporate America.

Essentially then Corporate America is foisting mob rule on the American electorate through Greg Gutfeld and Stephen Colbert.

Let’s say that in a world without comedians controlling politics there is an issue in which ten million people care enough to educate themselves. Let us suppose that those ten million people are divided evenly according to their political persuasion. There are five million people on the right, and there are five million people on the left.

Suppose on this particular issue though, eight million people believe that we should choose X as a solution whereas two million people believe we should choose Y as a solution.

Enter Gutfeld and Colbert who mob up fifty million people on each side to mindlessly oppose each other.

Suddenly the disparity dissipates. There are now 58 million people who believe that we should choose A as a solution whereas 52 million people people believe that we should choose Y as a solution.

The politicians will now look at the polling data and say that it’s pretty close to a tossup as to which solution should be chosen.

America is deeply divided, the politicians will now say as they do nothing.

Corporate America has now once again controlled the politician’s mind. Of course, Corporate America already owns the politician, but now Corporate America has made it much easier for the politician to do whatever Corporate America wants them to do given that opinion is pretty much divided.

Moreover, since Corporate America controls both shows, Corporate America can shift opinion by controlling the show’s availability, content and focus. For example, Corporate America may decide to tell Colbert to back off an issue while allowing Gutfeld to go crazy. Thus an 8 million to 2 million disparity in favor of Colbert might be converted to a 8 million to 32 million disparity in favor of Gutfeld!

This is the danger of Gutfeld and Colbert and the brand of political discussion they offer.

It doesn’t work for you; it works for the people who control the media.

The people who take the time to read books and keep informed about the issues whether right or left are rubbed out and tossed to the side of the road by the ignorant, raging mob – all in the name of democracy.

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Sex, Drugs and Hollywood Celebrities

A recent discussion on Quora centered around Jack Nicholson and his wild parties on Mulholland Drive when he was a younger man.

Apparently at these parties there was sex and drugs to be found in every room of the house.

I remarked that Jack Nicholson and others in Hollywood were the straw that broke the camel’s back for many young people who were living on the edge.

I argued that he was a poor role model that helped transform America into the sex and drug crazed culture that it is.

How many of these people would have led productive lives instead of becoming drug addicts, I wondered.

Furthermore, I added, since it was at Jack Nicholson‘s house that Roman Polanski engaged in illegal activity with a minor, perhaps Jack Nicholson should’ve been charged as an accessory before the fact for creating an “anything goes” environment that might have contributed to such an act.

Another individual on Quora remarked that he was glad that Jack Nicholson was able to lead the life that he could, that it wasn’t Jack Nicholson‘s responsibility to be a role model for anyone.

I disagree.

It doesn’t matter whether Jack Nicholson wanted to be a role model or not; when you aspire to be a movie star, and then do become a movie star, you accept that responsibility as a role model whether you like it or not.

That’s part of the job.

You enjoy even greater responsibility in a day and age where our media has become more centralized and under the control of relatively few individuals.

And that is precisely what happened as our nation evolved in the past century.

The elites consolidated their death grip upon the media, and they set out with a vengeance to destroy the moral base of the people of the United States of America.

Morality, you see, which owes obedience to a higher power such as God, is an obstacle to the imposition of ethics, a quasi-legal code, whose rules the elites will decide.

Thus the drive to eliminate the moral base of the nation.

This was accomplished though celebrity influencers.

The sexual revolution that occurred in the 1960s and subsequent decades in America was not an accident.

It was not homegrown.

It did not begin with the people and grow upwards.

It was the powers that be who control the Hollywood celebrities who engineered the sexual revolution.

The 1950s were very tame in America. That was to change in the 1960s.

This is when shows first began to express sexual innuendo. There was hardly an episode of Johnny Carson‘s Tonight Show that did not contain such titillating fare.

Johnny Carson was instrumental in mainstreaming people like Hugh Hefner. Recently in the past year, Hugh Hefner was reported by one of his lovers to have had sex with dogs – real dogs.

Big surprise.

Prior to the 1960s, sex was a verboten subject on television and in movies. You couldn’t even hint that a husband and wife shared one bed. The couple had to sleep in separate beds.

The 1960s ushered in an “anything goes” type of programming.

It’s not surprising that magazines like Playboy thrived. Playboy was the first. This was soon followed by magazines such as Penthouse and Hustler which were more over the top when it came to nudity and sexuality.

While this might seem to be an enlightened, healthy approach to sex, one could fairly argue that the sexual revolution ushered in a state of permissiveness that hurt many people living on the edge – financially and spiritually speaking.

Some people went too far.

One cartoon that was featured regularly in Hustler magazine was entitled Chester the Molester.

Many people at the time thought it was funny.

I don’t see it that way. 

I see it as encouraging bad behavior amongst people living on the fringes. The cartoon gave them license to engage in immoral activity.

Magazines like Hustler helped give rise to the legitimizing of the pornography industry.

Prior to the 1960s, adult bookstores were kept quiet and not spoken about. They were there, but they weren’t there.

As the decades progressed into the next century, pornography became mainstreamed.

Unfortunately, there are many people in the United States who do not come from good families. Many of these families are financially hurting.

Financial stress upon the family produces divorce and separation. This in turn produces a lot of angry children who are looking to channel their anger. These young people are extremely susceptible to bad influences.

Young adolescents are undergoing tremendous psychosexual growth when they experience this familial stress.

If you throw pornography into the mix, that child will be affected by that pornography. That child’s mind will be altered.

You as an adult may form an opinion about pornography; in contrast, pornography forms an opinion within your child.

I will argue that much of the social ills that we have today with pedophilia have their roots in the sexual revolution being imposed upon young troubled adolescents as they were undergoing rapid psychosexual development.

Pornography twists the mind.

Not only does pornography twist the mind, illegal drugs have their effects as well.

I have personally seen how illegal drugs destroyed my step-brother Stevie, who was hurting immensely after his parent’s divorce.

I myself had my sexual development affected by the pornography that I was exposed to as a youth. The father of a friend of mine was a big collector of pornography. My friend and I would sneak in and view his sex magazines. As I grew a little older in my adolescence, another boy brought over what were called smokers – low grade pornographic films. Many of the boys gathered around to watch these.

The people in these smokers were not like the beautiful people you see in pornographic films today; the guys were usually super-hairy and not very attractive.

I remember being somewhat frightened by these movies and images; and looking back on my life now and my ability to not get close to people – I’m an asexual – I feel my sexual development was affected by this pornography.

Like my step-brother, Stevie, I was suffering also. My father died when I was thirteen making my mind ripe for being adversely affected by poor forces of influence.

I didn’t suffer from drugs; my experience was different. As I say, I was an asexual.

The experience is different for many people.

If you examine the lives of many mass murderers, you will often find, if you dig deep into their history, a broken home. I wouldn’t be surprised if many pedophiles came from a broken home. I have read that Jeffrey Dahmer’s parents went through an acrimonious divorce when he was young. Kevin Spacey’s brother states that Kevin was brutally molested by his father when he was young.

A culture of sex and drugs harms those people who come from broken homes.

This is the culture that people like Jack Nicholson, Hugh Hefner, Larry Flint, and Bob Guccioni were aiding and abetting.

The sexual revolution didn’t do any favors for young people who were exposed to it.

Free and open sex may seem like an enlightened idea for mature adults; it is not an enlightened idea for young children and troubled adolescents who are developing.

That is why I posed the question: How many young children living on the edge have had their lives destroyed by sex and drugs when they otherwise would have invested their time and energy into studying, working, and being a productive citizen?

A lot.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved