A Guide to Pedophile Accelerationism
For pedophiles, it’s hard to come to terms with the realities of the times we live in.
If, for most of human history, sexual contact between children and adults (AMSC) has been entirely permissible… If we have scientific evidence that such contact is not inherently harmful and that, in most cases, the harm is actually iatrogenic and due to stigma… how have we ended up living in a society that persecutes pedophiles? Well, we’ve been unlucky. We happen to be living at the height of this moral panic.
I mean… even looking at pictures is a serious crime punishable by many years in prison. In the future, people will look back on this the way we now look back on the witch hunts. Because yes, the witch hunts came to an end. This, too, will end (and perhaps, with any luck, it won’t be replaced by another equally absurd moral panic. Maybe at some point humanity will stop imprisoning, lynching, and torturing its fellow human beings using any old nonsense as an excuse).
What many of us are wondering is: when will it end? Because the idea that it will end in two centuries—though better than nothing—doesn’t offer us much comfort. We’d much rather see this end while we’re still alive to witness it, so that we can live in a world where we’re free.
I’ve come to believe that the only real possibility for pedophilia to become normalized (except in unlikely, apocalyptic scenarios—you know, like a Third World War breaking out, society collapsing entirely, and new societies emerging with a completely different mindset) is through the actions of those who claim to be fighting it.
By constantly accusing everyone of pedophilia—and doing so with increasingly loose criteria that no longer align with the original definition of people who are attracted to prepubescent children—they are normalizing it.
Furthermore, their actions cause enormous suffering to those accused of pedophilia, to children, and to their loved ones… so there will come a point when this suffering increases so much that it will be impossible not to see that cracking down on pedophilia causes far more suffering than allowing it. Unfortunately, things will have to get even worse before they start to get better.
And this is where accelerationism comes in. If we want this process to be completed in a matter of decades rather than centuries, we should try to accelerate it as much as possible. And the purpose of this text is to explain how we can do that.
We have to be the majority
Strength lies in numbers. So perhaps the most important thing is to expand the definition of pedophilia as much as possible, so that pedophiles make up the majority of the population.
Pedophiles probably make up barely 1% of the population—perhaps 2–3% if we include those who have some pedophilic thoughts but are more attracted to adults. Currently, pedophiles are considered public enemy number one. So, at first glance, victory seems impossible. How could the most hated 1% of the population make the world the way they want it to be?
But if we also consider those who are attracted to minors who have just entered puberty to be pedophiles, we’re probably already talking about more than 5-10% of the population.
If those who are attracted to adolescents in the midst of puberty are also pedophiles, they would surely account for more than 20-25% of the population.
If being attracted to teenagers who have already gone through puberty or are about to do so but haven’t yet turned 18 makes you a pedophile, then it’s possible that more than half the population is a pedophile.
If a 19-year-old who dates a 17-year-old is a pedophile… if a person over 25 who dates a 19-year-old is a pedophile… if a 50-year-old who is attracted to a 20-year-old is a pedophile… then probably more than 90% of the population are pedophiles. And then victory will be inevitable.
This process has already begun. In fact, it is quite far along. For a long time now, almost no one has considered pedophilia to be limited solely to attraction to prepubescent children: basically, no one doubts anymore that an adult man attracted to an 11-year-old girl is a pedophile, even if the girl is already menstruating and her breasts are already developing. Very few people now doubt that an adult man attracted to a 13-year-old girl is a pedophile, even if her breasts are already larger than those of some adult women. The definition of pedophilia has already expanded significantly… but it needs to expand even further.
How can we broaden the definition of pedophilia?
I’m going to focus mainly on the internet because, these days, political discourse is shaped primarily online, but this also applies to in-person conversations.
Keep in mind that doing this carries no social cost and poses no serious risk. Calling other people pedophiles will earn you more applause than anything else. So there’s no need to do this from an anonymous account: you can do this from profiles that show your name and your face, and it’ll come across better that way.
Advocate for raising the age of consent—to 21 or 25. The nonsense about the prefrontal cortex still fools a lot of people.
Depending on the image you want to project, it might also be a good idea to propose harsher punishments. Talk about castration, the death penalty, and woodchippers—for some reason, woodchippers have become very popular. This part of the speech might not go over as well in more liberal circles, which tend not to support these measures as much… but even in those circles, calling for harsher sentences and the social ostracism of pedophiles can be effective.
But above all, accuse as many people as you can of being pedophiles. To do this, you can take advantage of some current narratives:
-The feminist narrative, which focuses on the idea that any age difference where the man is older than the woman is automatically traumatic and harmful to the woman—and the man is a pedophile, of course. Talk about “power imbalance” as much as you can.
If you’re a woman, it’s much easier for you to push this narrative. No one expects a woman to be a pedophile. Coming from a woman, it’s very easy to push the idea that age differences in a relationship amount to pedophilia.
It’s about gradually broadening the definition, but you have to carefully gauge just how far to take it. Saying “if a 16-year-old dates a 15-year-old, they’re a pedophile and should be locked up” isn’t going to fly. But with age gaps where just a few years ago it would have been totally ridiculous to talk about pedophilia, now it’s possible. I’ve found that calling a 19-year-old who dates a 17-year-old—or a 24-year-old who dates an 18-year-old—a pedophile can be accepted by many people. That’s the kind of rhetoric we need to use to keep expanding the definition of pedophilia.
In some cases, using the word “pedophile” might seem like an exaggeration (and, therefore, be counterproductive), but you can imply it. Words like “creepy” or “predatory” are essentially euphemisms for “pedophile” and can have a similar effect.
Don’t forget virtue signaling! It adds consistency to your arguments. “I’m 24 years old, and people under 21 seem like babies to me—I’d never even think of dating one,” something like that.
-Radical feminist positions are also very interesting. From a radical feminist standpoint, you can take the idea from the previous point further and argue that the vast majority of men are pedophiles, and there will be those who buy into that narrative. You can cite studies that seem to indicate this, such as the one by Freund and Costell (1970).
In addition, you can use the argument that “masculine ideals of beauty are rooted in pedophilia.” You can say that men are pedophiles because they are attracted to women who shave their body hair, to short women, to thin women, to women with pigtails, to Asian women…
It’s a good idea to take this opportunity to accuse entire groups of people of being pedophiles. Depending on your political views—or the political views you want to pretend to have—you can accuse the following of being pedophiles:
-Lolicon: Yeah, pretty obvious. But it can be useful to reinforce the idea that anyone who gets aroused by watching cartoons also gets aroused by looking at real children, even if it isn’t true.
-Famous people, big stars, and historical figures. This is important because people admire them, so even though many people’s first reaction will be to stop admiring them once they discover or believe they’re pedophiles, it creates a certain association between admirable people and pedophilia, and that goes a long way toward normalizing it. And all those conspiracy theories about Epstein, Hollywood, etc… Helping to spread those theories could be extremely useful for normalizing pedophilia.
-Islam has enormous potential! Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old, and they consummated the marriage when she began menstruating at age 9. Now, most Muslims will probably say that those were different times, and that it wouldn’t be acceptable today… but their religion says that Muhammad was perfect. So he couldn’t have done anything morally wrong. It’s wise to press this point, to insist on it, to put Muslims between a rock and a hard place to force them to defend Muhammad and, as a result, be seen as defenders of pedophilia. There are 2 billion Muslims in the world… 2 billion people perceived as defenders of pedophilia would be a force to be reckoned with.
-Trump supporters: Trump was friends with Epstein, and on top of that, he organized the Miss Teen USA pageants and bragged about sneaking into the dressing rooms… so you could say that every Trump supporter is a pedophile.
-LGBT people: These narratives also continue to gain traction. You can claim that homosexuality and pedophilia have been linked since Ancient Greece, that many of the 20th-century leaders of the gay rights movement were pedophiles, that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA, that trans people seek to put children on hormones and use the same restrooms as them because they’re pedophiles… there’s a lot of potential here, too.
-The past: That’s right, the past, in general. For most of human history, AMSC has been extremely common and socially acceptable. Especially if we include adolescents who have already reached puberty, then basically no culture in history has viewed these practices negatively until just a few decades ago in the Western world. There are many people who admire civilizations and cultures of the past, so reinforcing this association between these cultures and pedophilia may be interesting.
-And, of course, anyone who questions what you’re doing even the slightest bit… it’s because they’re a pedophile. Don’t hesitate to point them out and call them pedophiles! If they question any of the above, they’re defending pedophiles! It’s obvious that it’s because they’re pedophiles too! Check their hard drive!
