PeeJ Opinions: Discussing topics relating to what we do
UPDATE: - Unsurprisingly, it turns out that the reporter in question is a hardcore pedophile, not a homosexual. Jump to the bottom for more information.

Two common myths embodied in one unique example

There is a myth common to the American public. One that has been pervasive since the founding of the American Republic. This myth has held strong despite historical examples battering it. William R. Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer at base, started a war with Spain based on exaggerated lies in print. J. Edgar Hoover took advantage of this common myth in order to bring hell to his enemies and praise to his friends. Throughout American history, the idea that print media is the most trustworthy form of media has held strong. Unfortunately, as anyone who has dealt with the media knows... it's simply not.

We are victimized all-too-often by the agenda of print reporters. Reporters who have an angle, reporters who cause truth to fall victim to the lies of their pen. Usually we ignore it. A few times, we've documented it. On one such occasion, a print reporter approached us to do a "print GMB", a group media bust to be documented by their paper. We declined. They smeared us in an article. A year later, our evidence was used to get a high-powered Cincinatti defense attorney arrested. His personal "pal" of the opposite sex then launched into a campaign using her journalistic "stroke" to try to smear us and get our organization shut down. We prevailed as we found out her agenda and publicized it before she even had a chance to haul us through the "journalistic" mud. Her "close friend" later pled no contest and is now a registered sex offender.

We've been down these roads, it's a fact of life when you deal with print reporters. Some are well-meaning, but many are not. They know that the general public doesn't care to read a story of praise, they want a story of negativity or cynicism. They want dirt, not shine. In general. print reporters feed this want by reporting their version of the facts, rather than verifiable evidence. Usually the stories don't annoy us all that much... after all, people will read them, come to our website and figure out that they're literal bubkis.

However there are some reporters and some stories that just drive you mad with their lies, their spin and their twisted agenda. The reporter we're going to talk about today is a man named Bill Andriette of the Canadian newspaper and online E-zine "Xtra" and online magazine "The Guide." Xtra is published by "Pink Triangle Press", a non-profit organization that claims to be "born out of and committed to the struggle of lesbians and gay men for sexual liberation and human fulfillment." Bill Andriette is the features editor for Xtra West's sister magazine, "the Guide."

He is also a deceitful scummy asshole.

But why? Because he wrote something negative about us? Not hardly. We've had that happen enough that it's akin to water on a duck's back. No, he is a deceitful scummy asshole because he is a confirmed liar. He lies to the homosexual community he writes for in order to do what we term "the only unpardonable sin." That being the comparison of homosexuals to pedophiles. He literally tries to fool his audience into believing that Verizon is anti-gay because they disconnected pedophile websites from the internet.

Read his article at the following link for full context: Full article "Unacceptable Use."

As quoted from the article:
Epifora is a Montreal-based internet service provider (ISP), whose home page promises "respect for client privacy" and tolerance of "controversial speech." The company's clients host a number of queer websites and chatboards, some of which have been online for more than a decade and have gained loyal audiences.

By Nov 3, Epifora's edgy queer websites were offline.

Within a few days of news of the impending cut-off, one website on the Epifora network about queer intergenerational relationships had raised $30,000 in pledges for a legal defence fund.

How far would Verizon go to eliminate edgy gay content--and edgy gays--from use of its networks?

We've dealt with lying assholes before, but this guy takes the cake. First off, he's referencing Epifora and a website called in particular in his paragraphs. First, Epifora hosted over 38 pedophile websites. Ranging from websites such as the "Christian BoyLove Forum" to "The GirlChat GirlLove Forum" to the most known of all, BoyChat itself has nothing to do with homosexuality. Female pedophiles who are oriented towards boys can post on BoyChat, just as male pedophiles who are oriented towards boys can.

But really, what sort of content was Epifora hosting? I can TELL you that they were hosting pedophile content, but then you have this asshole Andriette telling you it was hosting "edgy gay content." So who do you believe? Well, as we like to do, we let the screenshots do the talking for us.