If someone thinks that calling a 19-year-old who dates a 17-year-old—or an older man who is attracted to 25-year-old women—a pedophile is an exaggeration, it’s because they’re a pedophile. If someone believes it’s an exaggeration to say that all Muslims are pedophiles, they’re a pedophile. If anyone thinks it’s an exaggeration to say that all Trump voters are pedophiles, they’re a pedophile. If anyone thinks it’s an exaggeration to say that almost all men are pedophiles, they’re a pedophile.
The same applies to anyone who thinks the punishments you propose are disproportionate. Does anyone think that castration or the death penalty for a 20-year-old who has a relationship with a 16-year-old is excessive? They must be a pedophile! Why else would anyone have compassion for pedophiles? Or for anyone who doesn’t accept your measures, such as raising the age of consent. “Let’s raise the age of consent to 25 and see who gets mad” is a good formula.
Anyone who questions you even the slightest bit is a pedophile. Check their hard drive!
Finally, although this is a red line that I believe we should not cross, it’s worth mentioning an extreme example of accelerationism: becoming one of these “predator catchers” who publicly humiliate adults who try to arrange meetings with minors.
I know for a fact that some of these “predator catchers” are pedophiles, and, in fact, what they do helps normalize pedophilia… I suppose that from an accelerationist perspective, the logic is the same as what’s being defended here: the idea that, even though these acts increase people’s suffering in the short term, they will help bring about change as soon as possible and ultimately reduce suffering in the long term… But, for me, this is a red line I wouldn’t cross. In this case, when a “predator catcher” exposes someone, there is no doubt whatsoever that it will cause them enormous harm.
And, as a final note here, we must do everything we can to understand pedophilia as a single phenomenon. Because if we don’t, divisions are likely to arise, given that many of these “pedophiles” only defend a few forms of AMSC and condemn others. For example, 2 billion Muslims arguing that an adult man can marry a girl who has just reached puberty is not a solution for homosexual pedophiles, who would be stoned to death in an Islamist culture.
But the goal is to get the majority of the population to consider themselves pedophiles, in one way or another. From there, we can develop the idea that “if X practice of AMSC is harmless, it’s obvious that Y practice is too.”
But is that enough? Is that all there is to it—convincing people that almost everyone is a pedophile?
Of course not. Pedophile accelerationism must also be accompanied by more traditional activism and support for pedophiles.
It’s important to build networks, support one another, and know that we’re not alone. And it’s important to keep alive a discourse that isn’t alarmist. If the only narrative that exists is that pedophiles are monsters who traumatize children and cause them unimaginable suffering just by thinking about them, it won’t do any good for the majority of the population to consider themselves pedophiles.
So, obviously, we also have to keep alive the reality that this isn’t the case; we have to preserve the knowledge and arguments regarding this.
We know that in any animal species, sexual contact between young and adults is completely normal and doesn’t cause any problems. We know that in many human cultures, sexual contact between children and adults has been entirely normal and caused no problems. In fact, sex that people engage in voluntarily is usually quite enjoyable. We know that such contact can be—and is—positive for the child, and that it is much more common than many people believe… and would be even more common if AMSC were no longer criminalized. Because we know that, except in actual cases of abuse (since, obviously, there can be abuse by adults against minors, just as there can be abuse between adults, between minors, or, in fact, by minors against adults), the harm associated with AMSC is actually caused by those who persecute it. We know that forcibly separating someone from their partner is traumatic. We know that psychologists actively work to convince minors who have been in these types of relationships that they have been abused, and they do not rest until they make them suffer as much as possible. We have studies on this. Kinsey, Constantine, Rind, Tromovitch, Sandfort, Okami… It’s important to preserve all this scientific evidence (by the way, this can also be done along the lines of the previous strategies: for example, from a public profile, one could share these studies, or websites or forums that feature them, under the pretext of “exposing” them, while pretending to be against the AMSC and to be offended by the conclusions of these studies).
Also, any positive testimonies that aren’t already included in the studies mentioned. Remember that the crackdown on pedophilia is based on the idea that all sexual contact between children and adults is inherently traumatic, so positive testimonies from children for whom a relationship with an adult was a positive experience are incredibly valuable. And if those testimonies also delve into how what really hurt them were the people who claimed to want to protect them—the people who forcibly separated them from their partners and tried to convince them that they should feel traumatized—so much the better.