Click to enlarge

Nothing advocating an illegal act there!

Click to enlarge

Here is some more of what he defends in his article, this was posted on GirlChat, a website formerly hosted by Epifora. What is "edgy" and "gay" about an older man talking in detail about how he is targeting a six year old girl sexually? We know a lot of gay men and we can't think of ANY of them that look at six year old females sexually. Perhaps that's something Bill Andriette does, but it's not something the vast majority of gay men do. Then again, We're not sure Andriette actually knows what a homosexual person is.

Click to enlarge

Again, we're not sure what is "edgy" and "gay" about this screenshot either. To the average eye, it appears that a grown man is wondering if he would be arrested if he answered the door to little kids doing the usual Halloween tradition while nude. Mind you, that wouldn't just be exposing himself to underage males, but females as well. What's gay about this? Do gays really need to be libeled as pedophiles by editors at magazines targeted towards them?

Click to enlarge

Yeah, Epifora websites were definitely not advocating child-rape. Oh, definitely weren't!

Click to enlarge

Yep. This is what Bill Andriette defends. Pedophile websites that advocate child-rape and racist diatribes and attacks on those who oppose them. Savvy readers of his piece should have noticed that Andriette linked nothing, had no screenshots and offered no evidence backing up his illegitimate assertions that Verizon "censored" mere "edgy gay content." His smearing of them is in essence a smearing of our organization, alleging that we target homosexual content and that we're by extension, anti-homosexual.

Nevermind that we're the one anti-pedophile organization on the planet that will accept homosexual volunteers at the highest level of the website. Nevermind that we're smart enough to only allow actual gay volunteers to bring evidence against same-sex pedophiles. Nevermind that we're pretty much the only anti-pedophile organization on the planet that will actively blast the assertion that homosexuals and pedophiles are two sides of the same coin. Yes, forget these facts, we're now supposedly "anti-queer" because we target websites that advocate child-rape.

There are only three groups of people on the planet that compare pedophilia to homosexuality with sincerity. Only three groups that believe a different yet extremely common myth that crosses all national borders. Those three groups are as follows...

1. Drunk Rednecks - They're ignorant and they're hateful. What can you expect?
2. Hardcore Religious - Some religious people hate homosexuals so they compare them to anything that will "demonize" them further to believers and non-believers alike. No perspective, no scientific analysis, nothing.
3. Pedophiles Themselves - Pedophiles will compare themselves to homosexuals in order to accomplish two things, to get the homosexual community "on their side" through this invalid comparison and to try to build residual sympathy based off societies view towards homosexuals.

Those are the three groups. There are no others on this planet that will compare homosexuals to pedophiles outside of these three groups. They are the only three. If someone compares homosexuality to pedophilia, it's usually not hard to figure out which group they belong to. It's one of the most repugnant things someone can do verbally or in print. It is a terrible, noxious offense. But why? Why is it so wrong, and how is it a completely wrong statement to make?

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. It means that one is oriented to a specific same-sex, one's own gender. It means nothing outside of this. You are romantically, physically and sexually attracted to your own gender. Just the flip side of the coin from heterosexuality, the attraction to the opposite gender. Now, as subsections of these orientations, you have what is known as fetishes. A fetish is a specific attraction to a specific sex act or a specific aspect of a person or thing that has nothing to do with their personality or gender. We all know people with fetishes. They range from dangerous to harmless.

Some common examples of fetishes are oh, people who are attracted to feet, or people that get off due to say, urination during sex. These things typically are harmless (yet usually disturbing to the average person) acts between consenting adults. However, some fetishes are quite harmful. Those attracted to having sex with animals, Beastials, are an example of a harmful and quite sick fetish. As well, those individuals who are pedophiles are much the same as Beastials. Two groups of fetishists that are attracted to having power of an "innocent" creature with harmful intentions and results. They're attracted not to personality, but to that specific aspect. To claim a pedophile is akin to a homosexual is to claim that a Beastial is akin to a heterosexual. Or that a necrophile, one who lusts after dead people, is the same as heterosexuality!

To claim, whether you are redneck, religious or a pedophile that pedophilia is an orientation is to claim that every fetish on the planet is an orientation. Suddenly they're no longer "foot fetishists" on the planet... they're Podiasexuals. No more necrophiles... they're Deceasosexuals. Ani-sexuals? Each and every mere fetish would become a full-blown orientation. Feces-sexual, Urine-sexual, Furrysexual, the list would never end. Hell, we'd even have to take the Beastials and subdefine them out due to the specific animal they've sexualized.

Sounds like a great world if we walk down that path, right? Not to us. We know better. Pedophile is a fetish, some pedophiles prefer boys and some pedophiles prefer girls... some just don't care as long as they're young and impressionable. Once again, akin to foot fetishists... some prefer female feet, some prefer male feet... some just prefer any feet. Mental disorders that have, for whatever reason, sexualized certain aspects of life in their mind to a extreme degree. The vast majority of males we catch that are seeking underage boys to have sex with are married with children.

People like Bill Andriette who try to slur the homosexual community by equating them to pedophiles are trying to set back the homosexual community to the fifties. They're literally dragging millions of people through the mud. No different than what a Jerry Falwell would do, no different than what a Mark Foley did. No different than the loud drunk on the corner who screams "faggot" when they see a pedophile arrested on To Catch a Predator for showing up to meet an underage boy. These three types of people are all the same, there's no difference between a Bill Andriette or a Falwell or that guy on the corner. They're all libelous of the nature of homosexuality and pedophilia, and they all advance the organized pedophile agenda.

As scornful as one is of the random ignorant person who screams it, one should be just as scornful as the dishonest and disgusting print reporter who writes it. A man like Andriette is more dangerous than the ignorant guy on his couch, he's more dangerous than someone who is far more upfront with his biases like a Falwell... he's more dangerous because he sneaks around trying to influence via sleight-of-pen, trying to sway with lies and purposeful mischaracterizations. He'll be successful too, because of the common myth we spoke of to start the article, people all-too-often simply read and believe, they don't demand more than casual editorial evidence.

We merely ask that you not tolerate such purposeful deception by a print reporter. Take a stand against lies and deception, contact the paper's president, the paper's publisher or the paper's C.O.O. and let them know that you don't appreciate a reporter or editor that would twist the facts and create spin in order to either promote the pedophile agenda or tear at the acceptance of homosexuals in society. Or hell, that they'd support such a person that would twist any fact or spin any lie in order to harness deception for any reason.

It's far too common in print and far too common for the public to just accept it, whether the reporter be a Pulitzer, Hearst or a modern day version of such.

UPDATE: - Bill Andriette is actually a hardcore pedophile. We didn't google his name last night before writing this article, something we usually do. As stated in the article, people that compare homosexuals to pedophiles fall into one of three groups. We implied that Bill Andriette is a pedophile with that statement, since he's definitely not religious nor a redneck.

Well, it turned out that Bill Andriette doesn't need to be implied that he's a pedophile since he's a hardcore member of NAMBLA and was the former editor of their newsletter. What the fuck a non-homosexual like Bill Andriette is doing editing anything for any gay magazine anywhere is beyond us. Pedophiles are not homosexuals and Bill Andriette is not a homosexual. We wondered openly if Andriette even knew what homosexuality was... and we were right to wonder so.

Source: Boston Magazine
"Today, we are seen as worse than murderers," says long-time NAMBLA member Bill Andriette, who sits, unshaven and shoulders hunched, across the table from Socrates. Andriette joined NAMBLA in 1981, when he was 15. "But if I was 15 today, I don't think I would join NAMBLA. NAMBLA itself has become pretty irrelevant, except as a symbol invoked by its enemies."

Slick. So I guess the real question is... why is a non-homosexual the features editor for a gay magazine? That is just about the craziest thing we've seen in a while. Once again, it just goes to show you how little you can trust print media sources to be upfront and honest.

Return to