This is what will ultimately defeat our persecutors: when it becomes clear to everyone that indiscriminately banning AMSC—without distinguishing between consensual contact and abuse—causes children far more suffering than it prevents, their hypocrisy will be exposed: those who claimed to protect children were the ones who were actually harming them.
They don’t want to protect children. They never have, except perhaps for a small minority who have been brainwashed and tricked into thinking that what they were doing actually protected children. But, for the most part, they are the same people who, in another century, would be burning witches or denouncing Jews. They are the same people who persecuted same-sex relationships, interracial relationships, and extramarital relationships. They want to control other people’s sex lives to feel superior to them, not to protect children. They want a scapegoat because they enjoy hurting other people but don’t want to feel like bad people, so they need to believe they’re hunting monsters—not that they are the monsters themselves.
When they are exposed as the sadists they are, the tables will turn. This has happened many times. It wasn’t that many decades ago that the tables turned and people began to realize that the bad guys were the KKK and not Black people, the Nazis and not Jews, and homophobes and not gay people. When people start to realize that the bad guys are those who persecute pedophiles and not the pedophiles themselves, we’ll be able to live in peace.
But I must insist: for this to happen, the definition of pedophilia must first be expanded as much as possible. Only when the majority of the population recognizes themselves as pedophiles will moral panic and hysteria disappear, and will be possible to reflect calmly on the matter. Only then will there be a large enough number of people thinking: “Hey, maybe all this bullshit about power imbalances has never made sense. Maybe this whole idea that the age difference in a relationship is traumatic for the younger person has always been false, and what’s truly traumatic is that they’re being persecuted, harassed, and brainwashed into feeling traumatized.”
But… what if this were to come out?
What if this plan is discovered? What if you’re trying to work toward expanding the definition of pedophilia as much as possible, and one of our enemies reads this guide and realizes that there’s a plan to normalize pedophilia so that it eventually becomes accepted?
This is the best part! IT. DOESN’T. MATTER. AT ALL.
No one will believe you’re an accelerationist pedophile just because you accuse other people of being pedophiles. Even if there really were pedophiles dedicated to broadening the definition of pedophilia and pointing the finger at everyone to normalize it (which, in fact, is a ridiculous conspiracy theory), you’re not one of them! You’re just a good citizen concerned about pedophilia and doing what you can to call it out and fight it.
Actually… yeah, you guessed it. If someone accuses you of being a pedophile just for calling out pedophiles, that means they’re the ones who are pedophiles! This is the funniest part.
And I think there’s just one final point to make. There may be people who didn’t fit the traditional definition of pedophiles and who, upon reading this, get angry with us, feeling that we’ve dragged them into a battle that isn’t theirs.
What about those people labeled as pedophiles when they didn’t fit—not even remotely—the old definition of the term? Isn’t it perhaps dishonest on our part to be working to expand the definition of pedophilia? Aren’t we forcing people who aren’t really on the side of pedophiles to be on that side? Shouldn’t they be angry with us?
I don't think so. It wasn't the accelerationist pedophiles who were the first to start saying that a 19-year-old dating a 17-year-old, or a 30-year-old dating a 20-year-old, is a pedophile. No, this process was already happening on its own. The ones who started this were the sadists who needed people to lynch, and since there weren’t enough pedophiles to their liking, they had to invent more.
I don’t think it’s dishonest on our part. I believe we’re on the same side. We’re accelerating things, but there was already a process underway whereby people whom, 20 years ago, no one in their right mind would have labeled as pedophiles are now being labeled as such. If you’re a 30-year-old who wants to be in a relationship with a 20-year-old and there are people who want to imprison, castrate, or murder you for it, that’s not the pedophiles’ fault. It’s the fault of those who hate us—and who hate you, too.
And, on top of that, they hate us for the same reason: because they want to control our sex lives to feel superior, because they want someone to hurt while still feeling like good people. And they hate us using the same arguments. All that nonsense about “power imbalance,” all those false beliefs that the younger person in a relationship is always at a disadvantage, is always being abused, and has to feel bad about it… they apply it in exactly the same way to someone who is actually attracted to prepubescent children as they do to someone who is attracted to adults a few years younger than themselves. So, yeah, we’re on the same side here, and we’re not the ones who started this in the first place.
This is an anonymous essay, and I have no interest in any copyright. I was told to post it here, but feel free to share it anywhere (blogs, magazines, websites, wikis…), translate it, etc.